Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: crockett on July 26, 2008, 05:07:07 PM
-
This is just a idea I've thought of some time back. I'm not much of a score tard, meaning I don't care where I rank but I do like to check my stats. It would have be nice to see who the "real" aces of AH are in regards to "real fighting". The only way IMO to get a better idea by score of who the best pilots or GVer's are, is if vulch tards and spawn campers were taken out of the equation.
I think there is a very simple solution to do this as I posted in another unrelated topic. We already have proxie kills that don't add to your stats in this game. Why not have kills made before 30 seconds of that con spawning also not count towards your score?
Meaning if you are shooting a guy on the runway, it's not going to help your score same as sitting on a VH and spawn camping. 30 seconds is enough time for a plane to at least have a chance to get in the air and it's enough time for a GV to at least start moving and try to find the target.
Granted it's not a perfect solution, but I do believe it would weed out "most" of the vulching and spawn camping from the stats. Of course it's not going to stop people from vulching or spawn camping but at least they wouldn't receive perks or points for doing it. Using a 30 scoring rule might also influence the score tards into actually fighting rather than depending on easy no skill kills.
On the flip side the guys getting vulched or spawn camped wouldn't have deaths counted against them piror to 30 seconds which would give a little more incentive to up at a capped base or spawn. In short it would reward people for fighting rather than vulching air bases and spawn camping.
Just a thought I figured I'd toss out there, in hopes of giving a incentive to actually fight.
-
This is just a idea I've thought of some time back. I'm not much of a score tard, meaning I don't care where I rank but I do like to check my stats. It would have be nice to see who the "real" aces of AH are in regards to "real fighting". The only way IMO to get a better idea by score of who the best pilots or GVer's are, is if vulch tards and spawn campers were taken out of the equation.
I think there is a very simple solution to do this as I posted in another unrelated topic. We already have proxie kills that don't add to your stats in this game. Why not have kills made before 30 secons of that cons spawning also not count towards your score?
Meaning if you are shooting a guy on the runway, it's not going to help your score same as sitting on a VH and spawn camping. 30 seconds is enough time for a plane to at least have a chance to get in the air and it'sd enough time for a GV to at least start moving and try to find the target.
Granted it's not a perfect solution, but I do believe it would weed out "most" of the vulching and spawn camping from the stats. Of course it's not going to stop people from vulching or spawn camping but at least they wouldn't receive perks or points for doing it. Using a 30 scoring rule might also influence the score tards into actually fighting rather than depending on easy no skill kills.
On the flip side the guys getting vulched or spawn camped wouldn't have deaths counted against them piror to 30 seconds which would give a little more incentive to up at a capped base or spawn. In short it would reward people for fighting rather than vulching air bases and spawn camping.
Just a thought I figured I'd toss out there, in hopes of giving a incentive to actually fight.
phail
-
phail
Well I already know vulch tards won't like the idea, but this topic is for people that actually fight. So go find another.
-
I think there is a very simple solution to do this as I posted in another unrelated topic. We already have proxie kills that don't add to your stats in this game.
Your're wrong, they do. You just don't get Perk points for them, but one single score point and they do count as regular kills for all other purposes ( K/D, K/S, K/T)
-
Well I already know vulch tards won't like the idea, but this topic is for people that actually fight. So go find another.
Well, uhm, no. I like this one.
And since I was called a vulch tard let me throw some dirt back at you.
Actually, wait. I'll stop right there :lol
IN
-
Well I already know vulch tards won't like the idea, but this topic is for people that actually fight. So go find another.
They will just find another way, for instance not shooting until the wheels are off the pavement.
There will always be game gamers and guys who play only for score. In the end its their $$ being spent to play their game their way. If they want to play for their cartoon rank then its their right.
-
Well, uhm, no. I like this one.
And since I was called a vulch tard let me throw some dirt back at you.
Actually, wait. I'll stop right there :lol
IN
taking the high road? You're in the subway. :rolleyes:
-
I think there is a very simple solution to do this as I posted in another unrelated topic. We already have proxie kills that don't add to your stats in this game. Why not have kills made before 30 seconds of that con spawning also not count towards your score?
I've suggested something along these lines several times. It ends up boiling down to this right here...
People who don't care about scorekeeping or its validity don't care what gets counted or not, so tend to reject the idea as it doesn't pertain to them.
People who do care about scorekeeping tend not want it to be more valid as their egos could not bear the thought of plummeting in the rankings.
So, just about everyone hates the proposal except the few cherished purist souls who don't vulch or spawncamp and are all for scores being more meaningful and less prone to artificial manipulation. If you can make any part of the game work better and make more sense, why the heck not. Unfortunately, the purists seem to be a significant minority.
-
Your're wrong, they do. You just don't get Perk points for them, but one single score point and they do count as regular kills for all other purposes ( K/D, K/S, K/T)
No a proxie gives you zero kill points or perks.. You still might land the kill but it's no counted toward rank. If you put a single round in it then yes you do get score and perks, but at that point it's not a true proxie.
-
No a proxie gives you zero kill points or perks.. You still might land the kill but it's no counted toward rank. If you put a single round in it then yes you do get score and perks, but at that point it's not a true proxie.
This is simply not true.
Proxi gives you zero perks, thats right, but one single point for scores (which is almost as good as nothing, my kills give me about 200pts average per kill).
And they are counted in all other categories and thus counted towards rank.
NOT counted towards rank are things like kills on GV's when in fighter mode, or the whole field gunner stuff.
-
No a proxie gives you zero kill points or perks.. You still might land the kill but it's no counted toward rank. If you put a single round in it then yes you do get score and perks, but at that point it's not a true proxie.
Wrong, proxies do count toward rank in the way Lusche specified. Also it is not "kill points" it is damage points, and you can rack up damage points without scoring any kills.
-
I've suggested something along these lines several times. It ends up boiling down to this right here...
People who don't care about scorekeeping or its validity don't care what gets counted or not.
People who do care about scorekeeping tend not want it to be more valid as their egos could not bear the thought of plummeting in the rankings.
So, just about everyone hates the proposal except the few cherished purist souls who don't vulch or spawncamp and are all for scores being more meaningful and less prone to artificial manipulation. Unfortunately the purists seem to be a significant minority.
Yea but if the score more accurately reflected skill with less manipulation from no skill kills, then maybe more people would care. At the very worst it would force vulch tards and campers to actually fight if they wanted perks or score. So it would at least give incentive not to vulch or camp which is the real reason behind the idea.
-
This is simply not true.
Proxi gives you zero perks, thats right, but one single point for scores (which is almost as good as nothing, my kills give me about 200pts average per kill).
And they are counted in all other categories and thus counted towards rank.
NOT counted towards rank are things like kills on GV's when in fighter mode, or the whole field gunner stuff.
ah ok I wasn't aware of that.. Then I stand corrected on proxies.
-
and you can rack up damage points without scoring any kills.
Yup, if you go beat up on some bombers but only get assists you still get a ton of damage points because they take alot of damage.
-
Yea but if the score more accurately reflected skill with less manipulation from no skill kills, then maybe more people would care. At the very worst it would force vulch tards and campers to actually fight if they wanted perks or score. So it would at least give incentive not to vulch or camp which is the real reason behind the idea.
If you had heard Doug and Dale speak about vulching/spawn camping, you would realize it has its place in the game and your idea is futile.
-
Yup, if you go beat up on some bombers but only get assists you still get a ton of damage points because they take alot of damage.
Yea I know assists still add damage points and so on. I was talking proxies as in some plane you never shot bailing or augering and you getting awared the proxie. I didn't think that sort of kill added any stats at all, but I guess it does.
Still reguardless of that fact, if vulching and spawn camping wasn't rewarded it would go a long ways to weeding out ther guys who actually do get their kills by fighting. It would also give incentive to fight rather than look for the easy way.
-
If you had heard Doug and Dale speak about vulching/spawn camping, you would realize it has its place in the game and your idea is futile.
This idea wouldn't stop vulching or camping.. It just wouldn't reward people for doing it and would give some incentive for people to up at capped fields to "fight" off the cap.
-
Yea but if the score more accurately reflected skill with less manipulation from no skill kills, then maybe more people would care. At the very worst it would force vulch tards and campers to actually fight if they wanted perks or score. So it would at least give incentive not to vulch or camp which is the real reason behind the idea.
You're preaching to the choir here, I don't ever vulch or spawncamp, so it's all good to me. My cynical reply was the result of the experience of going down this path several times only to get <Rooster> blocked by those that exploit vulching and spawncamping to have a pretty rank and those apathetic to scoring because they either...
A) Suck so badly it wouldn't matter how scores were calculated they'd always rank badly in pure fighter mode. So, the fact that scores are currently not tamper-proof actually serves to insulate them from the harsh statistical reality of their suckage.
or
B) Have reached a state of spiritual Nirvana whereby they are above such mundane considerations and feel it is their duty as higher beings to disregard the entire concept of tamper-proof statistics on everyone else's behalf. Even if some would find it part of the 'fun factor' of the game just like reading the back of baseball cards is to that game...
-
hehe "<Rooster> blocked" that's one I've never heard before.. :rofl
I do understand what you are saying, but the idea is more about not giving the incentive to do that kinda tarded stuff but rather to give an incentive to fight. The idea wouldn't stop vulching it just wouldn't reward them for it, so in short the guys that actually do care about their scores would actually have to fight in order to score well.
I just think it's a way to give an incentive to fight and help change the game for the better.
-
This idea wouldn't stop vulching or camping.. It just wouldn't reward people for doing it and would give some incentive for people to up at capped fields to "fight" off the cap.
You are missing the fighting that is incited just to create the situation where a vulch can take place (ie. vulching is one of multiple possible carrots at the end of the stick).
.
-
I just think it's a way to give an incentive to fight and help change the game for the better.
I agree with you 110%. In a few isolated situations it could be considered necessary to vulch to effect a base capture. For example, where the geography places the town close to the field and you have some persistant uppers in La7's as your goon is on the way. But, for the most part it is completely unnecessary. The thing I always found ironic is the same score dweebs that vulch for a living could get a lot more kills, assuming they had some real skill, by not vulching. When they vulch the 3-4 guys willing to fight them even at a severe disadvantage those guys usually stop upping pretty quickly. If the defenders had the 30 second "grace period" you propose, they would almost certainly keep upping for the fights. I know for a fact Delirium, Stang, Skyrock and most of their 3 entire squads would.
-
You are missing the fighting that is incited just to create the situation where a vulch can take place (ie. vulching is one of multiple possible carrots at the end of the stick).
.
Look at what you just said in this way. If you take away vulching as a carrot at the end of the stick. The stick (aka the fight itself) becomes its own carrot...This is how it is for people who choose not to vulch already...
-
Look at what you just said in this way. If you take away vulching as a carrot at the end of the stick. The stick (aka the fight itself) becomes its own carrot.
LOL, bull.
-
And before you get it in your head to start spinning. Keep in mind the thousands of posts I've made advocating "the fight" and "the furball" and the time I've spent teaching "how to", and my perpensity to jump on a soapbox when it comes to better gameplay.
-
And before you get it in your head to start spinning. Keep in mind the thousands of posts I've made advocating "the fight" and "the furball" and the time I've spent teaching "how to", and my perpensity to jump on a soapbox when it comes to better gameplay.
I'm not questioning your conviction to the game for one solitary second. But, for the sake of interesting debate and in giving Strafing his "money's worth" for his ideas I have to admit that so far your argument that vulching is a necessary component of gameplay and scoring are not compelling at all. We can just agree to disagree here or you can try to persuade us to a better understanding of that viewpoint. My intellectual curiosity would prefer you attempt to persuade us...;)
-
Just today I saw numerous occasions of guys shooting an aircraft after it was clearly shot down (spinning in no wing/tail) expressly (in my mind) to "get the kill" for more damage done.
My point is that there are more score padding activities than just spawn camping/vulching, of course spawn camping is a "new" phenom to us "oldies" who played the game without GV's (which I personally don't care for but this another whole topic).
Good Grief my english sentence construction abilities are on vacation :o
-
Just today I saw numerous occasions of guys shooting an aircraft after with was clearly shot down (spinning in no wing/tail) expressly (in my mind) to "get the kill" for more damage done.
No doubt, but from a frequency and sheer volume of kills stand-point vulching and spawncamping represent an exponentially greater proportion of in-valid kills scored in the MA...
-
Oh I am not disputing that Zaz, just commenting on "other ways" things get skewed. To me the good pilots show themselves everyday and I don't have to check scores to know who is and who isn't a good pilot.
I have alot more respect for the guys who DON'T fly La7's, Spit XVI's, Dora 9's than I do for the ones that rack up big scores in those planes, and as for tank/flack/ground gun scores I just have no respect for that since I just don't care for that aspect of the game.
-
You are missing the fighting that is incited just to create the situation where a vulch can take place (ie. vulching is one of multiple possible carrots at the end of the stick).
.
I don't really agree with that, maybe in the past it worked that way but not now. The way it works now days is typically the bigger hoard pushes the other cons back to the point they can start vulching. It's little more than a mass of lopsided numbers that typically leads to a vulch these days.
I pretty much do nothing but defend anymore, mostly at bases getting attacked by CV's.. (mainly because I like low alt fights) I see it time and time again, some mass hoard will up off the CV and the first thing they try to do is deack the base to start vulching. I up at vulched bases all the time and I see them get pushed back and next thing you know the vulchers are soon hiding in CV ack then they stop upping after that.
Soon as the vulch is lost the tards wont be seen again and are off to the next hoard with the numbers advantage. There is very little "sustained fighting" going on in this game these days. It's just tards that run from being part of one giant hoard to the next combined with land grabing where ever there is a undefended base.
-
I don't really agree with that, maybe in the past it worked that way but not now. The way it works now days is typically the bigger hoard pushes the other cons back to the point they can start vulching. It's little more than a mass of lopsided numbers that typically leads to a vulch these days.
I pretty much do nothing but defend anymore, mostly at bases getting attacked by CV's.. (mainly because I like low alt fights) I see it time and time again, some mass hoard will up off the CV and the first thing they try to do is deack the base to start vulching. I up at vulched bases all the time and I see them get pushed back and next thing you know the vulchers are soon hiding in CV ack then they stop upping after that.
Soon as the vulch is lost the tards wont be seen again and are off to the next hoard with the numbers advantage. There is very little "sustained fighting" going on in this game these days. It's just tards that run from being part of one giant hoard to the next combined with land grabing where ever there is a undefended base.
That's exactly what happens. Vulching is no longer the *cough* "reward" *cough* for a successful protracted fight. Vulching has become a substitute for protracted fighting.
-
Just today I saw numerous occasions of guys shooting an aircraft after it was clearly shot down (spinning in no wing/tail) expressly (in my mind) to "get the kill" for more damage done.
My point is that there are more score padding activities than just spawn camping/vulching, of course spawn camping is a "new" phenom to us "oldies" who played the game without GV's (which I personally don't care for but this another whole topic).
Good Grief my english sentence construction abilities are on vacation :o
No one is saying there isn't other ways to pad score. The idea really isn't about score but rather about giving incentive to fight by adjusting the score given. I'm simply saying we should take way the score reward for it which in return adds more incentive to actualy fight.
-
I don't really agree with that, maybe in the past it worked that way but not now. The way it works now days is typically the bigger hoard pushes the other cons back to the point they can start vulching. It's little more than a mass of lopsided numbers that typically leads to a vulch these days.
I pretty much do nothing but defend anymore, mostly at bases getting attacked by CV's.. (mainly because I like low alt fights) I see it time and time again, some mass hoard will up off the CV and the first thing they try to do is deack the base to start vulching. I up at vulched bases all the time and I see them get pushed back and next thing you know the vulchers are soon hiding in CV ack then they stop upping after that.
I don't know. It sounds to me like a fight took place in your example. They moved in for the vulch, that incited your guys to kick them the heck out. It sounds very much like the kind of AAR that HTC likes to hear.
You did complain that it didn't sustain a furball, but it has always been the case that depending on the terrain and where the front lines are, you may have to play "wack a mole" to get to the current furball, and that it may evaporate and move elsewhere quickly.
-
I have alot more respect for the guys who DON'T fly La7's, Spit XVI's, Dora 9's than I do for the ones that rack up big scores in those planes, and as for tank/flack/ground gun scores I just have no respect for that since I just don't care for that aspect of the game.
That reminds me of a related idea I had a long time ago. Wouldn't it be great if we had Top 50 Fighter Pilot list for each plane-type. Of course, to make that meaningful we'd have to remove vulching from scoring...But, it's a fun idea and would probably encourage people to diversify from the *hyper-modelled* rides.
-
I'm not questioning your conviction to the game for one solitary second. But, for the sake of interesting debate and in giving Strafing his "money's worth" for his ideas I have to admit that so far your argument that vulching is a necessary component of gameplay and scoring are not compelling at all. We can just agree to disagree here or you can try to persuade us to a better understanding of that viewpoint. My intellectual curiosity would prefer you attempt to persuade us...;)
I accidentally lost the reply to this...I'll try again.
Listening to Doug and Dale talking about playing other games (like RPG and FPS games), it was pretty clear they acknowledged not only was beating the other guy when they were helpless "fun" from a player perspective, but that players will go out of their way to make it happen. If you look at the example of Air Warrior, the Flak came into being in a flight sim, because players found they could land bombers behind the enemy runways spawn...to vulch. Then they found that players were willing to drive for an hour to those enemy fields to sit there with the flak...to vulch. Then tanks were added to address that issue. But of course, those tanks were used to vulch also, and you can read how one AW player named HiTech went out of his way to do that sort of thing in an old thread. It is pretty safe to assume it's a general rule that players will go to great lengths to find a way to beat the other guy when he is helpless. So with that in mind, why not try to channel players behavior by having them jump through hoops of the developers making (ie. what they intend for gameplay), to get to a goal that will remain constant whether the developer wants it or not.
So I didn't say it was a "necessary" part of the game, but it is player nature, and it has figured into their gameplay architecture.
Personally, I just find it fun. If you changed the rules of the game to say "that never happend", I feel at some level that is an infringement on my fun. But I don't see that happening :)
-
Yea but if the score more accurately reflected skill with less manipulation from no skill kills, then maybe more people would care.
This discusion is like 2 guys golfing. 1 guy wins (hence better at golf) the other argues that he is realy better because he can hit the longest drive.
And since when did playing the game as designed become "gaming the game"?
HiTech
Boy that golf scoring system must be totaly screwed, because the best golfer I know of dosn't care to try for a good score any more, and instead just goes out to see how many hole in ones he can make. But lesser players always get better scores. Man that golf score system sucks. It just dosn't reflect who is the better gollfer.
HiTech
You've pretty much made my point that context matters.
If a sizeable number of players in golf suddenly played only to see how many holes in one they could make while everyone else played for score, then the golf scoring system would not provide an accurate measure of skill. It would rank winners and losers based on existing golf rules, sure, but as a metric for skill it would suffer.
The AH scoring system is a bit more complex to compare to something like a golf score anyway. I hate to say it, but it seems closer to figure skating than golf. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
Bull puppy.
The system would still accuratly provide a measure of golf skill. But your players are no longer playing golf they are now playing a different game. And since your players are not interested in their golf score, they wouldn't even keep track.
So are you interested in playing golf, or do you just want to head to the driving range. Both are perfectly acceptible, but don't try tell the golfers they should forget about it and just go to the driving range instead, because in your view distance is the only TRUE method for messuring a golfers talents.
HiTech
Somewhat of a sidetrack, but the point being is that the scoring rules apply to everyone. If you choose only to play the game the way you prefer, that is fine. However if someone scores better than you, it doesn't really matter how they did it. If it bugs you, and you TRUELY are better at Aces High than them, it shouldn't be a problem for you to go and outscore them. If it's not important enough to make that effort, don't demand the rules of the game be changed to suit you.
-
I don't know. It sounds to me like a fight took place in your example. They moved in for the vulch, that incited your guys to kick them the heck out. It sounds very much like the kind of AAR that HTC likes to hear.
You did complain that it didn't sustain a furball, but it has always been the case that depending on the terrain and where the front lines are, you may have to play "wack a mole" to get to the current furball, and that it may evaporate and move elsewhere quickly.
I have to disagree, because what typically happens is they either just come back and bomb all the FH's or they just stop fighting and go somewhere else that has less resistance. It just seems like the current trend is to do anything but fight and I sure hope that's not what HTC intended with this game.
-
This really comes down to a l33t player base who have been here for a long time and have mastered ACM (crockett, skyrock, wmlute to name a few the two last of which always kick my behind) and a newer player set (such as myself, only have 6 or 7 tours under my belt) arguing over game play.
The l33t set of players don't like getting vulched, hoed, rammed etc and wish everyone would engage them in their own perfected, 'pure' style of dogfighting so that, they could always win? And give others the incentive to try to stop killing them on the runways, because it pisses them off.
Im not as l33t as you guys and am not afraid to admit it. I try to get along. Oh and I love vulching. I avoid ho's when I can and I certainly don't ram. But I definitely love vulching. Hell, I'll clear a field of ack, get killed in the process and announce on country 'vulch fest ready at a45' for example.
Whats wrong with that?
-
I have to disagree, because what typically happens is they either just come back and bomb all the FH's or they just stop fighting and go somewhere else that has less resistance. It just seems like the current trend is to do anything but fight and I sure hope that's not what HTC intended with this game.
Yet I do not see how removing a fun part of the game has an impact on that. Those players WILL just find another way to score without fighting, except a focal point where you can jump them anyways will be removed. In the mean time, I will continue to vulch at any opportunity as HT put it (paraphrasing) "just to piss the other guy off" :)
-
Personally, I just find it fun. If you changed the rules of the game to say "that never happend", I feel at some level that is an infringement on my fun. But I don't see that happening :)
Yea, as I said before I have been on this ride a few times. I am debating this because I truly believe in my position with all of my heart, not because I hold any hope for a change in "policy" from HTC on the issue.
I don't think what Strafing is proposing would ruin the fun you and presumably a lot derive from destroying the helpless. Thirty seconds is only barely enough time to start your engine, get to full RPM's, get airborne, get your gear up and get just enough E to perform a single lazy 90 degree break-turn without pancaking in a light fighter, nothing more. I think in both AW and AH, the motivation for most to kill the helpless as you described came/comes from the buffer candy and subsequent "atta-boys" more so than the 'fun-factor' of "ripping the wings off flies". I will be the first to admit I don't understand the appeal of vulching. But, I find it hard to believe, over the long-term, that most people could possibly continue to find vulching helpless enemy fun if there were no other reward (ie: score, buffer candy/public adoration, easy base captures, satisfaction for griefing addicts, etc.).
-
Somewhat of a sidetrack, but the point being is that the scoring rules apply to everyone. If you choose only to play the game the way you prefer, that is fine. However if someone scores better than you, it doesn't really matter how they did it. If it bugs you, and you TRUELY are better at Aces High than them, it shouldn't be a problem for you to go and outscore them. If it's not important enough to make that effort, don't demand the rules of the game be changed to suit you.
Yea, Levi and I went through this several years ago. You can't compare apples to oranges. Saying your apple is bigger than his orange is the same as comparing the score-sheet of a guy who vulches to one who does not. But, I think the point Strafing was trying to get across that we're not addressing is that of gameplay, not score. He proposes removing the "score candy" from vulching as a means to the end of improving gameplay. Sure, people will still semi-vulch the E bankrupt uppers. But at least it's not just a "free-kill" garnered simply by pendulum passes on the static takeoff spots.
-
I accidentally lost the reply to this...I'll try again.
Listening to Doug and Dale talking about playing other games (like RPG and FPS games), it was pretty clear they acknowledged not only was beating the other guy when they were helpless "fun" from a player perspective, but that players will go out of their way to make it happen. If you look at the example of Air Warrior, the Flak came into being in a flight sim, because players found they could land bombers behind the enemy runways spawn...to vulch. Then they found that players were willing to drive for an hour to those enemy fields to sit there with the flak...to vulch. Then tanks were added to address that issue. But of course, those tanks were used to vulch also, and you can read how one AW player named HiTech went out of his way to do that sort of thing in an old thread. It is pretty safe to assume it's a general rule that players will go to great lengths to find a way to beat the other guy when he is helpless. So with that in mind, why not try to channel players behavior by having them jump through hoops of the developers making (ie. what they intend for gameplay), to get to a goal that will remain constant whether the developer wants it or not.
So I didn't say it was a "necessary" part of the game, but it is player nature, and it has figured into their gameplay architecture.
Personally, I just find it fun. If you changed the rules of the game to say "that never happend", I feel at some level that is an infringement on my fun. But I don't see that happening :)
I understand people will figure out some way to game the game, but why continue to reward them for it?
This isn't a case of one guy being better than the other in a 1 on 1 match. That's exactly what those of us who wanna fight wish for. Beating the other guy because you are better or losing because you aren't. I just took some screen shots that kinda prove the point I'm getting at with the hoards and so on.
I just took these in the Orange MA.. (sorry my photoshop needs to be reinstalled so I had to use MS paint and couldn't re-size the images)
This is while I'm on the Bish.. This is the lower right side of the map.. There is 3 Dar bars of Rook attacking the Bish, with less than a single Dar bar defending..
http://www.wargamerx.com/temp/right.JPG
Now this next SS is the left side of the map showing Bish and Nits fight.. Notice there is no fight between Bish / Nits other than a big Bish hoard at A112.
http://www.wargamerx.com/temp/left.JPG
Now we see the top half of the map after I switch to the Rook side..Notice there are almost no Rooks defending against the Nits.
http://www.wargamerx.com/temp/top.JPG
This is how it almost always works anymore.. Team A hoards Team B, then team B hoards team C, then team C hoards team A. The only change comes when the map is unbalanced and allows two teams to hoard one. There are very few even fights that produce sustained fighting it's always a big hoard at one end of the map or the other and just a few defenders at the other side.
Now I'm not saying any team hoards more than the next, I switch teams all the time to be on the lowest number or to try to find the best fights.. In the end they are all the same because that's how players have found the easiest path.
The simple fact is the game does very little to discourage the hoards but rather encourages them. We need the game to discourage this type of thing and encourage actual fighting.
Another idea that I've posted in the past would be to have ENY affected by sections of the map to discourage the unbalanced hoarding, but that's a different topic.
-
I understand people will figure out some way to game the game, but why continue to reward them for it?
This isn't a case of one guy being better than the other in a 1 on 1 match. That's exactly what those of us who wanna fight wish for. Beating the other guy because you are better or losing because you aren't. I just took some screen shots that kinda prove the point I'm getting at with the hoards and so on.
I just took these in the Orange MA.. (sorry my photoshop needs to be reinstalled so I had to use MS paint and couldn't re-size the images)
This is while I'm on the Bish.. This is the lower right side of the map.. There is 3 Dar bars of Rook attacking the Bish, with less than a single Dar bar defending..
http://www.wargamerx.com/temp/right.JPG
Now this next SS is the left side of the map showing Bish and Nits fight.. Notice there is no fight between Bish / Nits other than a big Bish hoard at A112.
http://www.wargamerx.com/temp/left.JPG
Now we see the top half of the map after I switch to the Rook side..Notice there are almost no Rooks defending against the Nits.
http://www.wargamerx.com/temp/top.JPG
This is how it almost always works anymore.. Team A hoards Team B, then team B hoards team C, then team C hoards team A. The only change comes when the map is unbalanced and allows two teams to hoard one. There are very few even fights that produce sustained fighting it's always a big hoard at one end of the map or the other and just a few defenders at the other side.
Now I'm not saying any team hoards more than the next, I switch teams all the time to be on the lowest number or to try to find the best fights.. In the end they are all the same because that's how players have found the easiest path.
The simple fact is the game does very little to discourage the hoards but rather encourages them. We need the game to discourage this type of thing and encourage actual fighting.
Another idea that I've posted in the past would be to have ENY affected by sections of the map to discourage the unbalanced hoarding, but that's a different topic.
Why do you want the game to discourage something that others may find fun, and it just so happens that you don't?
I understand your point. It's just that other peoples views might be different than yours.
-
Another idea that I've posted in the past would be to have ENY affected by sections of the map to discourage the unbalanced hoarding, but that's a different topic.
Yes, I would like the ENY to be more localized. Many times I have been at the other end of the map from the friendly horde opposing the enemy horde. It's frustrating when you are vastly outnumbered locally, AND have a limited planeset.
Which reminds me of one of very few suggestions I've ever made regarding the scoring system vs enemy proxy modifier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,221774.0.html)
-
Yes, I would like the ENY to be more localized. Many times I have been at the other end of the map from the friendly horde opposing the enemy horde. It's frustrating when you are vastly outnumbered locally, AND have a limited planeset.
Which reminds me of one of very few suggestions I've ever made regarding the scoring system vs enemy proxy modifier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,221774.0.html)
I brought this exact thing up in the original ENY discussion thread HiTech started before the ENY limiter was implemented. I don't recall what HiTech's response (if any) was to my assertion that this was a critical flaw of the "global" ENY system he was proposing, I'll have to look it up.
-
Why do you want the game to discourage something that others may find fun, and it just so happens that you don't?
I understand your point. It's just that other peoples views might be different than yours.
If you don't vulch, then why are you so worried about what I'm suggesting?
-
Yes, I would like the ENY to be more localized. Many times I have been at the other end of the map from the friendly horde opposing the enemy horde. It's frustrating when you are vastly outnumbered locally, AND have a limited planeset.
Which reminds me of one of very few suggestions I've ever made regarding the scoring system vs enemy proxy modifier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,221774.0.html)
Yea I can agree with that idea and sounds like a good idea to me (the vs enemy proxy modifier) I really do think steps need to be taken to nullify the hoarding that's going on and the lack of fights. I think due to the type of game you can't outright stop it, other than to not reward them for doing it and give incentives to not do it.
-
You can't compare apples to oranges. Saying your apple is bigger than his orange is the same as comparing the score-sheet of a guy who vulches to one who does not.
You can when the unit of measurment is "fruit". Seems to me that people should play to the performance metrics if they wish to participate in that regard, instead of expecting the reverse to happen.
-
Why do you want the game to discourage something that others may find fun, and it just so happens that you don't?
I understand your point. It's just that other peoples views might be different than yours.
I think you're missing something in Strafing's proposal. You can still vulch if you want. Like Murdr's example, if you're just the type that "gets-off", "ripping the wings off flies" or "zapping ants with a magnifying glass", there's absolutely nothing to stop you. The same holds true for those that will likely continue to do it occasionally to make a base capture easy or because they enjoy griefing other players. You can still fullfill yourself if those are truly your motivations, it just won't show up on your scoresheet or his. The people that will likely choose to wait the 30 seconds before they pounce will be those who's motivation is the buffer candy puff piece and score/rank which I strongly suspect are the vast majority.
-
You can when the unit of measurment is "fruit". Seems to me that people should play to the performance metrics if they wish to participate in that regard, instead of expecting the reverse to happen.
That's reasonable on one condition. We separate vulches from "real" kills in the sub-stats of fighter rank. Showing the person's overall fighter stats with and without the vulches. They can keep the rank for all I care. Then we can compare on both levels with accurate metrics, the apples and the oranges.
-
First of all if you upping at a base that is under attack you deserved to get vulched. Go to a field alittle ways off climb out and Vulch the Vulchers that is much more fun. We call them Tatics. Yes I realize GVs are differnet. but my solutions is to up a pony with 2k of bombs on it and go drop a bomb on the spawncampers head just to hear the secondary BooM. Spawncampers with 20 kills hate that.
:salute
-
Or maybe make all kills a kill, and do away with rank, keeping just the other stats? :devil
-
Some people use the scoring aspect of this game to judge how much they've improved, I have no problem with that. Others however manipulate their score because of a frail ego and are interfering with the ones who wish to use scoring for legit reasons. For that reason I think players should only be aloud to see their own score.
P.S. I find it funny how some players think they're so good because of their score, yet even I can spank them in a one on one. Truly sad considering how poorly I fly.
-
First of all if you upping at a base that is under attack you deserved to get vulched. Go to a field alittle ways off climb out and Vulch the Vulchers that is much more fun. We call them Tatics. Yes I realize GVs are differnet. but my solutions is to up a pony with 2k of bombs on it and go drop a bomb on the spawncampers head just to hear the secondary BooM. Spawncampers with 20 kills hate that.
:salute
Having the attitude of you deserve to get vulched if they are vulching is wrong IMO. That's the same to me, as running from the fight because I think I might die. IMO if you are unwilling to defend against them, then it's just as big of a problem as the hoard it's self. The problem with upping at another field is so many times they capture the base before you get there, so the party is already over.
As for the vulches, you have to pick the vulches you up and there are simply some you just wont get up at no matter what. Overal timing is everything but I can typically get in the air and get kills 60% to 70% of the time. I don't up to die I up to kill vulch tards with K4 tatters. :devil
-
Having the attitude of you deserve to get vulched if they are vulching is wrong IMO. That's the same to me, as running from the fight because I think I might die. IMO if you are unwilling to defend against them, then it's just as big of a problem as the hoard it's self. The problem with upping at another field is so many times they capture the base before you get there, so the party is already over.
As for the vulches, you have to pick the vulches you up and there are simply some you just wont get up at no matter what. Overal timing is everything but I can typically get in the air and get kills 60% to 70% of the time. I don't up to die I up to kill vulch tards with K4 tatters. :devil
IMO that was one of the most dim witted comments I heard in a while. :rofl Upping and dying 5 times out of 6 times with a couple kills maybe if ur luky, while in the same amount of time turning the tables in ur favor and getting 3 times as many kills by using ur head makes more sense to me...There is always the lucky chance of upping ,and dashing in for the lucky troop kill at the last moment if u make it there in 1 peace from a vulched field ,as previously stated this is my own opinion :salute
-
Yes, I would like the ENY to be more localized. Many times I have been at the other end of the map from the friendly horde opposing the enemy horde. It's frustrating when you are vastly outnumbered locally, AND have a limited planeset.
Which reminds me of one of very few suggestions I've ever made regarding the scoring system vs enemy proxy modifier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,221774.0.html)
I found my original posts to HiTech before ENY was implimented and shortly thereafter where I addressed this very concern among others...
A few other things to consider before even contemplating implimenting restrictions based on raw roster numbers...
1) What about people on extended AFK? Lots of people stay connected to AH virtually 24/7, even going so far as throwing up their AFK tag to take a 4-hour nap. This is espeically true if their country seems close to a reset, they want to be "online" to get the reset perks. Perhaps you would need some sort of 'inactivity time-out timer" coded into the game, that would boot people who haven't registered any input in 30 minutes?
2) What about the plethora of dual-accounters that have a 2nd account permanently logged-on with their laptop on an enemy country for the purpose of vectoring themselves and teamates to CV's and their 'favorite' players on the enemy team? While hard to estimate the numbers without looking up IP addresses my conservative guess, based on some long-term carefull observations and note-taking, is this number is significant, perhaps 10 to 20 'snoop' accounts at any given time, mostly poised against the 'advantaged' team obviously.
3) Consider that to a large degree numerical disparities are handled internally by the players thru some common sense. When one country is advantaged the other two countries tend to focus more on the advantaged country than one another. So, in actuality the raw numbers may indicate a disparity, but on the map the numbers are actually equal or even less than equal when viewed from the perspective of 'opposition' facing each country.
Overall, I would caution against implimenting this idea without some consideration as to the ramifications upon gameplay and various ways players can manipulate the raw roster numbers to cause the time-out imposition on other teams. I warn against being naive and underestimating how conniving a determined individual or group can be when properly motivated.
Zazen
and
This is a glaring example of why the ENY system is deeply and irrevocably flawed at its core. It does not take into consideration the disposition of forces. Just because the three countries have an equal number of people logged in does not mean the arena is balanced in terms of gameplay for each of those countries. Conversely, just because the three countries are disparate in terms of people logged in does not in any way mean the arena is in fact unblanced. The presumption of the ENY system is that forces are arrayed in equal and congruent proportion, this is RARELY the case. Often, the country with the most people is not only facing more enemy by far than the other two countries but is also being penalized in the process by the ENY system. This is a profound and deep flaw. Surely, HT, a man of logic and rational thought can comprehend how fundamentally flawed and presumptuous this system is.
Zazen
and
...we're talking a difference of as little as 10% between the countries being enough to eliminate a good portion of the planes from the set. Now if the country with a 20% advantage is getting penalized and is also facing 80% of the enemy from both the other countries, that my friend is a major balance issue. This scenario is quite frequent for countries in the reset corner, or those with a limited number of fields remaining. The ENY system does nothing to address ACTUAL arena balance as it impacts gameplay. Nothing, nada, zip. All it does is crank out some arbitrary penalty based on the relationship of the raw numbers of people logged on for each country.
Zazen
and
That's not true. Think of the maps. All the maps have a reset corner. No matter what, the team in that corner is doomed. Eventually they will be reset. This happens whether that team is numerically superior for a protracted period or not, numbers will just forestall the inevitable. If they occupy this part of the map and are also numerically inferior the reset occurs very quickly. For some reason this is almost always the South, South-East, or East side of the maps. Almost without exception the country occupying that portion will face a much larger percentage of both the two other country's forces regardless of relative numbers.
This phenomena proves my point that the individual country numbers can be perfectly equal but the arena can still be completely out of balance if those forces are arrayed disproprtionately. Conversely, the raw country numbers can be quite disparate, but the actual arena balance can be perfect, with the forces arrayed in proportion to those numbers by the three sides. This is often seen when a country with superior numbers occupies the 'reset corner' of a map. While their raw numbers are in fact superior, they are facing a proprtionately larger contingent of enemy than either of the other two countries are individually, in effect keeping it balanced.
These examples are where the ENY system fails completely. It makes no provision for 'reset corners' or how forces are arrayed. By its very simplicty it implies an exactly equal and proportional arraying of force, this is rarely the case. I won't even mention the fact that it assumes all those logged into the game for a particular country are having an impact on gameplay. Often as much as 25% of those logged in for one country or another are on extended AFK, or ghost accounts that are merely logged in for clandestine purposes.
Zazen
-
What a bunch of aces. AHII, #1 supporter of Kleenex. :cry
-
IMO that was one of the most dim witted comments I heard in a while. :rofl Upping and dying 5 times out of 6 times with a couple kills maybe if ur luky, while in the same amount of time turning the tables in ur favor and getting 3 times as many kills by using ur head makes more sense to me...There is always the lucky chance of upping ,and dashing in for the lucky troop kill at the last moment if u make it there in 1 peace from a vulched field ,as previously stated this is my own opinion :salute
You didn't read what I said.. I don't up and get killed 5 out of 6 times. I can get in the air and make kills 60 to 70% of the time. With that said of course you can't do it at every vulch and you have to pick the right time. Sometimes I will up and land right away before rolling simply to bait them in so I can relaunch right after they pass, but if there are 10 cons over the field with no flack support then you aren't getting up no matter what.
-
Having the attitude of you deserve to get vulched if they are vulching is wrong IMO.
Reminded me of an old addage. Vulch me once, shame on you. Vulch me twice, shame on me. :)
-
You didn't read what I said.. I don't up and get killed 5 out of 6 times. I can get in the air and make kills 60 to 70% of the time. With that said of course you can't do it at every vulch and you have to pick the right time. Sometimes I will up and land right away before rolling simply to bait them in so I can relaunch right after they pass, but if there are 10 cons over the field with no flack support then you aren't getting up no matter what.
GOTCHA :salute
-
Reminded me of an old addage. Vulch me once, shame on you. Vulch me twice, shame on me. :)
exactly :salute
-
Fair Idea crockert, at least your idea is a new one, and you do seem to understand the concept of of reward vs trying to eliminate something. Your idea does not upset the need to hold down new planes when doing capture.
HiTech
-
kinda in a hurry and got caught reading, is that to say you get 30 seconds to get off the ground? I likey!!!!!! :aok
-
kinda in a hurry and got caught reading, is that to say you get 30 seconds to get off the ground? I likey!!!!!! :aok
No, it just means that I wouldn't score as much if I kill you on the runway. Since score doesn't matter to me, I'd still vulch you.
-
No, it just means that I wouldn't score as much if I kill you on the runway. Since score doesn't matter to me, I'd still vulch you.
:D
-
Seems codeable enough, kinda the same lines as a bomb has to fly thru air for X number of seconds (or feet) before it arms. Hmmm...how fast an La get from runway spawn to 30 seconds? (Ok, timed it offline, 250 mph w 25 gas)...a fighting chance to ho one or two guys
-
kinda in a hurry and got caught reading, is that to say you get 30 seconds to get off the ground? I likey!!!!!! :aok
Na, it just means they wouldn't get any score for killing you in the first 30 seconds and you wouldn't lose anything if they did kill you the first 30 seconds. This would give both sides more incentive to fight by giving incentive to not vulch (but wont stop vulching) and also giving a little incentive to up at a vulched base to defend simply because if you die in the first 30 seconds it wont count against you.
-
Fair Idea crockett, at least your idea is a new one, and you do seem to understand the concept of of reward vs trying to eliminate something. Your idea does not upset the need to hold down new planes when doing capture.
HiTech
Hey.. I feel honored an official HiTech reply to one of my mumblings.. :rock
-
Hey.. I feel honored an official HiTech reply to one of my mumblings.. :rock
Yup!! I hope this means what I think it does... ;)
-
Some really good ideas ( localized ENY and others) and some goofy ones.
ZAZEN seems to be a wise man. Great post of older quotes you made and should have been recognized Zazen.
-
Seems codeable enough, kinda the same lines as a bomb has to fly thru air for X number of seconds (or feet) before it arms. Hmmm...how fast an La get from runway spawn to 30 seconds? (Ok, timed it offline, 250 mph w 25 gas)...a fighting chance to ho one or two guys
There's actually already code in place for this. It's the code that prevents bomber defensive guns from being able to fire until airborne...So, adapting it to Strafing's idea should not require much in terms of actual programming...
-
Some really good ideas ( localized ENY and others) and some goofy ones.
ZAZEN seems to be a wise man. Great post of older quotes you made and should have been recognized Zazen.
Thanks A8Tool, those posts were all circa 2004. Sadly, I am obviously a complete moron as some "thread stalkers" never tire of pointing out, but I do get lucky sometimes...
If you're really bored or have trouble sleeping, look through a lot of the older threads on serious gameplay mechanic issues. You will see me identify many problems that manifested in the future or as a result of a change implemented by HTC and come up with innovative solutions to gameplay issues that did not even exist at the time but do now as a result of design changes or player dynamics...
-
I think its a great idea. :aok
-
If you had heard Doug and Dale speak about vulching/spawn camping, you would realize it has its place in the game and your idea is futile.
Fair Idea crockert, at least your idea is a new one, and you do seem to understand the concept of of reward vs trying to eliminate something. Your idea does not upset the need to hold down new planes when doing capture.
HiTech
Well what ya gonna say now Murdr?
-
Well what ya gonna say now Murdr?
In Murdr's defense, I literally just about pooped my pants when I saw HiTech respond in kind. I had to slap myself really hard to make sure I wasn't just having a wet dream. I would have bet $1,000 and given odds this idea was going to have the same ignominious fate similar ideas have had in the past.
-
(http://www.mikedownscenter.org/upload/images/Win%20button.jpg)
:rock
-
I have to say I like some of the ideas. I was thinking. I see a lot of talk about the Hoard and that seems to be 1 of the problems. How is the hoard created? By Missions? why not limit the amount of missions during uneven sides or when ENY kicks in on all sides or the side with the most #s that is doing the hoarding. Would this help create less hoarding? just a thought
-
or even do ENY per base
-
I have to say I like some of the ideas. I was thinking. I see a lot of talk about the Hoard and that seems to be 1 of the problems. How is the hoard created? By Missions? why not limit the amount of missions during uneven sides or when ENY kicks in on all sides or the side with the most #s that is doing the hoarding. Would this help create less hoarding? just a thought
I don't think so, because you don't need an official mission (created with AH mission planner) to conduct a NOE mission. Large & better organized squads (and that are the ones usually being at the core of those rapid series of landgrabbing NOE's) certainly can get around that restriction with ease.
The folks that could not mount a raid without mission planner arent the most successful landgrabbers anyway ;)
-
Another thing (not sure if this has been mentioned already).. If someone kills someone within 30 seconds of upping on the ruway, that kill will not be added into the # of kills that show up when you land at the end of a sortie.. You could have 20 "vulches" but 2 actual kills, and when you land it only says 2 kills.. I think a big part of why people vulch so much is to get their name highlighted at the end of a sortie with a ton of kills.. Everyone gives you <S>'s and WTG's having no idea you just vulched a bunch of helpless planes on the runway, but it's always 'nice' to be recognized right?? People shouldn't be recognized for vulching IMO (myself included) but should be recognized for legit kills which would hold more weight if this was implemented..
-
I have to say I like some of the ideas. I was thinking. I see a lot of talk about the Hoard and that seems to be 1 of the problems. How is the hoard created? By Missions? why not limit the amount of missions during uneven sides or when ENY kicks in on all sides or the side with the most #s that is doing the hoarding. Would this help create less hoarding? just a thought
In AW there was a mechanic whereby only so many people from your team could up from a base until they dispersed and thinned out over the adjacent areas. This basic principle could be adapted to AH and the ENY system. But, I recall HiTech mentioning he didn't like this method.
I had an idea years ago, I can't remember if it was in AH or AW. I thought it up to add depth to the strat game and help with the problem of the BIG BLOB milk-hordes. Here was the thought...
All Fighters can up at all airfields.
Medium Bombers (twin engine) can only up at medium and large airfields.
Heavy Bombers (4 engines) can only up at large airfields.
This would make large airfields very important, adding far more strategic depth and create strat based 'choke-points' because it would be critical to defend certain types of bases vehemently in various areas of the map to preserve the ability to conduct certain operations in that area. It would also make coordinating huge missions logistically more complex. It would also likely change mission composition to reflect multiple smaller specialized groups of aircraft instead of one HUGE Blob which would be much more practical to mount a significant defense against. In real life, bombers and fighters seldom used the same airfields, they had to coordinate in the air, this factor is lost in AH. The only problem with this idea is the maps would have to be tweaked so there is a more logical pattern of base type distribution that is conducive to creating contentious points throughout the geography.
As it is now, the only distinction between the airfield types we already have is a few more buildings and ack, which is in my opinion a waste of the potential to deepen AH's strat aspect with relatively little effort. As has been mentioned the strat game is pointless on maps with 200+ fields, this sort of idea could not only create more fights but make strat'ing meaningful again.
-
btw just for those that are for or against the idea. 30 seconds isn't really a great deal of time. It's not going to make the difference for a single fighter upping at a base with 10 cons capping it. 30s is is about enough time to spawn on the runway get rolling and if you fly straight you will be at the other end of the runway.
Basicly it's enough time to get your gears up and have just enough speed to make some evasive turns. That means if you do get vulched you at least have some sort of chance to defend your self. If they do kill you before 30 seconds then you would still be dead but it wouldn't count aginst your score nor add to theirs.
This is a film I did last night at a lightly vulched field, I was already rolling when the film starts so you would need to add 5 to 8 seconds at the start, but it gives you a good idea of what 30 seconds means.
http://www.wargamerx.com/films/vulch-field.ahf
-
Murdr, are you saying that you find vulching fun?
-
Well what ya gonna say now Murdr?
I would say it's not the first time his take on something has surprised me, and it won't be the last.
I would also say that it's not uncommon for me to play devils advocate, even if I fundamentally like the idea that I'm poking at. This is not one of those times. You give a no score risk period to a "defender", and it will be taken advantage of to the fullest extent. Playing peek-a-boo with the vulch is a fairly old but actually good tactic, but the sortie does count, and it does affect score via the per_sortie stats. I guarantee you that egg timers will be sitting on computer desks marking the period where the player "loses nothing", with the intent of wasting the attackers time and then ending flight.
No risk period, equals more defenders, equals more fighting opportunities. Sounds good if you are looking for a fight.
However if your Aces High focus is taking bases, this throws a bit of a kink in things. The idea of not porking the base anymore than needed will no longer be palitable if people are free to up like cockroaches and have the option to renige with no consequences if they don't like what they see. Seems to me the two possible answers to that is an SOP of flattening all hangers, and/or bringing a bigger horde.
I like to tag along with base captures, sometimes good fights errupt. If not, I'm satisfied to cap while the toolshedders do their thing. Of couse, if the dynamics change where the game pretty much forces fields to be flattened if you want to achive a capture, I'll no longer have a reason to tag along. Instead of more fighting, there is less.
I don't claim right, but it is a very plausible effect.
-
For anyone that cares this was my old post on limiting ENY by zones rather than total player numbers.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,206911.0.html
To be fair though, I haven't seen the ENY problems lately like we used to have. Back when I wrote that post, t was almost a nightly thing to be on Rooks and have sky high ENY late at night. Granted there may still be ENY issues but I just don't notice them because now days I typically just swap to the lowest number team with my squad.
-
Murdr, are you saying that you find vulching fun?
Go to google, type in vulch, click on the top return, and see if you see any names on that page that you recognize.
-
I
However if your Aces High focus is taking bases, this throws a bit of a kink in things. The idea of not porking the base anymore than needed will no longer be palitable if people are free to up like cockroaches and have the option to renige with no consequences if they don't like what they see. Seems to me the two possible answers to that is an SOP of flattening all hangers, and/or bringing a bigger horde.
If a player's motivation is to take the field, he is free to vulch as soon as the enemy appears at the take-off spot as is the case now. Only players that vulched for score, rank and the text buffer puff piece at the end of their flight will likely elect to give 30 seconds before they pounce the E bankrupt defender. It is already SOP for the buff guys to try to drop FH's, the only difference will be the defenders may be able to have a few low guys that can pop the low and dive bombing heavies before they can drop their ordnance.
-
In AW there was a mechanic whereby only so many people from your team could up from a base until they dispersed and thinned out over the adjacent areas. This basic principle could be adapted to AH and the ENY system. But, I recall HiTech mentioning he didn't like this method.
I had an idea years ago, I can't remember if it was in AH or AW. I thought it up to add depth to the strat game and help with the problem of the BIG BLOB milk-hordes. Here was the thought...
All Fighters can up at all airfields.
Medium Bombers (twin engine) can only up at medium and large airfields.
Heavy Bombers (4 engines) can only up at large airfields.
This would make large airfields very important, adding far more strategic depth and create strat based 'choke-points' because it would be critical to defend certain types of bases vehemently in various areas of the map to preserve the ability to conduct certain operations in that area. It would also make coordinating huge missions logistically more complex. It would also likely change mission composition to reflect multiple smaller specialized groups of aircraft instead of one HUGE Blob which would be much more practical to mount a significant defense against. In real life, bombers and fighters seldom used the same airfields, they had to coordinate in the air, this factor is lost in AH. The only problem with this idea is the maps would have to be tweaked so there is a more logical pattern of base type distribution that is conducive to creating contentious points throughout the geography.
As it is now, the only distinction between the airfield types we already have is a few more buildings and ack, which is in my opinion a waste of the potential to deepen AH's strat aspect with relatively little effort. As has been mentioned the strat game is pointless on maps with 200+ fields, this sort of idea could not only create more fights but make strat'ing meaningful again.
Not a bad idea IMO, but would likely require maps to be set up differently, because you would need to make sure there was large airfields well placed around the map. It would however likely lead to more realistic usage of bombers rather than seeing b24's up off a field and NOE a CV.
-
Not a bad idea IMO, but would likely require maps to be set up differently, because you would need to make sure there was large airfields well placed around the map. It would however likely lead to more realistic usage of bombers rather than seeing b24's up off a field and NOE a CV.
Yup, I already thought of that (see below)...It is definately the most likely reason this will never happen, changing the field type distribution for all the maps would be a serious pita I would imagine.
The only problem with this idea is the maps would have to be tweaked so there is a more logical pattern of base type distribution that is conducive to creating contentious points throughout the geography.
-
Go to google, type in vulch, click on the top return, and see if you see any names on that page that you recognize.
Still doesn't answer my question. Why are you skirting it? I'm just wondering.
-
Another thing (not sure if this has been mentioned already).. If someone kills someone within 30 seconds of upping on the ruway, that kill will not be added into the # of kills that show up when you land at the end of a sortie.. You could have 20 "vulches" but 2 actual kills, and when you land it only says 2 kills.. I think a big part of why people vulch so much is to get their name highlighted at the end of a sortie with a ton of kills.. Everyone gives you <S>'s and WTG's having no idea you just vulched a bunch of helpless planes on the runway, but it's always 'nice' to be recognized right?? People shouldn't be recognized for vulching IMO (myself included) but should be recognized for legit kills which would hold more weight if this was implemented..
To go along with my last point, I think individual people SHOULD be recognized in the text buffer when they capture a base..
-
Still doesn't answer my question. Why are you skirting it? I'm just wondering.
Murdr freely admitted earlier in this thread that he enjoys vulching for its own sake, we equated it to something like, "Pulling the wings off flies", or "Zapping ants with a magnifying glass". The contention was made that human nature dictates some people are going to enjoy the sadistic pleasure of destroying the totally helpless. It's the "baby killer" phenomena in action. If Murdr is right, and singularly motivated people like that exist, they will still continue to vulch if that is their single motivation. However, if they are ALSO motivated by score, rank and post-flight text buffer puff pieces, they will have to choose which motivation is more important to them and behave accordingly.
-
Murdr freely admitted earlier in this thread that he enjoys vulching for its own sake, we equated it to something like, "Pulling the wings off flies", or "Zapping ants with a magnifying glass". The contention was made that human nature dictates some people are going to enjoy the sadistic pleasure of destroying the totally helpless. It's the "baby killer" phenomena in action. If Murdr is right, and singularly motivated people like that exist, they will still continue to vulch if that is their single motivation. However, if they are ALSO motivated by score, rank and post-flight text buffer puff pieces, they will have to choose which motivation is more important to them and behave accordingly.
Would you say the score crowd outnumbers the" "sadistic" crowd?
-
Donkey, sorry if my sense of humor was too cryptic. Frankly you can go shove your skirt. I already made it clear I consider it fun under certian conditions. If you want, I can probably go pull quotes from other threads where I was more explicit if you feel I am avoiding something.
-
I would say it's not the first time his take on something has surprised me, and it won't be the last.
I would also say that it's not uncommon for me to play devils advocate, even if I fundamentally like the idea that I'm poking at. This is not one of those times. You give a no score risk period to a "defender", and it will be taken advantage of to the fullest extent. Playing peek-a-boo with the vulch is a fairly old but actually good tactic, but the sortie does count, and it does affect score via the per_sortie stats. I guarantee you that egg timers will be sitting on computer desks marking the period where the player "loses nothing", with the intent of wasting the attackers time and then ending flight.
No risk period, equals more defenders, equals more fighting opportunities. Sounds good if you are looking for a fight.
However if your Aces High focus is taking bases, this throws a bit of a kink in things. The idea of not porking the base anymore than needed will no longer be palitable if people are free to up like cockroaches and have the option to renige with no consequences if they don't like what they see. Seems to me the two possible answers to that is an SOP of flattening all hangers, and/or bringing a bigger horde.
I like to tag along with base captures, sometimes good fights errupt. If not, I'm satisfied to cap while the toolshedders do their thing. Of couse, if the dynamics change where the game pretty much forces fields to be flattened if you want to achive a capture, I'll no longer have a reason to tag along. Instead of more fighting, there is less.
I don't claim right, but it is a very plausible effect.
Yea I understand your point because when I thought of the idea I had the same concern, but then as I thought about it more it comes down to what zanzen said. The land grabbers would still likely and still could vulch the fields as there would be nothing to stop them. If the goal was to keep cons out of the air to capture the base well this wouldn't affect their goal in any way.
The only real effect would be against the people who are just there to vulch for score and wtg's by landing 20 kills. Granted I do understand there could be room for people to game the game on the other end. Meaning the "free to up with no risk" time period, I'll admit I do baiting myself by ending sortie before they can vulch me. It's why my kills per sortie score sucks so bad.
The deal is, that's about the only real abuse that could happen in reguards to that and really what does that hurt or than pissing off the vulchers? If the con taking off commits to taking off well 30 seconds isn't much time for him to get in the air and do much and he's still a very easy kill or could still be vulched just the same as now.
In reality unless a lot of guys try to up at the same time, the 30 seconds for the uppers doesn't give them much of any advantage, it just give a little incentive to try. Also if a bunch of cons tried to up at the same time to break the field cap, well it wouldn't be any diffrent than if they did it now. If enough try to get up now they can break the vulch in the end it just come down to team work.
-
Would you say the score crowd outnumbers the" "sadistic" crowd?
Based on my un-scientific subjective observations, by a 4:1 margin. If you add the people who will also continue to purely vulch to make base capturing easier it would drop to around 3:1 (a lot are very likely the same people that just have both motivations). If I am even close in my estimation, that means 75% of those that currently vulch would instead elect to allow the defender his 30 seconds to get his wheels up before pouncing.
-
If you don't vulch, then why are you so worried about what I'm suggesting?
:huh
But I do vulch, and I love it!
-
I think you're missing something in Strafing's proposal. You can still vulch if you want. Like Murdr's example, if you're just the type that "gets-off", "ripping the wings off flies" or "zapping ants with a magnifying glass", there's absolutely nothing to stop you. The same holds true for those that will likely continue to do it occasionally to make a base capture easy or because they enjoy griefing other players. You can still fullfill yourself if those are truly your motivations, it just won't show up on your scoresheet or his. The people that will likely choose to wait the 30 seconds before they pounce will be those who's motivation is the buffer candy puff piece and score/rank which I strongly suspect are the vast majority.
Lol now I'm a sadist. This is getting good. :rolleyes:
A kill is a kill. Deal with it.
-
:huh
But I do vulch, and I love it!
You can still vulch your arse off, it just won't impact your scorecard or that of the guy you vulch.
-
Ok I can safely say I get your point.
However your going against some basic cashflow rules. The ACM of the player crossection can be formed into a pyramid, those with most ACM are at the top and therefore are the least in number, and those with less and less getting towards the wider bottom, where most of the player base resides. Would you agree with me?
If you cut the rewarding of being able to 'score' while 'vulching' for those at the lower end of the ACM pyramid, you might take their fun away, and they might take their business elsewhere. Some will choose to become better, some won't however.
While personally I like 1v1 combat, just not against the top dogs as I suck in comparison I love vulching, and when a field is being vulch and I have to protect it (most likely because my CO tells me he will boot me if I don't :furious) then I switch to attack mode. And I don't get mad if I die.
Deal with it please! And let the guy get the kill he deserves, for you upping from a capped field.
-
Lol now I'm a sadist. This is getting good. :rolleyes:
A kill is a kill. Deal with it.
A kill is a kill in exactly the same way the big game hunter that pays 500 bucks to go to Montana to shoot a Tiger in a cage is the same kind of sportsman as the big game hunter that goes to Africa and kills a Tiger by stalking him thru the jungle...;) Sure, they both shot themselves a Tiger, but the 1st guy doesn't have quite the tale of a quality experience to tell when people admire its stuffed head on his wall as the 2nd guy..does he?
So, ya I agree on your scoresheet at the moment, a kill is definitely a kill, but in reality they aren't quite all the same from a "sportsmanship" or "quality" standpoint are they?...
-
You can still vulch your arse off, it just won't impact your scorecard or that of the guy you vulch.
I would argue that chances he could "still vulch your arse off" will diminish. I really believe there are side effects that will change the dynamics of a base capture, it will be a rarity to find a capped field that is allowed to have any type of hanger standing for very long.
-
When the plane that just took off kills my plane ot GV near the town on second 25 - that won't count for him either I guess? :devil
-
:huh
But I do vulch, and I love it!
lol well at least you are honest. Just remember the first step to recovery is first admiting you do have a problem.. :D
-
When the plane that just took off kills my plane ot GV near the town on second 25 - that won't count for him either I guess? :devil
Get in a plane and see how far you get from the point of spawning to 30 seconds.. It's barely to the end of the runway and if the base capture was the sole intent of the field cap, well the cappers could still vulch the heck out of him. ;)
I however have a sneaking suspicion that most of the vulching going on is for score and wtg's..rather than capturing bases.
-
lol well at least you are honest. Just remember the first step to recovery is first admiting you do have a problem.. :D
I remember getting vulched by a player called Doom on multiple occasions. Thats all he would seem to do all day long. And yes I did make me mad. And I made it known to him that I'm $(*%$(*%)#% off.
But other than that, I didn't make a big deal out of it. Next time he came in I HO'ed him and he went down :aok
I say let the base go, come in from a different base with some alt, and dish the buggers out what they gave you! :D
And yes, I am known for clearing fields one ack at a time just to have a vulch fest. And then I reap some kills and my scoreboard looks better for it. Take this with a grain of salt, but bite me! :lol
I just think its a natural point in the game, as in WW2 planes killed while taking off were attributed to your score board as well.
-
Based on my un-scientific subjective observations, by a 4:1 margin. If you add the people who will also continue to purely vulch to make base capturing easier it would drop to around 3:1 (a lot are very likely the same people that just have both motivations). If I am even close in my estimation, that means 75% of those that currently vulch would instead elect to allow the defender his 30 seconds to get his wheels up before pouncing.
Ok, what's your take on the other side of that. For every 1 player who now breaks cap, how many more will be willing to join in the attempt if they are given the edge of no concequences if they fail in the first 30 seconds?
-
Donkey, sorry if my sense of humor was too cryptic. Frankly you can go shove your skirt. I already made it clear I consider it fun under certian conditions. If you want, I can probably go pull quotes from other threads where I was more explicit if you feel I am avoiding something.
I'm sorry that you got defensive and hostile over this. I asked a question, and didn't get a clear answer. I guess that's the problem with the internet, it's hard to sometimes show emotions...
Frankly, I'm just trying to see how this:
And before you get it in your head to start spinning. Keep in mind the thousands of posts I've made advocating "the fight" and "the furball" and the time I've spent teaching "how to", and my perpensity to jump on a soapbox when it comes to better gameplay.
can coincide with this:
Personally, I just find it fun. If you changed the rules of the game to say "that never happend", I feel at some level that is an infringement on my fun.
I already made it clear I consider it fun under certian conditions.
in regards to the "fight."
Let me ask you this. Do you really think that vulching is constructive to "the fight?" Or even a furball for that matter?
If you want, I can probably go pull quotes from other threads where I was more explicit if you feel I am avoiding something.
Would you so kindly (just for the sake of it)? (I guess I should add one of these... ;))
-
Ok I can safely say I get your point.
However your going against some basic cashflow rules. The ACM of the player crossection can be formed into a pyramid, those with most ACM are at the top and therefore are the least in number, and those with less and less getting towards the wider bottom, where most of the player base resides. Would you agree with me?
If you cut the rewarding of being able to 'score' while 'vulching' for those at the lower end of the ACM pyramid, you might take their fun away, and they might take their business elsewhere. Some will choose to become better, some won't however.
While personally I like 1v1 combat, just not against the top dogs as I suck in comparison I love vulching, and when a field is being vulch and I have to protect it (most likely because my CO tells me he will boot me if I don't :furious) then I switch to attack mode. And I don't get mad if I die.
Deal with it please! And let the guy get the kill he deserves, for you upping from a capped field.
Well the problem with that kind of thinking, is it's the same as saying every race car driver should win the race, because it's not fair others aren't better. The reason there are guys at the top of the pyramid, is simply because they have put years into developing their skill sets or just have a natural ability to be good at this. Why should the less skilled be given a short cut to the top that they didn't earn?
edit...
Granted I understand there is a steep learning curve with this game and at the same time needs to be fun... but we should be pushing the focus on developing ACM skills and fighting rather than trying to figure out the easiest way to score good.
-
Ok, what's your take on the other side of that. For every 1 player who now breaks cap, how many more will be willing to join in the attempt if they are given the edge of no concequences if they fail in the first 30 seconds?
Isn't that the point, to give incentive to actually fight? I thought fighting was what this game was based on, granted land grabing is a imporant factor, but shouldn't the land grab requre a fight?
-
I would argue that chances he could "still vulch your arse off" will diminish. I really believe there are side effects that will change the dynamics of a base capture, it will be a rarity to find a capped field that is allowed to have any type of hanger standing for very long.
I think we're talking the lesser of evils here. For the sake of contrast we'll assume people don't already vulch AND often drop FH's, which is far from the truth in reality. For confirmation, just ask everyone who tries to get an Il2 up because only their BH's are left up so the vulchers wouldn't even have the miniscule challenge of having to vulch other fighters...
Which is better...
1) Having hangers stay up but all defenders get pendulum pass vulched the second they spawn...or
2) Have the hangers taken down more often but give defenders the opportunity, at the very least initially, to get up and mount some sort of realistic, reactionary low Alt/E defense.
I would vote for option 2, option 1 leaves no recourse to realistically fight, it really doesn't matter to the defenders if FHs are up or not as they get popped the second they spawn. Option 2, even if only marginally successful provides an opportunity for an actual fight which is a lot more than you can say for option 1 99.9% of the time.
Option 2 would allow the defenders to at least have a chance of intercepting low and/or divebombing heavies. Option 1 leaves no option to protect their strats against heavies at all. So, assuming your are correct and FH's will get prejudicial attention, it will likely be at least partially negated by the fact defenders may be able to destroy low/diving bombers forcing them to go higher, then the high ones will take much longer to get there making keeping FH's down harder. The same would be true for jabo's. If they wanted to keep FH's down, they would all have to come heavy and give up E to divebomb making them more vulnerable to the defenders already up.
-
Based on my un-scientific subjective observations, by a 4:1 margin. If you add the people who will also continue to purely vulch to make base capturing easier it would drop to around 3:1 (a lot are very likely the same people that just have both motivations). If I am even close in my estimation, that means 75% of those that currently vulch would instead elect to allow the defender his 30 seconds to get his wheels up before pouncing.
Alright, that's what I thought. Thanks!
Isn't that the point, to give incentive to actually fight? I thought fighting was what this game was based on, granted land grabing is a imporant factor, but shouldn't the land grab requre a fight?
Base capture was implemented in order to spur on air to air combat (as that was/is the main focus of the game).
-
Isn't that the point, to give incentive to actually fight? I thought fighting was what this game was based on, granted land grabing is a imporant factor, but shouldn't the land grab requre a fight?
That wasn't an answer.
-
I think we're talking the lesser of evils here. For the sake of contrast we'll assume people don't already vulch AND often drop FH's, which is far from the truth in reality.
How many times to I have to type flat/any/all hangers? Please quote where I said anything about FH. I didn't, you are actually talking past me with a modified plausible argument rather than replying to what I post.
-
That wasn't an answer.
How is it not a answer? We should be pushing the focus of this game on fighting rather than constant overwhelming hoards and gamey flying.
-
How is it not a answer? We should be pushing the focus of this game on fighting rather than constant overwhelming hoards and gamey flying.
I asked for a speculative ratio. Did I get one in reply? No.
-
I would argue that chances he could "still vulch your arse off" will diminish. I really believe there are side effects that will change the dynamics of a base capture, it will be a rarity to find a capped field that is allowed to have any type of hanger standing for very long.
Add more fighter hangers to base and seperate them as was done with v-bases, also add a second vehicle hanger at the airfeild.
if you really want to cut down on vulchers seperate "airkills" from 'groundkills". don't know how many "Aces" would enjoy their names in lights if everyone could see there ten kills were with the wheels down.
Also there is a diference between a guy supressing a field in order to capture and a flat out vulcher. The first is nessasry and the second is for dweebs.
And everyone should remember that base capture is only there to incurage a fight. Altho I personally think that it has grown far beyond HTC's original intent and they should recognize that by now.
maybe just making airfields larger and of more realistic design, keep the same amt of hangers just spread them out over an area twice the size. maybe have a seperate runway or two out a distance and away from the main field.
-
With all due respect to parties involved I still think this thread if fundamentaly wrong.
You cannot argue this point with the majority of players because apart from lets say the top 50 players on the boards with very good ACM there is around 3000 to 4000 players, or maybe more, who enjoy other aspects of the game including vulching and getting scores for it, including myself.
I just think you are outnumbered in this argument.
Now I do not think it's a bad idea. Let there be the 30 second delay. I personally don't care, as 30 seconds is not enough to level with my E state anyway and I will kill you just like as if you had 1 second. It will however, make an effort to do a base capture with my role being fighter support to NOT be rewarded for my work of keeping defenders away from the town killers. That takes away from my fun. Sorry I do not support that.
-
Murdr why are you the only one out of everyone on the bbs being a hard***
dude chill youve already voiced your opinion, weve heard it now move along.
we all get the point that it pisses you off, that if this was to take affect you couldnt vulch for score...
Damn bro give it a rest
-
I asked for a speculative ratio. Did I get one in reply? No.
Well there is no way to give a accurate speculative ratio because it would just be my opinion.. So I could say 95% of all vulchers are there just for score.. However would that be accurate?
This is what I think.. yes there are legit base cap vulches to capture a base but those tend to be NOE raids where the sole purpose is to capture the base with as little fight as possible.
The other side is a vulch that gets started by out numbering the other side and once the uppers stop coming the vulchers will eventually focus on the town if they can maintain cap. I'd say that is a good 90% of the current vulching going on.
I will give you this for proof of that.. Just look at the film I posted earlier in this thread..
here I'll post it again so you don't have to dig..
http://www.wargamerx.com/films//vulch-field.ahf
As I take off and get air born, you can adjust the views to look to the right and see the town is almost completely up and untouched. Yet the enemy cons have almost de-acked the base and are trying to vulch. This means they aren't there to capture the base as a primary reason. They are there to get kills and get a vulch going if possible.
if they were there to capture the base, they could have shelled the town down with the esscort ship and then started the vulch if they needed it to capture the base. Instead they focused on killing base ack to set up a vulch party.
-
Well there is no way to give a accurate speculative ratio because it would just be my opinion.. So I could say 95% of all vulchers are there just for score.. However would that be accurate?
This is what I think.. yes there are legit base cap vulches to capture a base but those tend to be NOE raids where the sole purpose is to capture the base with as little fight as possible.
The other side is a vulch that gets started by out numbering the other side and once the uppers stop coming the vulchers will eventually focus on the town if they can maintain cap. I'd say that is a good 90% of the current vulching going on.
I will give you this for proof of that.. Just look at the film I posted earlier in this thread..
here I'll post it again so you don't have to dig..
http://www.wargamerx.com/films//vulch-field.ahf
As I take off and get air born, you can adjust the views to look to the right and see the town is almost completely up and untouched. Yet the enemy cons have almost de-acked the base and are trying to vulch. This means they aren't there to capture the base as a primary reason. They are there to get kills and get a vulch going if possible.
if they were there to capture the base, they could have shelled the town down with the escort ship and then started the vulch if they needed it to capture the base. Instead they focused on killing base ack to set up a vulch party.
Yep, becuase most vulchers are intent on an easy, helpless kill to 1) pad their scores 2) to get their names in the lights so they can be "recognized" :rolleyes: or, in most cases, do it for both.
-
<sigh>
All I asked for is....
Ok, what's your take on the other side of that. For every 1 player who now breaks cap, how many more will be willing to join in the attempt if they are given the edge of no concequences if they fail in the first 30 seconds?
Let's just say for every one current cap breaker, three more will be willing to attempt it with a 30 second rule. So then a lightly contested field instead of having 3 uppers, now has 12. On a more hotly contested field, 40 instead of 10. Here is my question. How will the real estate players adjust their tactics in response to that? And after those adjustments are made, what will the effect be on overall gameplay?
-
BiP, you cant make me.
Could use a smiley flipping the bird
-
Ok, what's your take on the other side of that. For every 1 player who now breaks cap, how many more will be willing to join in the attempt if they are given the edge of no concequences if they fail in the first 30 seconds?
I'm glad you flip-sided this. I spend a lot of time watching base captures, defenders and vulchers. I'll often spend entire afternoons going from one milk-horded base to another popping vulchers as fast as I can with 37mm to aid my brave defenders. So, I have a pretty solidly objective idea of how this plays out now and we can extrapolate from there...
1-The bar shows up in a vacant base's sector.
2-Depending on the size of the attacking force, the current state of the map and the time of day a few defenders come to the field.
3-There's usually 2-3 people who happened to be in the tower looking at the map when this happens, they get up to defend.
4-Once they get some visual or dot dar intel, they ask for help.
5-Depending on how thinly spread the war effort is, another 3-5 show up along with a couple of AA gv's and field gunners.
6-The attackers arrive, most ordnance goes to ack, VH, AA GV's and radar in that order, followed closely by FH's and town.
7-Those not heavy engage the 2-3 defenders that got up first.
8-Those that just dropped engage the 3-5 that just got up so are E poor.
9-Depending on how many attackers there are the initial 5-8 defenders either kill the attackers who evaporate to appear 15 sectors away after finding another vacant field to victimize; or the defenders now without benefit of field ack, AA or AA GV or radar support attempt to re-up.
10-The attackers don't establish air tight CAP immediately, as some are helping strafe town buildings or GV's heading toward town.
11-The 5-8 recently towered defenders come up piecemeal after they got killed the first time, but now they are energy bankrupt and don't last as long and draw the attackers close to the field.
12-Now the attackers develop suffocating air tight cap, the 5-8 defenders are now reduced to 3-5, they try to up a few more times only to get popped right on the takeoff spot by pendulum pass vulchers.
13-The defenders stop upping, the attackers take the field, land their vulches, get their arses kissed for their text buffer puff piece before deciding the next vacant base to victimize..
This is a very accurate "typical" scenario repeated 100 times a day in the MA, especially on the HUGE maps. Strafings system will have some pre-effects on how things will setup before engagement, then directly effect stages 9-13 of the engagement. The pre-effects take numerical form. It won't likely change the 2-3 initial uppers that happened to be sitting in the tower when the attack was identified, but it will affect the number that come to help once the initial defenders issue a call to arms. Instead of the 3-5 that may come for what they realise is an almost certainly futile effort, you may get twice to three times that number depending on the arena population at the time and the size of the attack.
So, now instead of having only 5-8 airborne defenders prior to engagement we will now have more like 11-18 defenders due to the reduced overall futility factor of defending against milk-hordes. Only the initial 2-3 will likely be in a good E/Alt position once the attack arrives the rest will still be alting. But, a lot of our better sticks love the idea of base defense as a challenge, so we'll have a high percentage of skilled players helping who have no problems fighting at a disadvantage if necessary.
Now the attack arrives, we are at stage 9. This is where everything changes. Now there is a much greater chance there will be a pitched battle once the jabo's dive and drop. The attack will have a good chance to fail depending on the success of the now light jabo's relative to the 11-18 established defenders. If the attack is not repelled initially it will take longer, in proportion to the numerical odds, for the attackers to tower the defenders. But, the defenders will be re-upping as they die. So, this is where it gets great. In order for the attackers to completely suppress the field like they used to do at stage 11, they must use their E advantage and skills to push back the persistent defenders to the point of the 30 second grace period. The defenders will likely be able to maintain a few with some E capable of possibly intercepting low buffs near the field. The option to intercept low heavies was never really an option after stage 9 before.
As you can see, assuming my prognostications are reasonably accurate, this will return us to how it used to be. It will mean successfully taking a base will much more often result from winning an exciting fight, not just being a sneaky and/or an overwhelming force. Progressing through stages 9-13 of a capture based attack will rely a lot more heavily on fighting than vulching, raising the skill level over time of your average milk-hording mission guys. Conversely, defending bases from these attacks will result in a lot more fights and a lot less getting insta-vulched, making close base defense gain popularity. The defenders will always be at an E and initiative disadvantage, but they will have to be beaten in the air decisively for a capture attempt to be likely to succeed. Even if the attackers choose to drop FH's from alt there will be a fair number of airborne defenders more able to forestall the attackers long enough for support to arrive from a proximate field. As it is today, there is rarely ever time to get air support from a proximate field before the base is completely suppressed and capture is completed...
-
<sigh>
All I asked for is....Let's just say for every one current cap breaker, three more will be willing to attempt it with a 30 second rule. So then a lightly contested field instead of having 3 uppers, now has 12. On a more hotly contested field, 40 instead of 10. Here is my question. How will the real estate players adjust their tactics in response to that? And after those adjustments are made, what will the effect be on overall gameplay?
I think it will bring Gvers back into the game. More GV raids. Im for that.
Vulching for score or just Vulching period im no fan of. I personally want to see 10 guys up off a field 40 if they want. I love to earn my kills.
Example:
Myself and furball were flying together the other morning. We could've vulched this field all day long but no. We were telling the other few guys there "let them up". once these guys got up we had some great fights.
Murdr have you ever noticed its the same twits at every vulched base?
Again, i see nothing wrong with planes upping in mass off a field. Thats kinda like pr0n to me. I love it.
-
Zazen. Thank you for your evaluation.
My concern is that the natural way to adapt to an increased level of field defense is to make a priority of completely removing the ability to spawn anything at all. Hence, no fight :(
-
<sigh>
All I asked for is....Let's just say for every one current cap breaker, three more will be willing to attempt it with a 30 second rule. So then a lightly contested field instead of having 3 uppers, now has 12. On a more hotly contested field, 40 instead of 10. Here is my question. How will the real estate players adjust their tactics in response to that? And after those adjustments are made, what will the effect be on overall gameplay?
They will have to fight for fields, rather than simply relying on the application of clandestine and/or numerically overhwleming attacks. This is how it used to be and how it still tends to be on small maps. Perish the thought base attackers have to actually learn how to fight for fields.."The Hororrrrr....!" :O
-
Donkey I have been vulching when the opportunity presents itself since 1996 back into Air Warrior. Sometimes, like during off-peak it's a good idea not to take that opportunity because you will end up with nothing to shoot at. I have been on range channel it cases like that urging others to let the poor guy up and take turns with them before we end up with no enemies.
I don't see any requirement to be a purist or an extremist for only one cause. I can have fun with furballing, a good fight, a GV ambush, vulching, attack run, porking, ect. None of those are mutually exclusive from the others. I have raced a vast majority of what are considered the best sticks at one time or another to the next vulch over the years. The general attitude of "wahh, change it because it's not fair...it's not honorable" smacks of a PC type argument as does the idea of "so-n-so is doing it for motivations I disapprove of, therefore we need a rule that affects everyone else.
Opps, mutiple windows, this reply was sitting idle and unposted for a long time *(19 replies, lol).
-
Zazen. Thank you for your evaluation.
My concern is that the natural way to adapt to an increased level of field defense is to make a priority of completely removing the ability to spawn anything at all. Hence, no fight :(
I think it would create some wicked furballs.
IMO i dont think it would kill fights just help kill toolshedding
-
I think it would create some wicked furballs.
IMO i dont think it would kill fights just help kill toolshedding
Based on my, "Before and After" breakdown, it may be the only thing that could possibly make HUGE maps really fun to fight on. On small maps there's almost always persistent, established defense at fields to counter attacks, no one ever complained about the fun fights that creates. This change would make the reactionary defense I described on HUGE maps a reasonable facsimile of the persistent, established defense on the small maps. It won't be quite as strong because reactionary defense will always have an E and initiative disadvantage relative to their persistent/established defender counterparts, but it'll be a vast improvement over what we have now on HUGE maps.
-
Zazen. Thank you for your evaluation.
My concern is that the natural way to adapt to an increased level of field defense is to make a priority of completely removing the ability to spawn anything at all. Hence, no fight :(
That's conceivable, but there will be more reactionary defenders initially to help prevent that. Even if they fail to prevent it outright, they've bought enough time for defenders to arrive from a proximate field to assist. So, if you are correct, you will end up with a lot more, "Fight over the base in the middle", sort of scenarios. That would be a great improvement to gameplay in my opinion...As it is now, there is almost never time for defenders to assist from a proximate field before capture is complete even if the hangers are left up. The attackers with overwhelming force pork, cap and vulch the field too quickly.
-
<sigh>
All I asked for is....Let's just say for every one current cap breaker, three more will be willing to attempt it with a 30 second rule. So then a lightly contested field instead of having 3 uppers, now has 12. On a more hotly contested field, 40 instead of 10. Here is my question. How will the real estate players adjust their tactics in response to that? And after those adjustments are made, what will the effect be on overall gameplay?
Look we can argue what ifs till we are blue in the face.. Just take for granted that the real estate players who don't want to fight for a base, will continue to figure out a way to take a base with as little fight as possible. If they start killing FH's more often then it will just make porking ords all the more imporant.
On the other hand I can tell you exactly what will happen when more people decide to up. A good and fun fight will happen in most cases. Hell I'll go as far as to show you what can happen. The other night I was on Rooks and we had a fight going on at a Bish base. However the Rooks started de-acking the base and setting up shop to start vulching. Seeing there was less and less uppers my self and two squaddies decided to up on the Bish side at that base to fight off the vulch.
We managed to break the vulch and keep the fight going, granted we were at a severe alt dis-advantage but it was agrevating and fun at the same time. I can almost 100% assure you the guys trying to vulch likely had more fun fighting us vs shooting planes rolling on the ground. If they didn't well they are tards.
Also note, field had been deacked and was getting vulched before we upped, yet the town hadn't even been touched.. Proving once again the vulching was going on just for easy kills vs capturing a base.
Here is the film... (yes I actually posted a film I die twice in)
http://www.wargamerx.com/films/k4-on-deck.ahf
I don't think there is anyone who can give a legit argument that vulching is more fun that actually fighting.
-
I do not think this idea will be implemented simply because
A) - It won't increase the fun in gameplay, only increase the learning curve.
B) - Will piss some people off, including people like myself. I like vulching! :furious
C) - Will have little affect on hording.
Do you really think the bishops will stop hording over this? I don't think so :D
-
I do not think this idea will be implemented simply because
A) - It won't increase the fun in gameplay, only increase the learning curve.
B) - Will piss some people off, including people like myself. I like vulching! :furious
C) - Will have little affect on hording.
Do you really think the bishops will stop hording over this? I don't think so :D
Ehmm.. I'm not a fan of this new proposal.. but how would it's implementation "increase the learning curve" ?? :huh
-
Do you really think the bishops will stop hording over this? I don't think so :D
Read my big post above. The success of this isn't dependant upon stopping anyone from milk-hording or vulching, that would be an incredibly naive undertaking. It's to make milk-hording success depend upon at least some actual fighting by making reactively defending against them somewhat feasible.
-
I do not think this idea will be implemented simply because
A) - It won't increase the fun in gameplay, only increase the learning curve.
B) - Will piss some people off, including people like myself. I like vulching! :furious
C) - Will have little affect on hording.
Do you really think the bishops will stop hording over this? I don't think so :D
A) - It won't increase the fun in gameplay, only increase the learning curve
He means : I cant vulch anymore. i have to learn AMCs :cry
EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't think there is anyone who can give a legit argument that vulching is more fun that actually fighting.
I can. I think it's just as fun, and that is my opinion. I base it on the fact that I have a big smile on my face that I just strafed a guy down who obviously SAW me over the field, and decided to try to take off anyway. It's the same smile I have when I come down on your six from 20K, open up while screaming 'surprise!!!' and see you explode.
If I'm the field, if I have ammo and I have a joystick, why would you try to take off? Your not superman :D wait till I leave or get distracted, possibly up in 2's or 3's at a time. Whatever. Think of something.
I like vulching for moments such as this.
(http://ahdywizjon308.servegame.org:8000/images/tempest_1.JPG)
(http://ahdywizjon308.servegame.org:8000/images/tempest_2.JPG)
(http://ahdywizjon308.servegame.org:8000/images/tempest_3.JPG)
-
I can. I think it's just as fun, and that is my opinion. I base it on the fact that I have a big smile on my face that I just strafed a guy down who obviously SAW me over the field, and decided to try to take off anyway. It's the same smile I have when I come down on your six from 20K, open up while screaming 'surprise!!!' and see you explode.
If I'm the field, if I have ammo and I have a joystick, why would you try to take off? Your not superman :D wait till I leave or get distracted, possibly up in 2's or 3's at a time. Whatever. Think of something.
I like vulching for moments such as this.
All this does is show your nothing more than a toolsheddin cannon fodder. Translation: Dweeb :aok
-
All this does is show your nothing more than a toolsheddin cannon fodder. Translation: Dweeb :aok
LOL, if having fun in my own way makes me a dweeb, I can live with that . :lol
<<S>>
-
Isn't that the point, to give incentive to actually fight? I thought fighting was what this game was based on, granted land grabing is a imporant factor, but shouldn't the land grab requre a fight?
I would hate to use the word "require", because even still, there will possibly be fightless captures. For example, during off-peak hours, if the defending team is already overwhelmed elsewhere, if the defensive team fails to react in time, etc. But, it would certainly cause a successful capture to be the direct result of winning an actual fight 75%+ of the time which beats the hell out of the 10% we have now.
-
I do not think this idea will be implemented simply because
A) - It won't increase the fun in gameplay, only increase the learning curve.
B) - Will piss some people off, including people like myself. I like vulching! :furious
C) - Will have little affect on hording.
Do you really think the bishops will stop hording over this? I don't think so :D
How would this stop you from vulching? You will still be able to vulch till your heart is content and hell you might even get more vulching in because more players might be willing to up under a vulch condition. The only diffrence is the pre 30 second vulches wont count toward your score.
So you would have to make the choice between pulling wings off flies gaining no score/perks or waiting 30 seconds to be able to get score for the kill. The choice would be in your hands.
-
I would hate to use the word "require", because even still, there will possibly be fightless captures. For example, during off-peak hours, if a team is already overwhelmed elsewhere, if the defensive team fails to react in time, etc. But, it would certainly cause a successful capture to be the direct result of winning an actual fight 75%+ of the time...
hehe.. I don't mean require as in a rule.. but rather maybe "start" or "develop" a fight in the process of the land grab. Meaning if one wants to land grab, they "should" reasonably expect to have to fight for it rather than continue down the path or NOE and hoard base captures that we find our selves in the mist of today.
-
you know whats sad?
San you cant even vulch right...you rammed a guy while vulching...good lord boy...get it together
-
This would actually improve the public opinion of milk-horders. As it is now they are about as popular as crabs, vaginal warts and the Clap on a hot summer's day. If we returned to the era where a good mission was almsot always met by stiff defense, then the successful mission horde types would have a real feather in their cap. They will have actually accomplished something that couldn't have been done just as well...offline..
-
How would this stop you from vulching? You will still be able to vulch till your heart is content and hell you might even get more vulching in because more players might be willing to up under a vulch condition. The only diffrence is the pre 30 second vulches wont count toward your score.
So you would have to make the choice between pulling wings off flies gaining no score/perks or waiting 30 seconds to be able to get score for the kill. The choice would be in your hands.
I hope you understand that I purposely put myself in the shoes of the opposing party. ;)
I think this thread has a lot of merit because you've argued your point very well. So did zazen. It was kept civil from your part, I hope you can say the same thing from mine. Even though my language was not as eloquent. All in all this has been the most civil thread I think I participated in, other than getting called a dweeb by Bi :eek:
I stick with my guns thought.
A big <<S>> to you crocket and zazen
-
you know whats sad?
San you cant even vulch right...you rammed a guy while vulching...good lord boy...get it together
Sorry Bi I know your jelous of my 18 killzzzzz.
Stop making it so obvious!
You know what I think is sad? You didn't look carefully enough to see that I was rammed, not the other way around.
Jeeeez Bi, get it together! Your better than that :)
-
ah hell come on now...you were the one vulching them. Post film so i can see :devil
no more hijack this thread
On to this topic
Still think its a great idea Straf <S>
-
I think this thread has a lot of merit because you've argued your point very well. So did zazen. It was kept civil from your part, I hope you can say the same thing from mine. Even though my language was not as eloquent. All in all this has been the most civil thread I think I participated in,
A big <<S>> to you crocket and zazen
:salute This is how you improve a community based game developed by a small shop like HTC. I wasn't born being able to express myself well, it comes from a lot of practice, reading and thinking about other's equally valid ideas...;)
I too am impressed with the civility of this thread, especially since HiTech joined in. I was so sure this was going to be, "Doe in heat" musk, attracting the "thread stalking" flamers from 100 miles away.
-
Here's my problem with the idea.
Thirty seconds won't get you off the runway with enough E to maunerver. You'll still get whacked just off the runway.
So, after a few months of that, people will be in here wanting the time to be 60 seconds, etc.
Then maybe somebody will have the idea that it should be altitude related.
It's a slippery slope.
The solution really is to up from a different field and attack the vulchers at altitude, in force if need be. Good old fashioned fighter sweeps can be a lot of fun.
All that said, I would be somewhat more supportive of either increasing the amount of ord needed to take a VH down, or better yet, add a second VH to airfields to make it just a little harder to take the wirbels out of the picture.
-
I hope you understand that I purposely put myself in the shoes of the opposing party. ;)
I think this thread has a lot of merit because you've argued your point very well. So did zazen. It was kept civil from your part, I hope you can say the same thing from mine. Even though my language was not as eloquent. All in all this has been the most civil thread I think I participated in, other than getting called a dweeb by Bi :eek:
I stick with my guns thought.
A big <<S>> to you crocket and zazen
Oh don't worry, I've had my time in the past of doing my share of vulching and I've even threatened to modify my anti vulch policy to allow for vulching Niki's.. :lol I would say I was more of the sadistic wanting to pull wings off flies kind of vulcher but eventually I realised vulching takes away from the fight.
I remember in the past even in my short two years, that vulching was kinda like the cherry on top of the cake that came after you beat the enemy back. Now days people are more interested in the cherry rather than enjoying the cake first.
oh and <<S>>
-
Here's my problem with the idea.
Thirty seconds won't get you off the runway with enough E to maunerver. You'll still get whacked just off the runway.
.
Are you sure about that? I tried it...I got up and turned (lazily) 90 degrees.
-
.
The solution really is to up from a different field and attack the vulchers at altitude, in force if need be. Good old fashioned fighter sweeps can be a lot of fun.
There's almost never time for this...There would be if we somehow forestalled the onset of tight CAP vulching which is the whole point of this. The way it works now with the milk-hordes is once they've got the field vulched and the defenders have zero chance of getting off the runway, much less to the town, the capture is imminent. On average it takes less than 5 minutes once the milk-horde is over the target field. It takes a while to get a fighter a full sector prepared to engage at really bad odds, almost always too long.
-
Are you sure about that? I tried it...I got up and turned (lazily) 90 degrees.
It would certainly give the newer players with not a lot of experience a harder time in pulling lead.
However seasoned players in this will be able to pull lead on a lazy low E turn without too much of a problem. You will still make for an easy kill on the first pass.
The advantage of that is it will probably put me further away from the field, so if you up again, I will have a harder time to come back and do the same thing. Even if I do shoot you down again, I will be further lower on E and eventually I will either have to settle for a co-e fight, or get out of there all together.
Yes, I can see that happening. But I'm not sure how that would impact yours and my fun factor.
If the field is not deacked, in most cases I will not dive on you because of that. It takes atleast 30 seconds to get away from field ack after take off. Isn't that the same deterrant to go for the kill as what you are asking for?
Sorry I couldn't resist to respond :)
-
Also think about it. Do you really want 3 or 4 guys 200 out on your six holding fire with a stop watch in their hands counting down the seconds until they open up? I would rather them just get it over and done with! :lol
-
You will still make for an easy kill on the first pass.
All that is needed is at least the E for a determined defender to have a chance to avoid a high-speed gun pass from a vulcher. Compared to the chance he has on the takeoff spot this is plenty. A lot of very skilled players love the idea of base defense, these types won't need much E to make it fun, they just need to be in the air.
-
Also think about it. Do you really want 3 or 4 guys 200 out on your six holding fire with a stop watch in their hands counting down the seconds until they open up? I would rather them just get it over and done with! :lol
Well, you're assuming you're the only defender in that example. Give players a fighting chance at defense and there will be multiple defenders getting airborne at any given time. So, you won't be the only chicken bone....Chances are some of them are going to be able to avoid the first pass which will improve everyone's chances.
-
When the plane that just took off kills my plane ot GV near the town on second 25 - that won't count for him either I guess? :devil
Ya.. that is a down side..
I say make it 30secs after t/o or until the said upper fires his weapon... Which ever comes first.. After they fire.. they're fair game 8)
-
Ya.. that is a down side..
I say make it 30secs after t/o or until the said upper fires his weapon... Which ever comes first.. After they fire.. they're fair game 8)
Well, I was exaggerating a bit to make my point there. Crockett's indeed right when he points out that within 30 seconds from spawning, you will barely be able to get airborne & retract gears.
-
I like it.
-
First, Strafings idea is AN EXCELLANT ONE. I vote YES.
Second...oh boy hear it comes...
This SAANTANA character is a complete idiot. I am glad he is posting though because his mentality is exactly WHY strafings idea is a good one. All of his statements about the issue demonstrate why the 30 sec rule is a good one. He is also the type who is ruing the integrity of this game. AHII is not like BF2 or CS. It actually takes intelectual skill to play AH2 unlike kiddie/playstation shooters.
Now my thoughts:
We have established that the 30 sec rule still allows vulching to occur. If you want to base take then suppress the uppers and get it done.
But this nonsense of killing ack to score potato vulch is NOT in the best interest of fun. I am not a fan of vulching. When I am enjoying a nice fight that finally ends up at the enemy base and a vulch is initiated I just leave. I am looking for a fight. I up at capped bases all the time because often it is the only fight happening (big maps IMO have not done anything to improve game play only promote more dweebery). I play to fly against other planes...to engage in ACM...to have a challenge. Vulching is equilivent to smashing mail boxes or donuting nice lawns like punk kids do --having fun at the expense of others while being the biggest phalic head possible.
There is nothing wrong with the 30 sec rule idea. If you want to vulch "for fun" then do it. Your just not going to get "rewarded" for it. What is wrong with that? Since your doing it for fun to start with why would you care about the points unless you are really doing it for stat padding. The rule has no effect on base taking. NONE. It does mean that the score system will now reflect more accuratly a players real ranking and stop ghost account vulching, squaddies trading vulching each other....etc
I just don't see how anyone could object to this idea except players who really shouldnt be playing this game anyway. Perhaps a FPS is more your style where you can play with "kids" who spend their time "having fun" doing nothing but disrupting the game in anyway possible. Just like that squad that does nothing but pork any base with a furball going so they can "be hated".
I personally think you should be non killable during the 30 sec rule. So to take a base you have to take out the FH. Hell man why not kill the FH.....because it's not any fun right? hummmmm. Because there won't be any airplanes to shoot at...hummmmmm. I guess by this assumption though we need the uppers so we can vulch and still have fun...right. Seems like the vuchers want their cookie and eat it too.
NOTE: My post is not directed at any of Murdr's posts. He actually stated several intelligent rebuttles to the idea unlike Saantana's idiotic posts.
-
I like it :aok
-
Finally read this thread for the first time...
I don't think any sane person can really say the gameplay in AH hasn't changed, it has moved away from aircombat to huge NOE missions attacking undefended fields.
I don't think this idea will stop this, but it could be a good first step.
(they need to also drop radar down to 100 feet and disable autopilot below 500 ft, if you want NOE, you gotta work for it a little)
-
First, Strafings idea is AN EXCELLANT ONE. I vote YES.
Second...oh boy hear it comes...
This SAANTANA character is a complete idiot.
Some irrelevant text here.
NOTE: My post is not directed at any of Murdr's posts. He actually stated several intelligent rebuttles to the idea unlike Saantana's idiotic posts.
You have actually added to my argument :D thank you!
Edit:
This is exactly why vulching is such a good idea. :rolleyes:
I just don't think you can comprehend I'm having immense fun when your flaming off, and getting kills into my scoresheet for it too. And why should I not? Your being the phallic head by spawning right underneath my guns. Any kill in ACM could be defined as having fun at the expense of others. Your argument simply does not hold up.
You also suggest that only retarded punk kids vulch. Well, I think I've seen grown men quite respected in the AH community do it frequently also.
Prove me wrong.
Your also stepping on really icy ground by stating that players with opposing views to yours should not be playing this game anyway. Who the hell are you to say that?
Phail
-
Vulching is equilivent to smashing mail boxes or donuting nice lawns like punk kids do --having fun at the expense of others while being the biggest phalic head possible.
My reply (http://www.mediafire.com/?vbdlnyyyqdl)
-
Murdr....that was some funny stuff. LMAO!!!
The issue at hand is quite simple. We are arguing over whether to give a reward in the first 30 seconds to people who enjoy vulching just for sake of doing it. I think the reward for base takers is not really the issue. People who take bases do so for the strategical play reward not for the vulching. A base take is not done for the sole purpose of vulching. Base taking has a whole other side...planning the mission...getting the troops there....bombing skills...preventing defenders from stopping the town kill.....etc. Capping the base and at times putting the vulch on to allow the base take to happen in necessary. I have no issue with vulching for a base take. In fact its can be the best offense vs killing the FH. By leaving the FH up the base takers can now immediatly up to either prevent a retake or start a new furball if it was near another enemy base. The 30 sec rule would not change this effort one bit. You just wouln't get the points for those kills...thats all. But I can hear it now...."I have to wait for them to get off the runway before I shoot them so I can get the points"....the base takers shout back..."you dweeb we are trying to take the base forget that kill em now"....lolololol
When a fight is going on around a base with everyone having a good time by keeping the fight some distance away for the purpose of engaging in great flying fun and a bunch of tards show up yelling "lets kill the ack and get the vulch on" well that is fun at others expense. At the expense of the ones who were there first and the ones trying to up. It's like a bunch of bullies taking over the playground and running off the ones there to start with.
Air combat has a long history of "honor among warriors". There are many accounts of real aces allowing the looser to live and even fly off. It is not necessary to always kill your opponent to win a victory. This concept still exists in the virtual world of AH2...atleast some of us try to let it exist. Others try to dismiss this idea.
The idea of allowing an opponent to at least take off and have a slight chance of winnig is in the "honor among warriors" spirit.
I enjoy upping at capped bases. To say I am a...quote by saantana "Your being the phallic head by spawning right underneath my guns." shows a very poor understanding of the issue at hand. I guarrentee there are players circling the field waiting for me to get out of ack ( if its up) so they can engage. But all it takes is just one saantana in a zeek or other convienent vulch ride to hover over the field and kill every single plane as soon as it spawns. All this does is stop a furball from starting.
When the map is big and there arent many people around often it is necessary to up at a base that is being attacked. In fact many players enjoy this kind of fight. If I could switch countires at will then I wouldn't have to do this. I would switch to a country with a balanced fight at a base and leave the vulcher to their fun. But you can't do that. And if you could switch at will the vulcher type would again ruin the fun for others by jumping missions...etc.
If vulching is only about fun then points dont matter. Have all the fun you want...no problem there. But your "fun" will no longer be confused with your acutal "skill". The real issue was tying to balance the score somewhat. To make the score reflect more closely to skill instead of no skill.
I realize there will always be "saantana types" in any game. If AH2 is destined to become a game filled with sqeaker kids who care nothing about real warriors type fighting and only care about their "fun" the game is doomed.
Hitech....if you are watching.....I know you understand this. A study of the current problems with multiplayer online games will clearly show that they are all infected with a "kid mentality". This game is unique in that it has a high learning curve...it is not easy to master if ever. That is the real value here. It continually gives a challenge. Allowing the progress of this game to cater to the 12 - 21 y/o FPS demographic will ruin it forever. The dedicated "customers" that make up the core of this game are not children. They are adults.
I urge you to listen to the mature players who have been here since the beggining like Murdr and the many other experienced players who play every day and therefor have an solid understanding of the concepts of this game.
I disagree with Murdr on the vulching issue atleast on the 30 sec rule but he as made some very intelligent points about this issue. In contrast saantana is a great example the kind of infections that will ruin the this game.
-
<SNIP>
. In fact its can be the best offense vs killing the FH. By leaving the FH up the base takers can now immediatly up to either prevent a retake or start a new furball if it was near another enemy base. The 30 sec rule would not change this effort one bit. You just wouln't get the points for those kills...thats all.
<SNIP>
This is an excellent point that I did not even think of when I spoke of it earlier. Murdr contends that taking the score/rank dudes out of vulching will cause hangers to be dropped more often as SoP. This is a golden reason why that may not be true. It would be in the best interest of the effort of both the toolshedders and the score potatoes to leave them up for this reason alone. Especially since they will be, presumably, facing stiffer local resistance and therefore the possibility of a counter-attack in force by the defenders. Rendering a freshly captured base indefensible would be a bad play.
-
Yet over the past 3 months there have been several mini-series dramas on the board that at its core, center around the already existing SOP in some circles that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING need to be flat for a field capture. I see no reason to add validity to that line of thinking.
-
Another tempest in a teapot...
Folks, if you want to break the "cap", simply go to the nearest base and grab a fast fighter. What's hard about that? Nothing is more satisfying than picking the vulchers. I do this just about every night I play. Moreover, if you don't want to get vulched, don't attempt to get airborne when the base is crawling with red icons. If you get whacked, it's just Darwin's theory of MMOGs at work. You just flunked Survival 101. The "dumber than a sack of dead cats" squad is perpetually recruiting. Ask for an invite.
It's like the old gag about the guy who visits his doctor. Striking his head with a mallet, the guy says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this". The doctor replies, "well then you damned idiot, don't do that!"
As usual, someone is trying to fix a perceived problem for which there already exists a perfectly adequate solution.
I rarely get involved in vulching as I rarely join the horde. However, If I find myself at a base and some huckleberry decides he's going to take off... I'll let him... I'll allow him to get airborne, clear the base and start feeling good about it. Then, BZZZZZZ game over, back to the tower upstart!
What's next, no DWIs if you're driving within sight of the bar?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Another tempest in a teapot...
Folks, if you want to break the "cap", simply go to the nearest base and grab a fast fighter. What's hard about that? Nothing is more satisfying than picking the vulchers. I do this just about every night I play. Moreover, if you don't want to get vulched, don't attempt to get airborne when the base is crawling with red icons. If you get whacked, it's just Darwin's theory of MMOGs at work. You just flunked Survival 101. The "dumber than a sack of dead cats" squad is perpetually recruiting. Ask for an invite.
It's like the old gag about the guy who visits his doctor. Striking his head with a mallet, the guy says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this". The doctor replies, "well then you damned idiot, don't do that!"
As usual, someone is trying to fix a perceived problem for which there already exists a perfectly adequate solution.
I rarely get involved in vulching as I rarely join the horde. However, If I find myself at a base and some huckleberry decides he's going to take off... I'll let him... I'll allow him to get airborne, clear the base and start feeling good about it. Then, BZZZZZZ game over, back to the tower upstart!
What's next, no DWIs if you're driving within sight of the bar?
My regards,
Widewing
So how would allowing a 30 second no points rule, change anything you just said there? They can still vulch if they feel the need, they just wouldn't be rewarded in points for doing it until 30 seconds has passed. So what's bad about that?
-
So how would allowing a 30 second no points rule, change anything you just said there? They can still vulch if they feel the need, they just wouldn't be rewarded in points for doing it until 30 seconds has passed. So what's bad about that?
I don't care about points or score. I could care less who is top scorer or how they weaseled their way to that score. Neither is an incentive to me. However, I do not want to reward stupid or lazy. Your proposal will do exactly that. Those same idiots who repeatedly spawn and get vulched will be encouraged to do so as there's no penalty. It will not promote fighting. Moreover, the attacking horde will just blast all of the hangers to avoid the issue. It will also reward those too dense to figure out how to take off from a carrier or who attempt to takeoff when the carrier is under fire or turning. It "dumbs down" the game even more. Besides, this makes it more of an arcade and less of a flight sim.
To encourage fighting, you need to change the mindset of the player base at its core.
If you want to force fights, spawn from a nearby base and come into the base under vulch and shred the vulchers. THAT is what generates fights. Indeed, the reason so many don't fight is because they can't fight. Thus, they run in packs where the mob provides alternate targets.
Of course, there's the vast coding issues involved as well.
Sorry guys, I do not see HTC changing this. As I said, there are ways to break the cap or a spawn camp without changing the game. If you're fretting about who the best pilots are, there are several ways to learn first hand.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing is right. Changing the rules would only reward the lazy.
Funny story. I once spent about 30 mins in wirbel defending a base against a vulch horde. Despite my best efforts, and I'm pretty good in a WW, a lot of fighters got thru to club the baby seals on the runway.
Well eventually I got killed/VH down and came up with one of my Base relief missions from a nearby airbase. Ive ran these before and they are pretty simple rule-wise. Upp, pair up and climb to 12,000', and kill the enemy over the capped base.
As I was selling the mission on vox I stayed in tower at the capped base I watched one rook after another get murdered on the runway. And you know what? Nobody joined the mission! :lol They would rather take off from a capped base, and face almost certain death, instead of taking 5 mins out to climb for energy and come in on the enemy with advantage on their side. One guy said he didnt join the mission cause he only flys P-51s. So he'd rather upp 51s from a capped base instead of coming in with Alt, in Spits.
And people wonder why I bombtruck so much. :lol
-
I think this thread is going to get skuzzified soon.
Widewing touched something I was trying to get at. I'm sorry I cannot articulate myself as well as he. He might be older, after all I am only 23. I hope this also comes with age. Or maybe I'm just thick? :cry
I'm going to repeat what I said. Yes, I do think your are not thinking right by spawning right underneath my guns. Do you want me to hold fire, for another guy to come in and nail you two seconds after I break off? If theres a vulch down, everytime theres an upper theres 5 friendlies already diving down on him all screaming 'MINE MINE MINE'. I tend to laugh, because I really do think its fun!!!
Now having said that, why don't you up from another close by field since we have already forced our advantage upon you over this one, if my vulch is making you so mad? Why don't you put in an extra 4 minutes to come from a nearby field and show me your l33t skillz and try to stop me? A spit 8/14/16 or a 109 k4 will have you up at 12,000 in 3 minutes. The transit time, another 3 minutes. How hard can that be.
When MY field is being vulched, I do exactly just that. I grab a tempest and go have some more fun with the vulchers.
Agent360, if you do not like my 190 d9 / megauberspixteen over your field vulching your poor country men, come in from another field and show me what you can do about it :D
Edit: I also do not understand how you want to cut off the biggest player base of the world from this game, or why you would want to in the first place. 10-18 years old make up the most numerous player base of the world. It's just a fact of life, don't try to change it. Just deal with it.
-
I don't think HT has any real desire to change the game to suit the desire of the few who still look at this as an 'air combat' game. It has literally been years since that was the desire of the playerbase (I mean, honestly.. look back to threads about hording and milkrunning from 2002-2003).
Changing the game so that it does not reward the gameplay of the 'masses' is not in the best interest of the company, financially.
One thing that would bring me back to the MAs is if the landgrab was fleshed out. 'Air combat' in this game has been stale and unenjoyable for me since roughly 2002-2003 - i.e. I got good enough within a year/18 months that I no longer had fun with where the gameplay went.
The vast majority of the people who play this game WANT to blow up buildings - HTC should take this into account and add new units and ways to do that. Adding artillery, more GVs, possibly infantry and urban warfare (or at least, urban objectives to the landgrab) would make the game a lot more interesting and a lot less like trying to jam square pegs (i.e. 80 different kinds of WW2 fighters) into round holes (the MA landgrab).
-
I don't care about points or score. I could care less who is top scorer or how they weaseled their way to that score. Neither is an incentive to me. However, I do not want to reward stupid or lazy. Your proposal will do exactly that. Those same idiots who repeatedly spawn and get vulched will be encouraged to do so as there's no penalty. It will not promote fighting. Moreover, the attacking horde will just blast all of the hangers to avoid the issue. It will also reward those too dense to figure out how to take off from a carrier or who attempt to takeoff when the carrier is under fire or turning. It "dumbs down" the game even more. Besides, this makes it more of an arcade and less of a flight sim.
To encourage fighting, you need to change the mindset of the player base at its core.
If you want to force fights, spawn from a nearby base and come into the base under vulch and shred the vulchers. THAT is what generates fights. Indeed, the reason so many don't fight is because they can't fight. Thus, they run in packs where the mob provides alternate targets.
Of course, there's the vast coding issues involved as well.
Sorry guys, I do not see HTC changing this. As I said, there are ways to break the cap or a spawn camp without changing the game. If you're fretting about who the best pilots are, there are several ways to learn first hand.
My regards,
Widewing
I seriously fail to see how allowing a 30 second no points time would reward the "lazy". First of if the intention is to cap the field to take the base, then it affects no one because they can still vulch till their heart is content but they just wont be rewarded in points for it. Rewarding the "lazy" is exactly what giving points and score does when promoting vulching by giving these tards points for doing it.
I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that giving a sporting chance to the uppers is somehow "not" going to promote fighting. As for dropping the hangers well who cares? FH's get dropped all the time even at vulched fields so what difference does it make? Typically any field that gets taken that is heavily fought over usually has the hangers dropped a few time during the fight.
If the attacking team does drop the hangers, then as posted by others already, they will have to suffer the possibility that the other team will counter attack while the FH's are down. So that right there promotes fighting on the flip side by allowing for a fast counter attack. Much less if it did become a problem, then HTC could just harden up the FH's or stager the small field FH's so it took 3 seprate passes to kill all the FH's. At that point you still have a VH and BH.
BTW, I have to ask, did you even try to spawn on the runway and time out 30 seconds to see how far you get? 30 seconds is not much time and will not let a upper get in the air under a heavy vulch cap, much less stop the fact that he could still get vulched soon as he spawns in and starts his engine.
So again what exactly does it change, other than not giving points to the "lazy" vulchers but instead giving a incentive for uppers to try to defend their base. How does that "not" promote fighting?
Also the whole problem with the idea of coming from another base is the fact that can't and wont ever stop the hoard problem. People always come from other bases during the fights. The problem is typically if it's a vulched field situation the attacking team usually has the biggest hoard. Having a con or two trickle in every few mins flying from a base that is 5 mins away leaves little chance to break the horde or stop the vulch.
However giving the team being vulched a small window of opportunity to get in the air can help in breaking that vulch which will again promote fighting. I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you in the fact of you saying this wouldn't promote fighting. It gives a reason to fight.
In short you are just proving the point with your argument, that vulchers are only vulching for the WTG's/score and perk points. If you actually think the simple fact of not giving them a score for a 30 seconds after the spawn in, would change the base capture routine so much that they would rather just kill the FH's.. Well then that means the only reason they are vulching is for score and WTG's.
Also I'd be willing to bet 80% of the base taking is being done by NOE missions vs actually fighting for a base. The simple reason is, fighting for a base and gaining air superrealty to the point you can get a vulch usually take a long time or a very big hoard. On most of those occasions it's typically been a vulch party long before anyone even bothers with killing the town. Typically the only reason they turn to attacking the town is once the vulch gets boring because someone dropped the FH's or no one is upping.
-
Widewing is right. Changing the rules would only reward the lazy.
Giving score and perk points to vulchers already rewards the lazy..
-
I don't think HT has any real desire to change the game to suit the desire of the few who still look at this as an 'air combat' game. It has literally been years since that was the desire of the playerbase (I mean, honestly.. look back to threads about hording and milkrunning from 2002-2003).
Changing the game so that it does not reward the gameplay of the 'masses' is not in the best interest of the company, financially.
One thing that would bring me back to the MAs is if the landgrab was fleshed out. 'Air combat' in this game has been stale and unenjoyable for me since roughly 2002-2003 - i.e. I got good enough within a year/18 months that I no longer had fun with where the gameplay went.
The vast majority of the people who play this game WANT to blow up buildings - HTC should take this into account and add new units and ways to do that. Adding artillery, more GVs, possibly infantry and urban warfare (or at least, urban objectives to the landgrab) would make the game a lot more interesting and a lot less like trying to jam square pegs (i.e. 80 different kinds of WW2 fighters) into round holes (the MA landgrab).
Hell might as well just get rid of the fighters if no one wants to fight... maybe we could add a bunny hop option for the toops as well.
If and when the point of this game was no longer about air combat, then that's when I would stop being a subscriber.
-
I don't think HT has any real desire to change the game to suit the desire of the few who still look at this as an 'air combat' game. It has literally been years since that was the desire of the playerbase (I mean, honestly.. look back to threads about hording and milkrunning from 2002-2003).
Changing the game so that it does not reward the gameplay of the 'masses' is not in the best interest of the company, financially.
One thing that would bring me back to the MAs is if the landgrab was fleshed out. 'Air combat' in this game has been stale and unenjoyable for me since roughly 2002-2003 - i.e. I got good enough within a year/18 months that I no longer had fun with where the gameplay went.
The vast majority of the people who play this game WANT to blow up buildings - HTC should take this into account and add new units and ways to do that. Adding artillery, more GVs, possibly infantry and urban warfare (or at least, urban objectives to the landgrab) would make the game a lot more interesting and a lot less like trying to jam square pegs (i.e. 80 different kinds of WW2 fighters) into round holes (the MA landgrab).
That's an interesting perspective, Urchin.
I don't disagree with the premise generally. But, I do disagree with the assertion that HTC's sole motivation for the development of this product is financial. As I said in another thread, if unmitigated financial success were the ultimate goal of those who work for HTC they would likely be designing software for a large developer in Silicon Valley somewhere. The big reason HTC continues to develop AH is an idealistic love for the genre, the subject matter and air combat specifically. That is not to say the air combat aspect needs to be developed further in exclusion to all else, with no regard for popular consensus or economics. It is to say development can proceed in a fashion that placates the goals of the original design concepts, air combat purists and the will of the masses.
For exmaple if you read back in this thread you will see my idea for specializing the roles of small/medium/large airfields to add strategic depth to the game. This would in no way shape or form destroy the fun for the air combat purists. Just as adding a 30 sec score timer to vulching would not for the landgrabbers. So, the integrity of the original design concept can be reinforced programmatically over time in tandem with fundamental improvement to the strategic depth aimed at mass appeal. This can be done without compromising the long-term viability of either aspect.
-
Giving score and perk points to vulchers already rewards the lazy..
Why are you so obsessed with other players score for goodness sake? That is my number 1 issue with this, the underlying attitude, it is based on score nannying. #2 I don't believe it will help fighting. Only engourage a scorched earth poilcy.
-
Why are you so obsessed with other players score for goodness sake? That is my number 1 issue with this, the underlying attitude, it is based on score nannying. #2 I don't believe it will help fighting. Only engourage a scorched earth poilcy.
It's a means to an end. If we could somehow chop away the segment of vulchers that vulched because they weren't breast fed we could just as easily do it that way instead. It's not the score that's the obsession, it's improving gameplay.
-
Edit: I also do not understand how you want to cut off the biggest player base of the world from this game, or why you would want to in the first place. 10-18 years old make up the most numerous player base of the world. It's just a fact of life, don't try to change it. Just deal with it.
Are you sure about this in AH?
-
Why are you so obsessed with other players score for goodness sake? That is my number 1 issue with this, the underlying attitude, it is based on score nannying. #2 I don't believe it will help fighting. Only engourage a scorched earth poilcy.
I'm just countering your argument and his.. You both said that giving the upper a 30 seconds no risk period would inspire the lazy. I say giving score to the vulchers inspires the lazy. There is no reward to fight guys in the air, when they can land 5 ot 6 easy vulched kills.
I couldn't care less about score other than it would be nice to see it be a bit more realistic on the fighter side if nothing else. I want to see the fight put back in the air vs attitude of how fast can we get a air cap to get a vulch going on.
I'll ask you this if you are so dead set about not giving uppers 30 seconds.. What if uppers still lose score if they are vulched but vulchers still don't get it for 30 seconds. So then you can't claim it inspires lazy people upping at a vulched base, because their risk would still be the same. So if the 30 seconds only affected the actual vulcher by not giving him points until after the 30 seconds was over, what would you say then?
Would your argumernt against it change at that point or would you be ok with that?
-
Are you sure about this in AH?
Granted it's all a guess but I'd be willing to bet the average age of "long term" billers is over 25 in this game. I'd also be willing to bet that 80% of the 16 to 22 age group don't rebill past 6 months. (typical life span of a xbox gamer before he gets bored)
-
It's not the score that's the obsession, it's improving gameplay.
No? I only looked at the first 2-1/2 pages.....
I'm not much of a score tard, meaning I don't care where I rank but I do like to check my stats. It would have be nice to see who the "real" aces of AH are in regards to "real fighting". The only way IMO to get a better idea by score of who the best pilots or GVer's are, is if vulch tards and spawn campers were taken out of the equation.
Yea but if the score more accurately reflected skill with less manipulation from no skill kills, then maybe more people would care. At the very worst it would force vulch tards and campers to actually fight if they wanted perks or score.
You're preaching to the choir here, I don't ever vulch or spawncamp, so it's all good to me. My cynical reply was the result of the experience of going down this path several times only to get <Rooster> blocked by those that exploit vulching and spawncamping to have a pretty rank and those apathetic to scoring because they either...
A) Suck so badly it wouldn't matter how scores were calculated they'd always rank badly in pure fighter mode. So, the fact that scores are currently not tamper-proof actually serves to insulate them from the harsh statistical reality of their suckage.
or
B) Have reached a state of spiritual Nirvana whereby they are above such mundane considerations and feel it is their duty as higher beings to disregard the entire concept of tamper-proof statistics on everyone else's behalf. Even if some would find it part of the 'fun factor' of the game just like reading the back of baseball cards is to that game...
No doubt, but from a frequency and sheer volume of kills stand-point vulching and spawncamping represent an exponentially greater proportion of in-valid kills scored in the MA...
That's reasonable on one condition. We separate vulches from "real" kills in the sub-stats of fighter rank. Showing the person's overall fighter stats with and without the vulches. They can keep the rank for all I care.
Others however manipulate their score because of a frail ego and are interfering with the ones who wish to use scoring for legit reasons. For that reason I think players should only be aloud to see their own score.
-
No? I only looked at the first 2-1/2 pages.....
You're quoting my personal opinions of what I think of rank/score dweebs who vulch to "augment" themselves statistically. But, this isn't my idea, it's Strafing's. Strafing doesn't have the same dream I do of being able to look at someone's scoresheet like you would the back of your favorite player(s) baseball card to get a better idea of what kind of player they might be over time. I definitely do and always have. I have admitted 10 million times just on these forums I love to analyze statistical data just for fun. I am an extremely good Thoroughbred Horse-Race Handicapper for this very same reason. So, if this change helps, as an inadvertent side-effect, increase the integrity of in-game statistical data, I'll be one happy camper. But, that is not the purpose of Strafing's proposal, the purpose is to improve gameplay. By, inference, HiTech's acknowledgement of this idea as worthy, means there is a curiosity to explore potential ways to improve gameplay programmatically which is in need of improvement.
-
I'll ask you this if you are so dead set about not giving uppers 30 seconds.. What if uppers still lose score if they are vulched but vulchers still don't get it for 30 seconds. So then you can't claim it inspires lazy people upping at a vulched base, because their risk would still be the same. So if the 30 seconds only affected the actual vulcher by not giving him points until after the 30 seconds was over, what would you say then?
Would your argumernt against it change at that point or would you be ok with that?
Keeping the risk factor for the uppers would make this much more palitable to me. (ie. it does not tip the dynamics of the battlefield at a defended airfield). If it just scored in "kills not counted toward rank" under fighter, then I'm not seeing any major side effects I dislike. Doesn't mean I like the idea of the change, I just dislike it a lot less :)
-
No? I only looked at the first 2-1/2 pages.....
You didn't answer my question.. I gave you a simple solution to your main argument aginst this idea and now you are dodging that question. If the 30 second no points rule only affected the vulcher, what would then be the problem? (edit ok you answered while I was posting this)
You are confusing the score issue here. Personally I don't give a flying flip about score other than checking it when trying to improve my own flying. The issue with score is, it's the only tool that this game has to reward or give penalty to players. That means the only way to reward people for fighting and not doing dweeby things like vulching is to not reward them for it.
The added benifit in relation to score, is it then might be a bit more accurate based on skill, which I'd like to see. I'll admit I do compaire my stats to others that I know don't do dweebary.
-
Keeping the risk factor for the uppers would make this much more palitable to me. (ie. it does not tip the dynamics of the battlefield at a defended airfield). If it just scored in "kills not counted toward rank" under fighter, then I'm not seeing any major side effects I dislike. Doesn't mean I like the idea of the change, I just dislike it a lot less :)
They would still be at risk, just not from score potatoes until they got their wheels up...I fail to see how this is so terrible...Lord forbid a score potato has to wait until a defender retracts his gear before pouncing their E bankrupt arses.
-
Keeping the risk factor for the uppers would make this much more palitable to me.
I see where you're coming from, here, and I think I can get on board with it.
From my perspective, if we put the 30 second rule into effect for attacking aircraft I think the impact on gameplay would be very positive. Without 'name in the lights' or 'score' incentive, I think we'd see a lot more furballing a quarter sector away from the base instead of wheels up poofs a quarter foot off the runway. This is good. As an ancillary point of interest, the top stick rankings would change almost overnight. :D
By contrast, however, I agree that applying the 30 second rule to the defending aircraft, whereby getting vulched does not count against you as a kill, might have a negative impact on gameplay because the incentive proposed to be eliminated above may, in fact, have the opposite effect and players would, likely, mindlessly up defending aircraft with no consideration for survival. The ancillary impact of this would necessitate that the base-taking crowd focus even sharper on shutting down a field almost immediately upon arrival (read: a few NOE Lancs turns into 15 NOE Lancs).
Overall, I think the idea is really fantastic. I do see a lot of potential to return the game to an 'air combat sim' as opposed to however you wish to describe its condition today.
-
Keeping the risk factor for the uppers would make this much more palitable to me. (ie. it does not tip the dynamics of the battlefield at a defended airfield). If it just scored in "kills not counted toward rank" under fighter, then I'm not seeing any major side effects I dislike. Doesn't mean I like the idea of the change, I just dislike it a lot less :)
Well my original idea was to just take away the score from the vulchers therefore not rewarding them for doing it, but not stopping them. The idea for giving uppers the 30 seconds on the flip side was to give them a incentive to up at a capped field. Both are incentives to get players to fight.
I mean lets get real here, the very few guys that are willing to up at capped fields face very tough odds even if they do manage to get off the runway. It's not really like they have a chance to upset the odds at a capped base but I thought giving the incentive to do so even though IMO the incentive isn't much might help to promote the actual fight vs just looking on the map for somewhere else to go and giving up.
Just to be clear, I really think the 30 seconds on the vulchers side would go a great distance toward making this game better. The 30 seconds on the uppers side doesn't bug me one way or another I just thought giving that, might help give incentive for people to up.
-
By contrast, however, I agree that applying the 30 second rule to the defending aircraft, whereby getting vulched does not count against you as a kill, might have a negative impact on gameplay because the incentive proposed to be eliminated above have the opposite effect and players would, likely, mindlessly up defending aircraft with no consideration for survival.
This argument is deeply flawed. The defender who ups in the face of 12 pure vulchers today already has no consideration for survival. If he did, he would not be there in the first place, because there is an almost zero chance he will survive the vulchers. This change would not change that fact, those types will always be there. The only difference would be, they would actually have a small chance for survival. This would in turn attract people to reactionary base defense who would not otherwise be their for a futile effort. But, they will come and try to defend now because it isn't utterly futile. They may not get vulched the second they spawn by pendulum pass vulchers. So, it will attract to the fight the exact opposite types and behaviors you describe.
-
This argument is deeply flawed. The defender who ups in the face of 12 pure vulchers today already has no consideration for survival. If he did, he would not be there in the first place, because there is an almost zero chance he will survive the vulchers. This change would not change that fact, those types will always be there. The only difference would be, they would actually have a small chance for survival. This would in turn attract people to reactionary base defense who would not otherwise be their for a futile effort. But, they will come and try to defend now because it isn't utterly futile. They may not get vulched the second they spawn by pendulum pass vulchers. So, it will attract to the fight the exact opposite types and behaviors you describe.
Perhaps. I suppose I can see it both ways... While there are those who will up at a capped field regardless of consequences, removing any penalty for being shot down, I think, would inflate the number of uppers three-fold.
That creates new problems. For example, from the perspective of a base-taking player, what is the point of trying to capture a field if, instead of the same guy upping over and over again, you've got 15? As I suggested, the base-taker then reacts by increasing the size of his missions by the corresponding amount and all of the sudden, we end up with even bigger hordes. All in theory, of course.
-
This argument is deeply flawed. The defender who ups in the face of 12 pure vulchers today already has no consideration for survival. If he did, he would not be there in the first place, because there is an almost zero chance he will survive the vulchers. This change would not change that fact. The only difference would be, they would actually have a small chance for survival. This would in turn attract people to reactionary base defense who would not otherwise be their for a futile effort. But, they will come and try to defend now because it isn't utterly futile. They may not get vulched the second they spawn by pendulum pass vulchers. So, it will attract to the fight the exact opposite types and behaviors you describe.
Well I can see it from both points of view on the 30 seconds for the uppers. Overall I agree with you in the fact I think it would help promote a fight vs giving into the hoard. On the flip side I could see a bit of possibly for gaming the game. I'll admit I have seen players that will up bomber formations at a vulched field just to make the vulchers run out of ammo.
Now, it's obvious they are doing this because they just want to get in the air with a fighter so that's the only tool at their disposal to break the vulch assuming the manned ack and VH are dead. So maybe some might figure it could be a easy way to break a heavy vulch by just spawning with no risk to score and letting the vulchers use up their ammo.
I really don't think it would mean the FH's would get killed any more than they do now, typically FH's are killed by people that are there to capture the base and it typically pisses off the vulchers. In short guys that vulch and even guys that fight don't want the FH's down because that means the end of easy kills so I find the argument about them killing FH's not a very reliable one. (the fastest way to end a FB is to kill FH's) It's typically just the land grabbers that do that nonsense not vulchers or furballers.
To me the biggest thing is not rewarding the vulchers for killing guys on the runway.. That in it's self could go a long way toward promoting a fight and I do agree a side affect would be the scores would change over night. :lol On the flip side the 30 seconds grace period would be nice IMHO but not as big of a factor one way or the other.
-
Perhaps. I suppose I can see it both ways... While there are those who will up at a capped field regardless of consequences, removing any penalty for being shot down, I think, would inflate the number of uppers three-fold.
That creates new problems. For example, from the perspective of a base-taking player, what is the point of trying to capture a field if, instead of the same guy upping over and over again, you've got 15? As I suggested, the base-taker then reacts by increasing the size of his missions by the corresponding amount and all of the sudden, we end up with even bigger hordes. All in theory, of course.
Land-grab Missions are already waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overkill as it is. If there were 15 defenders instead of 1 it would just create an actual fight for the field of variable duration instead of the brief overwhelming milk-horde affair it is now. There won't be a penalty for getting vulched in the first 30 seconds on your scorecard, but it's still a waste of your time and not any fun. If the attackers let him get his wheels up it will impact his scorecard and theirs.
-
just score it separately - If they shoot a plane within 30seconds of it lifting off it shows up as a diff stat. If you get killed in 30 seconds it shows up as a diff stat. Then at least those interested in score would be able to read the data of themselves and others correctly - those that wanted to shoot helpless planes would be scored appropriately - Those that try to up at capped fields trying to defend would be reflected - Those that never upped at capped fields would show - and those that never vulch would be shown. :D
-
Well I can see it from both points of view on the 30 seconds for the uppers. Overall I agree with you in the fact I think it would help promote a fight vs giving into the hoard. On the flip side I could see a bit of possibly for gaming the game. I'll admit I have seen players that will up bomber formations at a vulched field just to make the vulchers run out of ammo.
Let's be clear here on this point. Vulchers who run out of ammo gunning repeatedly upping formations of heavy's get no sympathy. These guys aren't doing it because they necessarily have a vested interest in capturing the base. They do it to pump up their score on an easy target which represents a negligible risk to base capture, usually after they dropped the FHs. If you remove the score aspect of vulching, the "ammo sponge trick" to relieve vulchers of their ammunition recedes into history. Those people would up a fighter instead as the score potato would likely let him get his wheels up.
-
just score it separately - If they shoot a plane within 30seconds of it lifting off it shows up as a diff stat. If you get killed in 30 seconds it shows up as a diff stat. Then at least those interested in score would be able to read the data of themselves and others correctly - those that wanted to shoot helpless planes would be scored appropriately - Those that try to up at capped fields trying to defend would be reflected - Those that never upped at capped fields would show - and those that never vulch would be shown. :D
Yea, I already brought that up as a possible alternative or a consession to vulchers to keep a record of their vulching *cough* prowess *cough* in a separate category which would not impact their fighter rank or result in buffer candy "puff pieces" when they land them. It could be the "scorecard of shame" category...
-
just score it separately - If they shoot a plane within 30seconds of it lifting off it shows up as a diff stat. If you get killed in 30 seconds it shows up as a diff stat. Then at least those interested in score would be able to read the data of themselves and others correctly - those that wanted to shoot helpless planes would be scored appropriately - Those that try to up at capped fields trying to defend would be reflected - Those that never upped at capped fields would show - and those that never vulch would be shown. :D
Na man the entire deal is to take away the reward for the vulch. If you still give them points/score and landed kills in highlight for vulches it wouldn't serve as a deterrent to the problem or reward them for fighting. The entire idea is based on taking away the reward they are getting for vulching, otherwise the idea it's self would lack any substance.
-
Let's be clear here on this point. Vulchers who run out of ammo gunning repeatedly upping formations of heavy's get no sympathy. These guys aren't doing it because they necessarily have a vested interest in capturing the base. They do it to pump up their score on an easy target which represents a negligible risk to base capture, usually after they dropped the FHs.
Or maybe they just like to see toejam blow up.
-
Or maybe they just like to see poop blow up.
Yup, we are assuming some are indeed motivated by , "Ripping the wings off flies" or "Zapping ants with a magnifying glass". If that is there sole motivation for vulching then score won't matter to them and they will continue to vulch, no problem, whatever "flutters your putter". However, If they also care about score they will have to make a decision which motivation is more important to them and behave accordingly.
-
I don't see how ripping wings off flies applies to explosion sprites on the ground but not in the air. The fact remains that carnage and general mayhem is at its highest when two groups meet head on, and during intense caps/vulches.
-
Na man the entire deal is to take away the reward for the vulch. If you still give them points/score and landed kills in highlight for vulches it wouldn't serve as a deterrent to the problem or reward them for fighting. The entire idea is based on taking away the reward they are getting for vulching, otherwise the idea it's self would lack any substance.
I was just trying to mediate. I would rather see this then nothing. I think it would still be a deterrent to some :uhoh
I would not want to be know as the averall high scoring vulcher or even have a 5-1 K/D and get busted out on 60% vulches.
-
Na man the entire deal is to take away the reward for the vulch. If you still give them points/score and landed kills in highlight for vulches it wouldn't serve as a deterrent to the problem or reward them for fighting. The entire idea is based on taking away the reward they are getting for vulching, otherwise the idea it's self would lack any substance.
Why does anyone care about this?
-
I don't see how ripping wings off flies applies to explosion sprites on the ground but not in the air. The fact remains that carnage and general mayhem is at its highest when two groups meet head on, and during intense caps/vulches.
You might want to try Quake, it's sounds more like your cup of tea. ;) You'll have all the mayhem, explosions and carnage you can stand...
-
Why does anyone care about this?
I'd think any Muppet would understand why we should be trying to push this game towards fighting and furballing vs how fast the hoard can de-ack a base to get the vulch going. The idea is to take away the reward for vulching and give a reward for fighting in the air.. I think the "why" is self explanatory. :huh
-
I don't see how ripping wings off flies applies to explosion sprites on the ground but not in the air. The fact remains that carnage and general mayhem is at its highest when two groups meet head on, and during intense caps/vulches.
Nothing stops anyone from vulching with this idea, but rather tries to put the focus on killing guys in the air vs being a limp wrist vulch tard.
-
I was just trying to mediate.
I made that mistake, too. :D
-
I'd think any Muppet would understand why we should be trying to push this game towards fighting and furballing vs how fast the hoard can de-ack a base to get the vulch going. The idea is to take away the reward for vulching and give a reward for fighting in the air.. I think the "why" is self explanatory. :huh
It sounds like you are trying to define one game play as better than another then you want to go about setting rules to enforce such. I am completely against that.
-
You might want to try Quake, it's sounds more like your cup of tea. ;) You'll have all the mayhem, explosions and carnage you can stand...
If I sucked at flying and like arcade physics I might give up AH, yep.
-
It sounds like you are trying to define one game play as better than another then you want to go about setting rules to enforce such. I am completely against that.
How is this setting rules to enforce anything? It's simply not rewarding players for gaming the game and rather rewarding players who choose to actually fight. Nothing in this stops anyone from vulching if they just like to see things blow up or like pulling wings off flys. It just doesn't allow them to gain score or perks for it.. (ie not a rule but a deterrent)
-
How is this setting rules to enforce anything? It's simply not rewarding players for gaming the game and rather rewarding players who choose to actually fight. Nothing in this stops anyone from vulching if they just like to see things blow up or like pulling wings off flys. It just doesn't allow them to gain score or perks for it.. (ie not a rule but a deterrent)
Why do we need a deterrent?
How are these vulchers and tool shedders ruining the game? Sure it sucks when a toolshedder comes along and kills all the hangars. OTOH, all those toolshedders provide targets for others and motivation for people to defend.
-
If I sucked at flying and like arcade physics I might give up AH, yep.
There's very little emphasis on good flying or understanding of physics required to swan dive on a freshly spawned, ground-bound aircraft...You're either doing it for score, the text buffer candy "puff piece", the "Pulling the wings off flies" factor, or the visceral, child-like enjoyment of explosive graphical cartoon eye candy you've seen 10 billion times before...I know you aren't in it for the real-estate..
-
There's very little emphasis on good flying or understanding of physics required to swan dive on a freshly spawned, ground-bound aircraft...You're either doing it for score, the text buffer candy "puff piece", the "Pulling the wings off flies" factor, or the visceral enjoyment of explosive graphical cartoon eye candy you've seen 10 billion times before...I know you aren't in it for the real-estate..
Again, why do you care if people do that? Who says this style of gameplay is less fun than another and that you have the right to declare it somehow worth less perks/points?
-
Im feeling less lonely
-
Again, why do you care if people do that? Who says this style of gameplay is less fun than another and that you have the right to declare it somehow worth less perks/points?
Steve, please read the whole thread. One more time, just for you...
Because, instead of fighting for fields, like we used to do when we had the small maps and a higher proportion of air combat purists, huge milk-hordes roam the vacant expanses of the HUGE maps with an obscenely overwhelming force vulching the few reactionary defenders resigned to the futility of their actions. Giving defenders a tiny chance of success against this tactic will encourage more fights, better gameplay and maybe make HUGE maps somewhat playable even with split LW arenas.
-
Why do we need a deterrent?
How are these vulchers and tool shedders ruining the game? Sure it sucks when a toolshedder comes along and kills all the hangars. OTOH, all those toolshedders provide targets for others and motivation for people to defend.
Toolshedders arent the problem they are doing their own thing and aren't related to this issue other than someone brought up the fact they think it would cause the FH's to get bombed.
Steve now granted you aren't the average P51 dweeb :D, but you fly a very limited part of this game by just flying that plane. I'm totally impressed with the amount of kills you land and the fact that I'm pretty certain you do it all in the air. However I've also never seen you up at a base under heavy attack and fight right off the deck. In short I'm very certain you don't deal with the results of these vulch tards on the defensive side of things because you arent upping at bases under attack to defend them.
Granted I really don't really care about the bases anymore than you do, I'm just there for the fight. However our playing styles are two totally diffrent aspects of this game so we will see two totally diffrent sides of this game. Something you may not think is a problem is a very big problem to me.
-
I don't see how blowing up a plane (or better yet a bundle of em in one shot) on the ground and having a field going up in flames and explosions at 100bpm is any less childish than getting your rocks off "pulling the wings off" some fighter after a 5-10min 1:1.
I do agree that score would be better off not counting kills on planes just off the spawn. There needs to be the right parameters of time and distance from the spawn, though.. But I don't see how that'll do anything to reduce the pleasure of trashing a field. People will still vulch.
-
I do agree that score would be better off not counting kills on planes just off the spawn. There needs to be the right parameters of time and distance from the spawn, though.. But I don't see how that'll do anything to reduce the pleasure of trashing a field. People will still vulch.
I think you've got it. We're not tying to eliminate vulching. We're just trying to eliminate the most common motivation for vulching...Score/Rank. In doing so you increase the likelihood realistic reactionary defense is afforded, at least a minimal chance, to engage the attackers in the air before they can affect the capture of a previously vacant field. If you can't just intuitively see how that would make actual fighting more frequent and protracted I don't know what to tell you.
-
People will still vulch. The only players I see being guaranteed to change their ways are score potatos. I can't imagine some kid or anyone playing this game for fun passing up on lots of cheesy kills because it will change a few digits on a spreadsheet somewhere in cyberspace. I think the local ENY idea would be more effective at affecting the quality of fights.
Can't hurt to try though. I do wonder why other ideas like this one never happened though, like invalidation of damage if the pilot didn't survive over a certain amount of time after the strike on target.
-
Wow. This thread is still going.
1-If I bravely dive onto an upping con through the ack risking my own life - I want to be rewarded for the kill. After all - it takes some serious stick stirring l33t skillz to not get shot down by that pesky field ack. :D
2-Even if half of my kills are vulches (coincedentally, my attack rank for tour 101 which is the last one I flew is higher than my fighter rank. Does that tell you something? I flew fighter mode purely by mistake when I upped aircraft I don't usually fly), why do you care? :rolleyes:
Personally I am not at all interested how someone scored his kills.
It sounds to me like the supporters of this idea are score potatoes themselves. Just of a different breed. Sounds to me like they are good at 1:1 engagements, and want that underlined further by introducing the changes they have described, at the same time shunning those who prefer the other style of gameplay. Why do they care if I'm rewarded for the vulch, if the other guy died anyway? If I'm not going to get rewarded, I'm still going to do it. OR, I will play with a stop clock with in my left hand and everytime someone spawns, start it and wait the 30 seconds until I kill him. I will do that just to show how useless this new feature is. You are still going to die, and if I want, I will get my kill for it.
But again, why do you care? If you prefer 1:1 , come in co e from a different field and show me how its done. After all, I waited those couple of minutes to get to my E state, and took my time to fly over to your field. Why shouldn't you?
-
People will still vulch. The only players I see being guaranteed to change their ways are score potatos. I can't imagine some kid or anyone playing this game for fun passing up on lots of cheesy kills because it will change a few digits on a spreadsheet somewhere in cyberspace. I think the local ENY idea would be more effective at affecting the quality of fights.
Can't hurt to try though. I do wonder why other ideas like this one never happened though, like invalidation of damage if the pilot didn't survive over a certain amount of time after the strike on target.
Right, vulching will still happen. If vulching didn't still happen the landgrabbers may be denied their equally inalienable right to capture fields that are atypically geographically proximate to their respective towns. They have a right to do that just as the defenders have a right to a reasonable chance to mount a reactionary defense to counter them.
-
Steve, please read the whole thread. One more time, just for you...
Because, instead of fighting for fields, like we used to do when we had the small maps and a higher proportion of air combat purists, huge milk-hordes roam the vacant expanses of the HUGE maps with an obscenely overwhelming force vulching the few reactionary defenders resigned to the futility of their actions. Giving defenders a tiny chance of success against this tactic will encourage more fights, better gameplay and maybe make HUGE maps somewhat playable even with split LW arenas.
How do you know what it will encourage? Did you get the last crystal ball? Most land grabbers don't care one way or another about vulching, whether they get points for the kills or not. So how would this discourage vulching? And again, why do you care if someone vulches? There's no shortage of fights on the maps now.
-
Right, vulching will still happen. If vulching didn't still happen the landgrabbers may be denied their equally inalienable right to capture fields that are atypically geographically proximate to their respective towns. They have a right to do that just as the defenders have a right to a reasonable chance to mount a reactionary defense to counter them.
Why not just have them spawn at 5k? Why stop at silliness when you can go straight to rediculous?>
-
However I've also never seen you up at a base under heavy attack and fight right off the deck. In short I'm very certain you don't deal with the results of these vulch tards on the defensive side of things because you arent upping at bases under attack to defend them.
You're quite right. I don't up a capped base. I do defend though, often. I up from the next base over and rain vulch vengeance upon their hordeling heads, with much glee. :devil
Sometimes, I'll go to the hordeling hive and swat them out of the sky as they leave their nest. You should hear their lamentations!
If the toolshedders were trying to take a base and you upped there, under the new rules, would you still get vulched?
-
This is simply not true.
Proxi gives you zero perks, thats right, but one single point for scores (which is almost as good as nothing, my kills give me about 200pts average per kill).
And they are counted in all other categories and thus counted towards rank.
NOT counted towards rank are things like kills on GV's when in fighter mode, or the whole field gunner stuff.
Maybe field gun kills (and deaths) SHOULD count... now the only benefit (besides defending your base/CV from attack) is that you make another players K/D etc. suffer from the effect of being killed by a manned gun.
-
Maybe field gun kills (and deaths) SHOULD count... now the only benefit (besides defending your base/CV from attack) is that you make another players K/D etc. suffer from the effect of being killed by a manned gun.
Being killed by a manned gun whilst being in Fighter mode, Attack mode or anything other mode does count as a death in that mode.
EDIT: Steve, you can put multiple quotes into a single response.
-
This is just a idea I've thought of some time back. I'm not much of a score tard, meaning I don't care where I rank but I do like to check my stats. It would have be nice to see who the "real" aces of AH are in regards to "real fighting". The only way IMO to get a better idea by score of who the best pilots or GVer's are, is if vulch tards and spawn campers were taken out of the equation.
I think there is a very simple solution to do this as I posted in another unrelated topic. We already have proxie kills that don't add to your stats in this game. Why not have kills made before 30 seconds of that con spawning also not count towards your score?
Meaning if you are shooting a guy on the runway, it's not going to help your score same as sitting on a VH and spawn camping. 30 seconds is enough time for a plane to at least have a chance to get in the air and it's enough time for a GV to at least start moving and try to find the target.
Granted it's not a perfect solution, but I do believe it would weed out "most" of the vulching and spawn camping from the stats. Of course it's not going to stop people from vulching or spawn camping but at least they wouldn't receive perks or points for doing it. Using a 30 scoring rule might also influence the score tards into actually fighting rather than depending on easy no skill kills.
On the flip side the guys getting vulched or spawn camped wouldn't have deaths counted against them piror to 30 seconds which would give a little more incentive to up at a capped base or spawn. In short it would reward people for fighting rather than vulching air bases and spawn camping.
Just a thought I figured I'd toss out there, in hopes of giving a incentive to actually fight.
I like the idea, vulching DOES have it's place in the game, but that wouldn't get rid of it.
You'd be able to gloat your kills by landing, and you'd still be able to supress them while your gooner gets in, it isn't 'Spawn Protection' (anyone who plays CoD know what I'm talkin bout ;) ) but rather gets the tards who worry so much about rank to actually EARN it.
Nothing in life is free, why make somethin in the virtual life free?...well, even though we pay to access the virtual life...
-
I like the idea of the 30 second rule or something similar as argued in this thread. It would be nice to see it implemented in some fashion for a trial period to see what the effects would be. I think it could have unintended consequences. I might, for example, start doing something I never do now.
Vulching!
Only I'll pick them off at the spawn before the 30 seconds is up just to keep vulchers from padding their score.
-
I'm still not 100% sure why you would care how someone got their score?
-
I'm still not 100% sure why you would care how someone got their score?
Because vulching, imo, is a cheap way to get it, take down the ack, call 'vulchfest at a22' and you got 1/2 of 'em there takin out anyone that tries to get up, it's taking out defenceless targets...
It's like shootin fish in a barrel...only worse :]
-
Because vulching, imo, is a cheap way to get it, take down the ack, call 'vulchfest at a22' and you got 1/2 of 'em there takin out anyone that tries to get up, it's taking out defenceless targets...
It's like shootin fish in a barrel...only worse :]
Blame the fish. Nobody forced them to up there. Besides, vulchers make the best kills. Killing hordelings is quite satisfying.
-
Blame the fish. Nobody forced them to up there. Besides, vulchers make the best kills. Killing hordelings is quite satisfying.
Alright, you've got 3 1/2 minutes to defend a base, the nearest base, if you fly in a LA7 is a 5-7 minute flight depending on how much resistance you encounter... what do you do?
-
Alright, you've got 3 1/2 minutes to defend a base, the nearest base, if you fly in a LA7 is a 5-7 minute flight depending on how much resistance you encounter... what do you do?
Where is the egg timer on this base? Where did you get his 3 1/2 minutes from?
If you up from a base that is capped and horded, will the 30 seconds somehow allow you to get anything done?
You want 30 seconds of spawn armor, don't you?
-
Where is the egg timer on this base? Where did you get his 3 1/2 minutes from?
If you up from a base that is capped and horded, will the 30 seconds somehow allow you to get anything done?
You want 30 seconds of spawn armor, don't you?
No, I'm saying, if you see the goon rolling in, and you can estimate about 3-4 minutes till it's over the base...
I'd like to be able to up and put up a fight, call me crazy... although I think 30 secs might be a bit too long.
I say 10-15 secs, that should give a b24J enough time (with full flaps) to get off the ground imo...
-
Nothing stops anyone from vulching with this idea, but rather tries to put the focus on killing guys in the air vs being a limp wrist vulch tard.
That's exactly what I got out of it.
For some reason, some are assuming that you can't actually kill the guy within the 30 second time frame ... which would be ludicrous and totally ruin the game.
One could still CAP/VULCH 'till they puke ... you just won't get any scoring/credit for it ... nor will the guy that gets vulched, be punished for trying to get into the "fight".
Personally I would love to see this implemented, for a test period of time at least. All those "PlayerX landed "double-digit" kills in PlaneZZ" would diminish at a scary rate.
OH NOES !!! I didn't get an "atta boy" ... :rofl
-
Only I'll pick them off at the spawn before the 30 seconds is up just to keep vulchers from padding their score.
:rofl
-
No, I'm saying, if you see the goon rolling in, and you can estimate about 3-4 minutes till it's over the base...
I'd like to be able to up and put up a fight, call me crazy... although I think 30 secs might be a bit too long.
I say 10-15 secs, that should give a b24J enough time (with full flaps) to get off the ground imo...
Ok, so 15 seconds go by and you are rolling. The goon is now 3 minutes out. Your field is capped. Did this 15 seconds somehow give you a better chance against the horde. I fail to see how you would be any less dead.
I don't get it, seriously. Base taking isn't rolling across any maps right now so why is there a need to make base taking harder?
-
All those "PlayerX landed "double-digit" kills in PlaneZZ" would diminish at a scary rate.
OH NOES !!! I didn't get an "atta boy" ... :rofl
Ummm atta boy?
Scary rate huh? So, how many people in the arena typically are vulching like this?
-
Personally I would love to see this implemented, for a test period of time at least. All those "PlayerX landed "double-digit" kills in PlaneZZ" would diminish at a scary rate.
OH NOES !!! I didn't get an "atta boy" ... :rofl
And the real kills surely would hold more weight.. "Atta boy's" would still exist, but they would just be harder to get.. I see very little problem with this idea..
-
Why not just have them spawn at 5k? Why stop at silliness when you can go straight to rediculous?>
This is exactly where I come down on the entire idea. I'm pretty sure that 30 seconds of no score for the vultcher will do little or nothing to alleviate the frustration of being vultched on the runway. There's always going to be at least one guy in the over head horde who either doesn't know or doesn't care that there is a 30 second window where he won't score anything for his kill. Then add in a few guys over head who really don't care about the score because they are more interested in "winning the war". What do they care about a few points? It's the capture that is important. Then don't forget the tard in the group who will giggle merrily on 200 everytime he plasters another LA7 on the tarmac. Actually, there'll probably be more then one tard.
I don't belive that you'd accomplish anything. A few months from now, someone would be posting that there needs to be 60 seconds of a window. Surely THAT would discourage the vultchers! Or, like Steve said, why not simply spawn at 5k? Vultching problem SOLVED!
The game mechanics are fine as they are, in my opinion. :salute
-
Ok, so 15 seconds go by and you are rolling. The goon is now 3 minutes out. Your field is capped. Did this 15 seconds somehow give you a better chance against the horde. I fail to see how you would be any less dead.
I don't get it, seriously. Base taking isn't rolling across any maps right now so why is there a need to make base taking harder?
You wouldn't be less dead to a landgrabber, he'll vulch you as you spawn. You would be less dead if the landgrabbers were all busily strafing town and the guy's CAP'ing the base are score potatos, which is how it usually plays out.
If by "harder" you mean base taking will actual involve the other team in an actual fight rather than the takers playing alone at a vacant field, then yes they will be harder. But, they will also be more fun.
-
You wouldn't be less dead to a landgrabber, he'll vulch you as you spawn. You would be less dead if the landgrabbers were all busily strafing town and the guy's CAP'ing the base are score potatos, which is how it plays out usually.
If by "harder" you mean actually involving the other team in an actual fight, then yes they will be harder. But, they will also be more fun.
No, when someone is strafing the town there are usually plenty of people capping the field, score potatos or not. So you are still going to get vulched, right?
-
No, when someone is strafing the town there are usually plenty of people capping the field, score potatos or not. So you are still going to get vulched, right?
Right. But if you read my play by play, compare and contrast, before and after, breakdown at the beginning part of this thread. It's not this simple. You're looking at one particular phase of the base taking process in non-fluid isolation. That would be like wanting to teach your child what a pet dog is like, but instead of buying her a puppy you bring home a dead dog from the side of the road. When you look at just that one phase, in hermetic isolation, of a dynamic and fluid process, you kill it, it becomes a non-living artifact.
In case you don't have the patience to go back and read my breakdown, I will sum up the important part for you...
-More defenders will be there initially during the early phases of the attack.
-The defenders will be able to more realistically get up after being shot down in the early phases before really tight CAP is in place.
-While the local reactionary defense performs this stalling action and the CAP tightens, other defenders now have time to come from a proximate field to assist.
-When the supporting forces arrive the tight CAP will loosen and the reactionary defenders will have some room to breathe perpetuating the fight at least a bit longer.
-
Right. But if you read my play by play, compare and contrast, before and after, breakdown at the beginning part of this thread. It's not this simple. You're looking at one particular phase of the base taking process in non-fluid isolation. That would be like wanting to teach your child what a pet dog is like, but instead of buying her a puppy you bring home a dead dog from the side of the road. When you look at just that one phase, in hermetic isolation, of a dynamic and fluid process you kill it, it becomes an artifact.
In case you don't have the patience to go back and read my breakdown, I will sum up the important part for you...
-More defenders will be there initially during the early phases of the attack.
-The defenders will be able to more realistically get up after being shot down in the early phases before really tight CAP is in place.
-While the local reactionary defense performs this stalling action and the CAP tightens, other defenders now have time to come from a proximate field to assist.
-When the supporting forces arrive the tight CAP will loosen and the reactionary defenders will have some room to breathe perpetuating the fight at least a bit longer.
So am I to be clear that you are supporting the idea because you want bases to be harder to take? If that's incorrect, please tell me why you support it.
-
So am I to be clear that you are supporting the idea because you want bases to be harder to take? If that's incorrect, please tell me why you support it.
Like I said, anything is harder than base takers playing by themselves against vacant fields. So, if by creating some kind of actual fight for them, not a pure vulch-o-rama, is making it harder, then yes of course it is. It couldn't possibly be any easier than it already is, especially on the HUGE maps.
-
Like I said, anything is harder than base takers playing by themselves against vacant fields. So, if by creating some kind of actual fight for them, not a pure vulch-o-rama, is making it harder, then yes of course it is. It couldn't possibly be any easier than it already is, especially on the HUGE maps.
Is one team being regularly run over by these base takers? Are they somehow ruining the play for other players? I fail to see any logic behind your support, educate me. Why do you care if people take vacant fields?
-
Is one team being regularly run over by these base takers? Are they somehow ruining the play for other players? I fail to see any logic behind your support, educate me. Why do you care if people take vacant fields?
I call it the milk-horde merry-go-round. One enormous horde is milking one vacant area for one team, while the other is doing the same thing elsewhere for the other team. If they ever happen to accidentally meet they pack up shop and find a vacant field elsewhere to milk-horde. So, this isn't like the scenario that precipitated the ENY limiter, with relative country numerical disparity, that's pretty easily fixed. This is a more pervasive problem of so much focus being placed on one aspect of the game, it has perverted it into something that is far easier and less interactive, in terms of conflict, than it was ever intended to be. This has deleteriously impacted the gameplay experience in terms of the prevalence of actual air combat frequency, quality and duration. This whole problem is exacerbated by the HUGE maps. It's not as big of a problem on the traditional smalls maps because it's almost impossible to take fields without actually fighting for them unless it's 3am or the country numbers are badly skewed.
-
I just thought I'd repost a couple things saantana said that I agree with, via the "score nannying" angle. Everyone claims they don't care about score and gos right back to complaining how someone else gets their score and attaches seedy motivations to it.
It sounds to me like the supporters of this idea are score potatoes themselves. Just of a different breed. Sounds to me like they are good at 1:1 engagements, and want that underlined further by introducing the changes they have described, at the same time shunning those who prefer the other style of gameplay. Why do they care if I'm rewarded for the vulch, if the other guy died anyway? If I'm not going to get rewarded, I'm still going to do it. OR, I will play with a stop clock with in my left hand and everytime someone spawns, start it and wait the 30 seconds until I kill him. I will do that just to show how useless this new feature is. You are still going to die, and if I want, I will get my kill for it.
But again, why do you care? If you prefer 1:1 , come in co e from a different field and show me how its done. After all, I waited those couple of minutes to get to my E state, and took my time to fly over to your field. Why shouldn't you?
I'm still not 100% sure why you would care how someone got their score?
-
Because vulching, imo, is a cheap way to get it, take down the ack, call 'vulchfest at a22' and you got 1/2 of 'em there takin out anyone that tries to get up, it's taking out defenceless targets...
It's like shootin fish in a barrel...only worse :]
If you don't want to be vulched do not up from a base with an active enemy CAP hovering over the field. That is simply the best solution to avoid being vulched. If you want to stop the vulching, up from a nearby field, grab some alt and break the enemy CAP. Another simple solution to the problem.
ack-ack
-
. This has deleteriously impacted the gameplay experience in terms of the prevalence of actual air combat frequency, quality and duration.
No it hasn't. Unless it's very late at night, there are plenty of fights to be had, therefore your argument has become moot.
I average a very pedestrian but nonetheless satisfying kill/time of about 9 per hour. I, like most of the arena have no trouble finding fights. I don't recall many complaints recently about a dearth of fights. Where's the community uproar that there aren't any fights? I suspect you aren't being honest about what your motivation is.
Shall we move on?
-
If you don't want to be vulched do not up from a base with an active enemy CAP hovering over the field. That is simply the best solution to avoid being vulched. If you want to stop the vulching, up from a nearby field, grab some alt and break the enemy CAP. Another simple solution to the problem.
ack-ack
When 30 milk-horders attack a previously vacant field there is almost never enough time to send support from a field a sector away before capture is affected. That's 95% of the point of this. By making short-notice reactionary defense more feasible you buy time for defenders from a proximate field to assist. This will create more, "fight for the base in the middle", situations that we used to have a lot and almost never do anymore.
-
When 30 milk-horders attack a previously vacant field there is almost never enough time to send support from a field a sector away before capture is affected. That's 95% of the point of this, by making short-notice reactionary defense more feasible you buy time for defenders from a proximate field to assist. This will create more, "fight for the base in the middle", situations that we used to have a lot and almost never do anymore.
So you want to dictate how these milk-horders play. I see. I'm completely against any further restrictions/ rules that funnel gameplay in a particular manner.
-
If you don't want to be vulched do not up from a base with an active enemy CAP hovering over the field. That is simply the best solution to avoid being vulched. If you want to stop the vulching, up from a nearby field, grab some alt and break the enemy CAP. Another simple solution to the problem.
ack-ack
Ack I'm quite sure you have never been vulched.. I mean the vulchers would have to fly 3 sectors deep into enemy territory in hope of catching you before you hit 20k. This topic has more impact on the guys that fly below the cloud layers. :rofl
-
If you don't want to be vulched do not up from a base with an active enemy CAP hovering over the field. That is simply the best solution to avoid being vulched. If you want to stop the vulching, up from a nearby field, grab some alt and break the enemy CAP. Another simple solution to the problem.
ack-ack
AKAK, appearently that has no bearing if you're preoccupied with how everyone else is getting their score.
-
No it hasn't. Unless it's very late at night, there are plenty of fights to be had, therefore your argument has become moot.
I average a very pedestrian but nonetheless satisfying kill/time of about 9 per hour. I, like most of the arena have no trouble finding fights. I don't recall many complaints recently about a dearth of fights. Where's the community uproar that there aren't any fights? I suspect you aren't being honest about what your motivation is.
Shall we move on?
I'm not sure what you're insinuating about me personally. But, your perspective of what the MA is like nowadays is very different than mine. If you are being honest in this thread, and not just playing devil's advocate, then you honestly don't think there's more rampant milk-hording going on and less actual fun furballs than we used to have...I'm not sure what map you're looking at but it isn't the same one we are...
-
So you want to dictate how these milk-horders play. I see. I'm completely against any further restrictions/ rules that funnel gameplay in a particular manner.
I thought I'd never say this Steve.. but I agree with you :aok for once.. hey theres always the first time :D
Ack I'm quite sure you have never been vulched.. I mean the vulchers would have to fly 3 sectors deep into enemy territory in hope of catching you before you hit 20k..
I'm sure theres no need for this kind of personal 'alt monkey' comment.
I just thought I'd repost a couple things saantana said that I agree with, via the "score nannying" angle. Everyone claims they don't care about score and gos right back to complaining how someone else gets their score and attaches seedy motivations to it.
Thank you Murdr, I was giving up hope on this thread when I was called an idiot by Agent360 :rolleyes:
-
So you want to dictate how these milk-horders play. I see. I'm completely against any further restrictions/ rules that funnel gameplay in a particular manner.
Umm no. HTC has said over and over, they never meant for any playstyle to be employed in such an extreme way that it actually discourages or seeks to avoid actual air combat altogether. The entire premise of milk-hording vacant fields is predicated upon that very concept. This is in direct opposition to the overall design and gameplay concepts of the makers.
-
I'm not sure what you're insinuating about me personally. But, your perspective of what the MA is like nowadays is very different than mine. If you are being honest in this thread, and not just playing devil's advocate, then you honestly don't think there's more rampant milk-hording going on and less actual fun furballs than we used to have...I'm not sure what map you're looking at but it isn't the same one we are...
I'm not insinuating anything. I think I was pretty clear. There is milk running going on but to suggest it's somehow running rampant is bunk. There are plenty of fights going on in the arena. I'll ask you again: Where is the community uproar that there aren't any fights to be had?
You want to change the way people play the game because you don't approve of it. This is the bottom line.
-
AKAK, appearently that has no bearing if you're preoccupied with how everyone else is getting their score.
I really do not want to get under anyones skin, but the word armchair general comes into my mind. I think it's a fine line between a mere suggestion and imposing ones views on others despite what they themselves might feel, and I also feel this thread has stepped over that line.
Be advised zazen that some people like to milk-horde, you and I might not be one of them, but why take away from their fun if you can simply move to a different part of the map, and have your kind of fun?
-
So you want to dictate how these milk-horders play. I see. I'm completely against any further restrictions/ rules that funnel gameplay in a particular manner.
So how would this "dictate" how they play? It would be their option if they choose to vulch a guy on the runway or if they waited till he was in the air. The only diffrence is they aren't "rewarded" for the first.
Much the same as Fighter mode and Attack mode. If you fly in fighter mode and choose to shoot at GV's you don't get anything for it other than a landed kill but it doesn't count toward your score. In Attack mode you do get credit for it. So while in fighter mode you have the choice to kill a GV or not but you aren't rewarded with score in doing so. (why I have no clue but it would be the same idea here)
Field ack was added to stop vulchers much the same as Flacks. It's obvious vulching has been a problem in the past or these things wouldn't have been added. The vulching is still a problem and this is a simple way of dealing with it that takes very little away from the game. You still have the option to vulch or not vulch you just wont be rewarded for doing it but rather rewarded for killing aircraft in the air.
Seriously man what is so bad about that? You are so dead set against it so why don't you explain why.. How will it affect the game is such a bad way that you are so dead set against it? Saying you don't want any changes made isn't a answer.
-
Aren't you guys in the same squad? :rofl
Crockett, but what's so bad about taking some time to get up from a different field, if your ultimate goal is to NOT reward those tards above your airfield?
-
I'm not insinuating anything. I think I was pretty clear. There is milk running going on but to suggest it's somehow running rampant is bunk. There are plenty of fights going on in the arena. I'll ask you again: Where is the community uproar that there aren't any fights to be had?
You want to change the way people play the game becuase you don't approve of it. This is the bottom line.
I'm going to simply agree to disagree with you here. You are trying to drive a wedge between what you think I personally believe would be best and what is best for our beloved game. In actuality they are one in the same from my perspective. I'm a pretty logical and analytical person, I have never been one to advocate moving the mountain to me, when I can just move myself to the mountain.
Like you, I personally have absolutely no problems killing in the MA, never have, never will. But, my individual K/T or any other stat is by no means, proof positive, gameplay could not be improved for the better. In fact, I would go so far as to say it could always be improved and the community has a responsibility to brainstorm and assist in making that happen, just like we are doing in this thread. I have about 379 ideas right now how this game could be vastly improved. I am sure HTC is equally invested in improving the game into the indefinite future. There is never a point where we have "arrived" in terms of game development, it's an ever-evolving process that seeks to dynamically marry player and design in a seemless and fun way.
-
So you want to dictate how these milk-horders play. I see. I'm completely against any further restrictions/ rules that funnel gameplay in a particular manner.
Well, not only that....
I don't buy the "flawed argument" thing one bit. Once it would become common knowledge that you get a mulligan if you get shot down in the first 30 seconds, lots more people will be willing to try to up from capped fields. As I said the real estate guys will react with scortched earth, and possibly a bigger horde (like we need more of either). Guys like me who are willing to sometimes tag along with the real estate guys will have no reason to do so anymore (nothing to fight/shoot at).
On the furballing side of things, I spend quite a few logins only flying out of 1 field to an enemy field, furballing somewhere in between. Sometimes the fight moves over my home field. (Just Sunday night I spent about 10 minutes as the lone airborne friendly providing bait to all the WW guys, and landed when we ran out of enemies.) Sometimes it's over the other guys home field. Now if I've been furballing for an hour in the same area, and we push them back to their field. Who the hell are you to judge my gameplay when I am more than happy to vulch the same ******** that have be cherry picking or ganging me for the last hour? To put it politely go pound sand. Worry about your own game and get your damn nose out of mine. It's already balanced enough over an enemy field that the defenders can be back in one minute while the attackers take 5-10 minutes to get back there. I commonly get pommeled because I survived all my friendlies near an enemy field and can't egress. That's not at all a complaint just a fact of the dynamics. But if you want to change the dynamics so that more people will be willing to defend, then you might as well forget fighting near a field at all unless you plan on leveling it ASAP. In the end I see this hurting, not helping my enjoyment of the game.
-
Aren't you guys in the same squad? :rofl
People in the same squad have to agree on everything and refrain from intellectual debate? This isn't a bar fight, this is a discussion... :lol
-
I really do not want to get under anyones skin, but the word armchair general comes into my mind. I think it's a fine line between a mere suggestion and imposing ones views on others despite what they themselves might feel, and I also feel this thread has stepped over that line.
Be advised zazen that some people like to milk-horde, you and I might not be one of them, but why take away from their fun if you can simply move to a different part of the map, and have your kind of fun?
How is anything imposed on you.. It's your choice to do it or not you just don't get rewarded if you do under az 30 second limit. The choice in the end is still yours and you make the choice.
-
How is anything imposed on you.. It's your choice to do it or not you just don't get rewarded if you do under az 30 second limit. The choice in the end is still yours and you make the choice.
Let me rephrase it.
Who are you to give me choices? I like it the way it is.
-
Aren't you guys in the same squad? :rofl
Crockett, but what's so bad about taking some time to get up from a different field, if your ultimate goal is to NOT reward those tards above your airfield?
What is so bad about waiting 30 seconds or getting no score?
-
Let me rephrase it.
Who are you to give me choices? I like it the way it is.
HiTech is the one to make the choices, I simply put the idea in to public view.
-
What is so bad about waiting 30 seconds or getting no score?
Again.. why are you telling me to wait or not to wait??
I just don't think you get the point. I do not want to listen to you in terms of how I score my scoresheet.
Again.. if you want to defend the field, spend some time like I did to come from a different base and shoot me down.
HiTech is the one to make the choices, I simply put the idea in to public view.
Thats okay.
-
Side note related to this topic and "time delays"
Anyone remember when HTC implemented the thing where dropping bombs then augering within 10 seconds those bombs didn't count?
Is it my imagination, I know it was talked about a LOT and thought they tried it... if they did is it still in effect?
I like this idea, but at the same time wonder if "time delay" things have or will work out.
-
Side note related to this topic and "time delays"
Anyone remember when HTC implemented the thing where dropping bombs then augering within 10 seconds those bombs didn't count?
Is it my imagination, I know it was talked about a LOT and thought they tried it... if they did is it still in effect?
Was never implemented.
-
Side note related to this topic and "time delays"
Anyone remember when HTC implemented the thing where dropping bombs then augering within 10 seconds those bombs didn't count?
Is it my imagination, I know it was talked about a LOT and thought they tried it... if they did is it still in effect?
I like this idea, but at the same time wonder if "time delay" things have or will work out.
It was discussed at the con and on the boards, but was never tried.
-
Again.. why are you telling me to wait or not to wait??
I just don't think you get the point. I do not want to listen to you in terms of how I score my scoresheet.
Again.. if you want to defend the field, spend some time like I did to come from a different base and shoot me down.
Thats okay.
Ok this is the last reply that I will write to you.. if you don't get it by now you never will, so I won't waste my time after this.
No one is telling you to wait or not.. if a 30 second delay in scoring was set up at spawn, it would be entirely your choice to vulch him 2 seconds after he spawns or wait 30 seconds if you wanted scored for the kill. No one would be forcing anything on you or telling you not to do anything. The choice would be yours and yours alone.
Just like it's your choice to kill GV's in fighter mode if you want to. You can do it all day long but wont be scored for it, hell I do it all the time I don't care if I get score from them. This is the same thing, you can vulch all day long you just wouldn't be scored for it. I'll say it once again it would be entirely your choice to vulch or wait till the con was in the air 30 seconds later if you want the score from it.
-
And this is my last reply to you. If you don't get it you never will.
Why should I NOT be rewarded for my vulch, if I want to be?
-
So how would this "dictate" how they play?
Because Zazen says that milk running is running rampant and he wants to put a stop to it by implementing new rules. This is dictating how people play.
People are still going to get vulched in the event of a horde taking a base. I will ask this yet again. Why do you and zazen care if people get score points for vulches?
-
Because Zazen says that milk running is running rampant and he wants to put a stop to it by implementing new rules. This is dictating how people play.
People are still going to get vulched in the event of a horde taking a base. I will ask this yet again. Why do you and zazen care if people get score points for vulches?
Steve if after 19 pages of this and you can't understand the reason behind the idea then you just aren't going to understand. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but I can't say anything else that will likely make you understand. It's about improving game play and giving people a reward for actually fighting in a "air combat" game. Score is only the tool used for the reward nothing more nothing less.
-
So you want to dictate how these milk-horders play. I see. I'm completely against any further restrictions/ rules that funnel gameplay in a particular manner.
I'm just going to let you be my spokesperson from now on in this thread since you pretty much echo my own thoughts on the matter.
ack-ack
-
Ack I'm quite sure you have never been vulched.. I mean the vulchers would have to fly 3 sectors deep into enemy territory in hope of catching you before you hit 20k. This topic has more impact on the guys that fly below the cloud layers. :rofl
LOL!
ack-ack
-
I'm sure theres no need for this kind of personal 'alt monkey' comment.
It's called a joke amongst friends.
ack-ack
-
Steve if after 19 pages of this and you can't understand the reason behind the idea then you just aren't going to understand.
Due to the way I choose to set up my bbs prefrences, I show page 12. Maybe we should institute a rule to fix that.
It's about improving game play and giving people a reward for actually fighting in a "air combat" game.
Umm no, there is already a reward for actually fighting in a "air combat" game. You want to remove reward for gameplay you disapprove of.
Score is only the tool used for the reward nothing more nothing less.
Funny because it seems to be common knowledge who the best stick are, and they generally ignore score. I guess noteriety within the community doesn't count as a reward.
-
Steve if after 19 pages of this and you can't understand the reason behind the idea then you just aren't going to understand. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but I can't say anything else that will likely make you understand. It's about improving game play and giving people a reward for actually fighting in a "air combat" game. Score is only the tool used for the reward nothing more nothing less.
I do understand and I disagree with you. You want to change the rules which, per your own admission, will change the way milk horders will play the game. You want to change the way some people play the game because you don't think they should play it that wa. you then hide it behind the guise of improving gameplay.
You want to legislate how people play the game. I am 100% against that.
-
No one is telling you to wait or not.. if a 30 second delay in scoring was set up at spawn, it would be entirely your choice to vulch him 2 seconds after he spawns or wait 30 seconds
Crockett, why do you care if someone gets score or not?
-
Seriously man what is so bad about that? You are so dead set against it so why don't you explain why.. How will it affect the game is such a bad way that you are so dead set against it? Saying you don't want any changes made isn't a answer.
It's a completely valid answer. You just don't like it.
Stupidity should bear a penalty. Laziness should not be encouraged. Under your scheme, both the shooter and victim see no change to their score. If there is no penalty for being dumb or lazy where there was one before, then it's really a net gain over what would previously happen and tantamount to a reward. Are you following this?
The entire argument is silly. Want to limit vulching? One less mouse click does it every time. Amazing, isn't it? Problem solved. Wanna break a cap? Grab a Tiffie or Dora from the nearest base, invest 5 minutes and have a field day killing the low flying horde. Another problem solved.
I think it's the instant gratification culture at work here. No one wants to take 5 minutes to really have a chance to break a cap. "I want it now!"
You want it more difficult to get a vulch started and make hording more costly? Harden the field ack. Add some manned 88mm guns. Harden the ordnance bunkers. Add a second VH. There's lots of ways to temper the hordes and vulch-fests without dicking around with scores and adding massive complexity to the game code. Hardening the ack (including manned) requires just a few mouse clicks in the arena setup screen, less than a minute. Increasing lethality can be done at the same time. These things will make a difference and without the slightest expenditure of time and trouble. However, your cure is no better than the disease IMHO.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You want it more difficult to get a vulch started and make hording more costly? Harden the field ack. Add some manned 88mm guns. Harden the ordnance bunkers.
That's the way HTC went before, when massively increasing ack on the bases about 2 years ago, IIRC. And it worked, accompanied by a huge bluster.
Of course it didn't stopped vulching, but made it more difficult (Before that day it was no big problem to completely deack a large field on your own, then setting up a "cap").
The addition of the WW was the next step (sadly/fortunately most WW drivers are lazy or dumb or both, preferring to sit in a huge cluster right at the VH instead of tactically dispersing all over the field)
-
The addition of the WW was the next step (sadly/fortunately most WW drivers are lazy or dumb or both, preferring to sit in a huge cluster right at the VH instead of tactically dispersing all over the field)
I shudder when I see that... One 1,000 pounder and 6 guys are back in the tower. Well, you can't fix dizzy, but maybe we can stencil it on their foreheads. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
You want it more difficult to get a vulch started and make hording more costly? Harden the field ack. Add some manned 88mm guns. Harden the ordnance bunkers. Add a second VH. There's lots of ways to temper the hordes and vulch-fests without dicking around with scores and adding massive complexity to the game code. Hardening the ack (including manned) requires just a few mouse clicks in the arena setup screen, less than a minute. Increasing lethality can be done at the same time. These things will make a difference and without the slightest expenditure of time and trouble. However, your cure is no better than the disease IMHO.
My regards,
Widewing
See this would work but the reason they are approaching it with this 30 sec BS is because they aren't really being honest. The truth is they think vulchers skew the scores/ranks and they don't like this.
-
Steve if after 19 pages of this and you can't understand the reason behind the idea then you just aren't going to understand. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but I can't say anything else that will likely make you understand. It's about improving game play and giving people a reward for actually fighting in a "air combat" game. Score is only the tool used for the reward nothing more nothing less.
Exactly, I've explained the logic of this from every possible angle I can think of. If the few vocal nay sayers are so obstinate in their position that they can find nothing in the previous 18 pages of explanations compelling, nothing will change their minds.
This is starting to remind me of asking your kid to clean his room, "Billy, clean your room please".
"No!",
"Billy clean your room now!"
"No!"
"Billy I'm not going to tell you again, clean your room!"
"No, I don't want to!"
<Takes belt off, Billy runs to his room>
-
Crockett, why do you care if someone gets score or not?
In short, I don't care if people get score or not however you are missing the point and thinking too much about the "score" it's self. Regardless of the topic title and the idea, you need to see past that and understand the goal in the end. This idea isn't so much about the score system but making the game better and producing better sticks in the long run. This game is based off a score reward system, you get points or score for doing various things and that is the only reason score is even involved because that's the only tool the game has to reward players with.
Now for the long part...
Game play IMO has gone down hill and I know I'm not the only person who thinks this, regardless of what your opinion is on it. I think score is a big reason for this, because it's obvious how people go out of their way to pad their stats in one way or another. Others may not pad their stats but instead they are scared to get into any engagements where they don't have an advantage, so they run away from the fight. Others may fly in the safety of their hoard to gang bang some lone con and have little risk of dying.
In short this game is going further and further away from learning real ACM and actually fighting, to nothing but hoards running from one gangbang to the next while doing suicide ack runs just to get a vulch on. It's almost always 70% to 80% of country A beating up on country B then B doing it to C and C doing it to A. Then we have probably 80% of the bases captured that are taken by NOE raids or some lone guy in a flack trying to sneak a base while no one is looking.
In other words this game and the current system is encouraging people not to fight. Vulching is just another thing that stops a fight because 9 times out of 10 a vulched field was vulched just for the easy kills and almost never ends with a base capture. So in other words it's just lazy tards that likely can't kill 4 to 5 guys in a single sortie air to air, but they want to reap easy kills on a runway, to get their name in lights.
You can read right here that saantana openly admits he vulches for score. Rather than learn and get better it's easier to just go milk hoard and be a vulch and gang tard. There are countless people just like him in the MA's and they have been steadily turning the MA into a skill-less hoard that couldn't fight their way out of a paper sack with a butcher knife unless they have 5 gangbang buddies flying Niki's with them. (not to pick on saantana but he's the one in here admitting to it, so he gets used as the example)
Granted this game has a high learning cure and it takes time to get good, but isn't that the point? I mean this game isn't Air Quake after all is it? The problem is the game keeps degrading into the hoard mentality, new players see other guys vulching, HOing and generally being a tard so they end up falling into that trap bringing the community one step further down the ladder. Rather than developing their skills because they get beat by the really good sticks and want to get better, it's easier to just go vulch or be a hoard monkey. I mean hell they end up with the same WTG's on 200 and a nice score so where is the incentive to actual learn ACM and fight for the kills?
I'll give you an example.. There was some new guy that posted on the forum a week or so ago all happy about wanting to be a p51 stick and learning ACM and the whole nine yards. A lot of us gave him suggestions and a pat on the back and sent him on his way to becoming the next AH ace of aces. Meanwhile a week or so later I see him in the MA diving in from 10k trying to vulch guys on the runway, I was co alt and ended up running him down and killing him. Now he could have tried to fight me in a 1 on 1. I'm sure he would have died lol, but hell I think he might have learned something. However instead he took the easy "try" to vulch and still died learning nothing in the process other than he probably needs to run faster.
Vulching and hoarding with 10 guys chasing one lone con breed this kind of skill less flying in the MA's. The new guys come in see the other guys doing it and think that's what this game is all about. Maybe just maybe if a noob sticks around a year or so he might eventually realize that there is much more to ACM than HOing and vulching. Then just maybe if we are lucky he might become someone who adds to the community rather than just be part of the problem he is replicating.
That is what this 30 seconds idea is about. It's not really about score that's just the tool, it's about trying to help make this game better and build a community that focuses on actually fighting and developing their ACM skills vs just being a bunch Ho & vulch dweebs stealing bases in the middle of the night for the 20 perk reset. In short the community is only as good as it's members and It's my opinion this community needs to start striving to be better sticks rather than striving for the easiest way to score points.
Granted this 30 seconds idea wouldn't do all that but at least maybe it could be a step n the right direction by not rewarding people for doing one of the dweebist things in the game.
-
This is starting to remind me of asking your kid to clean his room, "Billy, clean your room please".
"No!",
"Billy clean your room now!"
"No!"
"Billy I'm not going to tell you again, clean your room!"
"No, I don't want to!"
<Takes belt off, Billy runs to his room>
I just hope you don't take your belt off... don't wanna see your trousers slipping down :uhoh
-
It's a completely valid answer. You just don't like it.
Stupidity should bear a penalty. Laziness should not be encouraged. Under your scheme, both the shooter and victim see no change to their score. If there is no penalty for being dumb or lazy where there was one before, then it's really a net gain over what would previously happen and tantamount to a reward. Are you following this?
The entire argument is silly. Want to limit vulching? One less mouse click does it every time. Amazing, isn't it? Problem solved. Wanna break a cap? Grab a Tiffie or Dora from the nearest base, invest 5 minutes and have a field day killing the low flying horde. Another problem solved.
I think it's the instant gratification culture at work here. No one wants to take 5 minutes to really have a chance to break a cap. "I want it now!"
You want it more difficult to get a vulch started and make hording more costly? Harden the field ack. Add some manned 88mm guns. Harden the ordnance bunkers. Add a second VH. There's lots of ways to temper the hordes and vulch-fests without dicking around with scores and adding massive complexity to the game code. Hardening the ack (including manned) requires just a few mouse clicks in the arena setup screen, less than a minute. Increasing lethality can be done at the same time. These things will make a difference and without the slightest expenditure of time and trouble. However, your cure is no better than the disease IMHO.
My regards,
Widewing
I dis agree with that.. It's a very fine line of ack that can momentarily stop vulches vs having ack so strong the uppers just hide in it. Look at CV's for a perfect example of that, how many times do CV battles end up with the attackers hiding in their ack waiting for their 5 inch buddies to kill you off.
The fastest way to kill a furball is to bring a CV right on top of the base it's trying to attack.
-
This is starting to remind me of asking your kid to clean his room, "Billy, clean your room please".
Well there's a way to win people over to your point of view. Put them in the inexperienced child role, and you play the benevolent parent :rolleyes:
-
In short, I don't care if people get score or not however you are missing the point and thinking too much about the "score" it's self
In your very first post, at the top of the thread you said this:
The only way IMO to get a better idea by score of who the best pilots or GVer's are, is if vulch tards and spawn campers were taken out of the equation.
This has nothing to do with game play, this is about score, period.
-
Exactly, I've explained the logic of this from every possible angle I can think of. If the few vocal nay sayers are so obstinate in their position that they can find nothing in the previous 18 pages of explanations compelling, nothing will change their minds.
That's because we don't see it as logic at all, but rationalizing the changing of the way many people play the game by penalizing them while removing the penalty for being less than bright. No one gets vulched, or whacked at a spawn (more than once) unless they choose to....
I have agreed with you on many previous issues, but this isn't one of them.
My regards,
Widewing
-
In short, I don't care if people get score or not however you are missing the point and thinking too much about the "score" it's self. Regardless of the topic title and the idea, you need to see past that and understand the goal in the end. This idea isn't so much about the score system but making the game better and producing better sticks in the long run. This game is based off a score reward system, you get points or score for doing various things and that is the only reason score is even involved because that's the only tool the game has to reward players with.
Now for the long part...
Game play IMO has gone down hill and I know I'm not the only person who thinks this, regardless of what your opinion is on it. I think score is a big reason for this, because it's obvious how people go out of their way to pad their stats in one way or another. Others may not pad their stats but instead they are scared to get into any engagements where they don't have an advantage, so they run away from the fight. Others may fly in the safety of their hoard to gang bang some lone con and have little risk of dying.
In short this game is going further and further away from learning real ACM and actually fighting, to nothing but hoards running from one gangbang to the next while doing suicide ack runs just to get a vulch on. It's almost always 70% to 80% of country A beating up on country B then B doing it to C and C doing it to A. Then we have probably 80% of the bases captured that are taken by NOE raids or some lone guy in a flack trying to sneak a base while no one is looking.
In other words this game and the current system is encouraging people not to fight. Vulching is just another thing that stops a fight because 9 times out of 10 a vulched field was vulched just for the easy kills and almost never ends with a base capture. So in other words it's just lazy tards that likely can't kill 4 to 5 guys in a single sortie air to air, but they want to reap easy kills on a runway, to get their name in lights.
You can read right here that saantana openly admits he vulches for score. Rather than learn and get better it's easier to just go milk hoard and be a vulch and gang tard. There are countless people just like him in the MA's and they have been steadily turning the MA into a skill-less hoard that couldn't fight their way out of a paper sack with a butcher knife unless they have 5 gangbang buddies flying Niki's with them. (not to pick on saantana but he's the one in here admitting to it, so he gets used as the example)
Granted this game has a high learning cure and it takes time to get good, but isn't that the point? I mean this game isn't Air Quake after all is it? The problem is the game keeps degrading into the hoard mentality, new players see other guys vulching, HOing and generally being a tard so they end up falling into that trap bringing the community one step further down the ladder. Rather than developing their skills because they get beat by the really good sticks and want to get better, it's easier to just go vulch or be a hoard monkey. I mean hell they end up with the same WTG's on 200 and a nice score so where is the incentive to actual learn ACM and fight for the kills?
I'll give you an example.. There was some new guy that posted on the forum a week or so ago all happy about wanting to be a p51 stick and learning ACM and the whole nine yards. A lot of us gave him suggestions and a pat on the back and sent him on his way to becoming the next AH ace of aces. Meanwhile a week or so later I see him in the MA diving in from 10k trying to vulch guys on the runway, I was co alt and ended up running him down and killing him. Now he could have tried to fight me in a 1 on 1. I'm sure he would have died lol, but hell I think he might have learned something. However instead he took the easy "try" to vulch and still died learning nothing in the process other than he probably needs to run faster.
Vulching and hoarding with 10 guys chasing one lone con breed this kind of skill less flying in the MA's. The new guys come in see the other guys doing it and think that's what this game is all about. Maybe just maybe if a noob sticks around a year or so he might eventually realize that there is much more to ACM than HOing and vulching. Then just maybe if we are lucky he might become someone who adds to the community rather than just be part of the problem he is replicating.
That is what this 30 seconds idea is about. It's not really about score that's just the tool, it's about trying to help make this game better and build a community that focuses on actually fighting and developing their ACM skills vs just being a bunch Ho & vulch dweebs stealing bases in the middle of the night for the 20 perk reset. In short the community is only as good as it's members and It's my opinion this community needs to start striving to be better sticks rather than striving for the easiest way to score points.
Granted this 30 seconds idea wouldn't do all that but at least maybe it could be a step n the right direction by not rewarding people for doing one of the dweebist things in the game.
Excellent post Strafing, I think we should just leave it at this. HiTech will do whatever he thinks is best for gameplay, the idea and the problem have been acknowledged by him. I trust his judgement. I've been through this type of argument before where you have 3 or 4 vocal people vehemently opposed trying to drag a really great idea through the mud because if implimented it would severely cramp their style. Don't let them do it...
-
Excellent post Strafing, I think we should just leave it at this. HiTech will do whatever he thinks is best for gameplay, the idea and the problem have been acknowledged by him. I trust his judgement.
Again, you think taking vacant bases in hordes is ruining the game and that there aren't any fights to be had. If that is the case, for the 4th time I think, where is the uproar by the general community about this?
-
See this would work but the reason they are approaching it with this 30 sec BS is because they aren't really being honest. The truth is they think vulchers skew the scores/ranks and they don't like this.
Is that what your whole argument is about, because you think I secretly want to be number #1 and think doing away with vulchers will get me there? lol that's laughable at best because if I was lucky to maybe get into the top 50 on the fighter score if we did away with vulch tards.
However yes I if you really want to hear it, I don't want vulch tards to get score from vulching. Does that make you feel better that I said it? Hell man if that's what your whole argument was about we could have save 5 pages of useless babbling.
Until you understand this idea isn't really about score, you just wont get it.
-
Well there's a way to win people over to your point of view. Put them in the inexperienced child role, and you play the benevolent parent :rolleyes:
So is your diaper dirty?
-
Game play IMO has gone down hill and I know I'm not the only person who thinks this, regardless of what your opinion is on it.
I didn't say the game wasn't going down hill. I said the 30 second rule is rediculous and that I am against any rules that try to force a person who is not exploiting to change their game play.
Are you going to add a little 30 second clock to everyone's icon?
The game has changed because the demographics has changed. You didn't change with them, me either.
Answer me this: why does the guy who is helping take a base, kills acks in the process, not deserve to get points/perks for vulching thereafter?
-
I dis agree with that.. It's a very fine line of ack that can momentarily stop vulches vs having ack so strong the uppers just hide in it. Look at CV's for a perfect example of that, how many times do CV battles end up with the attackers hiding in their ack waiting for their 5 inch buddies to kill you off.
The fastest way to kill a furball is to bring a CV right on top of the base it's trying to attack.
So, what you appear to be inferring is that but for the CV ack, you'd be vulching them on the carrier. If they are hiding in the ack, it's likely that they cannot get out of it without being ganged. Moreover, if you don't want to get clobbered by 5" guns, don't fly so close. Then, the guys using the ack for protection would likely come out, wouldn't they?
Personally, I think you're SOL on this one.
My regards,
Widewing
-
In your very first post, at the top of the thread you said this:
This has nothing to do with game play, this is about score, period.
Yet you still can't see the forest for the trees.. sorry man I'm done arguing with you about, it's getting no where. I went out of my way to explain to you in detail and you just can't accept it for what it is, so it's useless explaining any further.
-
Is that what your whole argument is about, because you think I secretly want to be number #1 and think doing away with vulchers will get me there?
No, I think you think the scoring system isn't really a fair representation of people's skills because you feel vulchers skew the ranks.
-
Yet you still can't see the forest for the trees..
Well that's what you said.. in context.
sorry man I'm done arguing with you
Uhhh I didn't know we were arguing.
-
I didn't say the game wasn't going down hill. I said the 30 second rule is rediculous and that I am against any rules that try to force a person who is not exploiting to change their game play.
This will be my last comment in this thread.
Do you remember back when spawnpoints were all single fixed points? True to HTC's design model to discourage methods employed to avoid fighting, this was considered a detriment to gameplay as it rewarded an activity other than actual fighting, the risk vs reward ratio was skewed. It failed to give a reasonable chance for the spawner to defend himself adequately against the spawncamper. It depends on your definition of exploitation, but it definitely was according to mine.
Exploitation is intentionally taking unfair advantage of a game design flaw for maximum personal or collective benefit at the detriment of gameplay.
So, HTC changed it so vehicles spawned at "random" locations to give the spawner at least a minimal chance to defend himself against the spawncamper. The spawner will probably still be spawncamped, but at least he has a small chance to defend himself. Even this small chance is a country mile psychologically for players. So, there has already been a precedent set by HTC in general for this type of action.
Vulching is no different from the vehicle spawn issue except planes are far more flexible in attack and slower to get battle ready than a tank. Planes spawn at a few predictable points that can be "dry passed" in pendulum fashion. In this way defenders are denied a reasonable chance to defend themselves individually or their fields generally against roving, massive, vulching, milk-hordes that cherrypick vacant bases and make it a point to try to affect capture before defense can arrive from adjacent fields wherever possible.
Re-Read the definition of exploitation then that last sentence please...
Affording reactionary defenders 30 secs before they are "score fodder" to get their wheels up is not any different than a tank getting the time to rotate his turret toward a spawncamper to give him a chance to return fire or to move to take cover. The defending aircraft may still get vulched just as the tank may still get spawncamped, but psychologically, having at least a small chance to actually fight is incentive enough to do so and a potential boon to gameplay.
In my personal opinion, a change like this is a win/win for our players and HTC. It's very easy to implement as the code is already in place that prevents a bomber from using its defensive guns prior to liftoff. Unlike the ENY limiter for example, this change would not potentially disenfranchise entire swaths of players by blatantly restricting absolutely fundamental player choices. You will still be able to do everything you can do now all the time if you choose. The only difference is if you purely vulch you will not get score/rank "yum yums" or "text buffer candy puff pieces". So, much like the random vehicle spawns, it's not preventing anything it's just adjusting the currently broken risk vs reward ratio in favor of encouraging actual fighting for those who decide they want the direct reward.
-
This will be my last comment in this thread.
It depends on your definition of exploitation, but it definitely was according to mine.
Exploitation is intentionally taking unfair advantage of a game design flaw for maximum personal or collective benefit at the detriment of gameplay.
Zazen, when did you become so damned verbose? I seem to have missed that transitional epiphany...
I'm trying to understand what dog of yours is in this race. You never spawn a tank, aside from the occasional osti or wirby. The vast bulk of your kills are in "ship gunner" mode, IE: field acks and 5" (not much risk of being vulched in those). When you do fly, it's usually in a Tempest or Typhoon, two primary choices of dedicated cherrypickers, which is your admitted style after all. I'm not criticizing that, just pointing it out. Clearly, you don't get vulched or spawn camped because that's not your "game". Perhaps if you really want to encourage more actual fighting, you may want to step out of the field ack and fly more.
So, I'm still trying to figure out your angle here.
Also, the single point vehicle spawn was not a game flaw, nor was camping it an exploitation. It existed that way for 5 years. If it was an error, it would have been fixed immediately. Maybe by your definition it's an exploitation, but your definition is merely opinion. It's not exploitation to utilize a game feature. It is an exploitation to utilize a known game bug. Big difference.
My regards,
Widewing
-
. It's not exploitation to utilize a game feature. It is an exploitation to utilize a known game bug. Big difference.
My regards,
Widewing
:aok yep.
-
You know, Zazen, you write that great thread on the player/plane/etc. dynamic and then you go and forget about one of the major points of it in this thread.
What about the guy who can't get his name in lights, or an "attaboy" or a kill without resorting to vulching? Why take away his only chance to get this? I mean, it might not mean much to you, or me, or someone else, but it does mean something to some people.
This game is hard, and discouraging enough. If you're new and flying in a target-rich environment, you probably won't make it out alive regardless of what you're flying. If you're new and flying in a target-poor environment (horde), you probably won't have many chances to get those magic 2 kills. For some people, it can be a real accomplishment when they finally pull it off, no matter how they did it.
2 kills seems so easy to some, but it isn't for others. A name in lights seems so hollow to some, but it isn't for others. It might be the enjoyment they're looking to get out of the night. It might be a real accomplishment to them.
Yeah, I'll admit... A part of me wants to see how the "career vulch & runners" would react to something like this being put in place... And a part of me wants to see what the score pages would look like if this were implemented. But I don't want to make the game any "harder" for the new guy... And depending on what that new guy's looking to get out of this, such an idea might do exactly that.
-
Exactly, I've explained the logic of this from every possible angle I can think of. If the few vocal nay sayers are so obstinate in their position that they can find nothing in the previous 18 pages of explanations compelling, nothing will change their minds.
This is starting to remind me of asking your kid to clean his room, "Billy, clean your room please".
"No!",
"Billy clean your room now!"
"No!"
"Billy I'm not going to tell you again, clean your room!"
"No, I don't want to!"
<Takes belt off, Billy runs to his room>
<Billy calls child services and daddy gets owned> End of story
I also don't understand this comment as two very respectable members of the AH community, Murdr and Widewing whome are both official trainers, did not agree with it. Isn't that enough levarage? My feeling is even if it was only them, this would not have merit.
-
Ummm atta boy?
Scary rate huh? So, how many people in the arena typically are vulching like this?
Last count ... 136
-
Last count ... 136
:lol :aok
-
So, I'm still trying to figure out your angle here.
I'm guessing he doesn't have one, he probably just has way too much time on his hands and would be equally happy to argue either side. :rolleyes:
Badboy
-
You know, Zazen, you write that great thread on the player/plane/etc. dynamic and then you go and forget about one of the major points of it in this thread.
What about the guy who can't get his name in lights, or an "attaboy" or a kill without resorting to vulching? Why take away his only chance to get this? I mean, it might not mean much to you, or me, or someone else, but it does mean something to some people.
This game is hard, and discouraging enough. If you're new and flying in a target-rich environment, you probably won't make it out alive regardless of what you're flying. If you're new and flying in a target-poor environment (horde), you probably won't have many chances to get those magic 2 kills. For some people, it can be a real accomplishment when they finally pull it off, no matter how they did it.
2 kills seems so easy to some, but it isn't for others. A name in lights seems so hollow to some, but it isn't for others. It might be the enjoyment they're looking to get out of the night. It might be a real accomplishment to them.
Yeah, I'll admit... A part of me wants to see how the "career vulch & runners" would react to something like this being put in place... And a part of me wants to see what the score pages would look like if this were implemented. But I don't want to make the game any "harder" for the new guy... And depending on what that new guy's looking to get out of this, such an idea might do exactly that.
So we should just dumb down the skill level and not even worry about promoting the need to learn ACM because it's just to hard for the new players.. :aok
Strange I started playing COD4 a few months ago and only played in the realisim servers.. I got my butt handed to me on a regular basis but even in a FPS no one dumbed down the game and let me spawn camp because I was a noob.
-
So we should just dumb down the skill level and not even worry about promoting the need to learn ACM because it's just to hard for the new players.. :aok
Strange I started playing COD4 a few months ago and only played in the realisim servers.. I got my butt handed to me on a regular basis but even in a FPS no one dumbed down the game and let me spawn camp because I was a noob.
Exactly, so, I think that if in CoD:4 you can have martyrdom (drops a live nade when you die) after a certain level, after a certain rank, we should drop a live 1k lb bomb on death... 2 second fuse, gives 'em enough time to fly over your non-existant plane :]
-
So, I'm still trying to figure out your angle here.
Widewing
I have no ulterior motives whatsoever. I am probably the only person in this thread that has no personal vested interest in the ramifications of this change whether it happens or not from my own individual gameplay perspective. I don't fly for score/rank, I never vulch, I never milk-horde, I never get vulched and I never defend reactively. But, I do really, really enjoy 37mm AA gunning, so this change may even curtail my personal fun-factor a bit. The only reason I invest time and energy in any thread explaining a position is because I believe in it and truly believe it would fundamentally improve the game, not for me personally, for everyone.
The salient point that intrigued me about this particular idea is that it partially addresses one of my biggest concerns for this genre, past, present and future. That is, the neglectful condescension of gameplay to appease the lowest common denominator of player. There must be a line drawn in the sand at some point where we, HTC and the community, say, "That's enough!" and take appropriate measures to "pull up the boot straps" of gameplay from the depths of the gutter to somewhere vaguely close to the ideal. If that never happens, the game is in dire peril of devolving into a hideous caricature of its former self, an abomination that is an insult to all those who helped create something beautiful over the years for everyone else to enjoy.
-
New players wont know the difference.... So that argument is possible. But can't take place in the experience...... Negatives can only be expressed with representational systems ie.. mathematics and LANUGUAGE..... but can not happen in the physical universe
-
. I am probably the only person in this thread that has no personal vested interest in the ramifications of this change whether it happens or not from my own individual gameplay perspective.
No, you are not. You sure are full of yourself, aren't you?
There must be a line drawn in the sand at some point where we, HTC and the community, say, "That's enough!"
Where's the community uproar about this? I've asked you this repeatedly and you've ignored it. You do not represent the community. You have not been appointed the community rep. Only you and a couple of others are on board for this and even your small group cannot agree on the reason for implementing it.
-
So we should just dumb down the skill level and not even worry about promoting the need to learn ACM because it's just to hard for the new players.. :aok
You promote the need to learn ACM when you catch them and shoot them down with vigor...
You promote something else when you chastise them on 200 or the BBS... (And I know darn well I've been highly guilty of this too).
-
Well, I aint saying nothing in the game should ever be changed but one thing your not going to change with rules is human nature.
The only real thing I'd like to see changed is all the side switching and intra-team comms. But, at the same time, those who dont want to see them changed have valid points too. A guy whos been in the game for years, never did a dishonest thing, and likes talking to a friend on another chess piece makes a valid point for no change.
Vulching?? how do you really make rules that can change the flawed gameplay of players who are the causation of their own flaws? And trying to take off from a capped base is flawed tactics. Would allowing a fire free zone around the runway change that? And any cappers would simply stand off a bit and wait for the cons to leave their own ack, as most do already. Ok the base has been de-acked? Well then the attacking team has earned the right to the airspace. And all teams play by the same rules.
Yes there are characters who always seem to show up at capped and de-acked bases in their 4 cannon fighters. But how is rule changing going to change that? And how is it going to change the flawed and lazy behavior of those upping?
You present a good argument zazen, and certainly its your right to do so, but I just dont see this kinda rule changing as helping anything.
-
No, you are not. You sure are full of yourself, aren't you?
Where's the community uproar about this? I've asked you this repeatedly and you've ignored it. You do not represent the community. You have not been appointed the community rep. Only you and a couple of others are on board for this and even your small group cannot agree on the reason for implementing it.
Steve, no offense buddy. But, I am not responding to you anymore. You are being arbitrary, personally insulting, argumentative and you're repeating yourself ad nauseam. For no other apparent reason than repeating yourself and not in a "creative exploration" sense that facilitates constructive debate. But, in a perfunctory and snide way that facilitates pissing contests, which I have absolutely no interest in participating in...
I never really intended to post again after the Vehicle spawn example post, but I felt I owed WideWing the courtesy of a reply because of my deep respect for him personally...
EDIT: PS: Steve, Me declining to muddy this worthy idea and thread by condescending to your, "internet tough guy bullying tactics", by getting into a personal pissing contest with you is not you winning "anything" much less a line of argument. This isn't an escalating, testosterone soaked, bar room contest that crescendos into a broken bottle barfight. This is a civil discussion whereby everyone who ingenuously participates wins, no one loses. How you could possibly think pulling some "truncated for effect" quotes out of context to insinuate nonexistent personal motivations for subterfuge is even "debating", much less "winning" I don't know. But, I now have some powerful insights into why you allegedly don't perceive a downward spiral of gameplay.
-
Steve, no offense buddy. But, I am not responding to you anymore. You are being arbitrary, personally insulting, argumentative and you're repeating yourself ad nausea. For no other apparent reason than repeating yourself and not in a "creative exploration" way that facilitates constructive debate, but in a perfunctory and snide way that facilitates pissing contests, which I have absolutely no interest in participating in...
I never really intended to post again after by Vehicle spawn post, but I felt I owed WideWing the courtesy of a reply because of my deep respect for him personally...
No offense taken. This is pretty much the only option left for you since you cannot admit defeat or failure. By the way, it's "ad nauseam".
Pretending to be above the discussion is the only way you can avoid actually addressing the counterpoints given to your argument. Unfortunately, only the dull or disinterested would miss this. I am neither. You may go now.
-
AH has been a caricature of its former self for... well, probably forever I imagine.
I've burned myself out on this game to the point that the only thing that ever brings me back is new planes, and then only for a week or so. I actually enjoyed the little FFA area in the DA more than any of the arenas my last trip back... I don't believe I even logged into the MA for about 6 months before I just cancelled the account.
I suspect that for most people the game starts out as a 'air combat game', but once they get their bellybutton handed to them the first 5 or 6 flights they give up and it becomes and lemming sort of game, where you find a large green horde and join it.
It would be hard to say that the average skill level hasn't dropped precipitously over the years.. I play maybe 1 week a year now and I'm still better at fighting than about 99.5% of the people I ran into in the FFA area (there was actually only one guy that could really me a hard time, and that was Badboy in his various incarnations) - and they are there to fight (or at least do their best imitation).
HT has no incentive to change the gameplay, I don't really see why he would concern himself with a population of people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.. as long as that number keeps growing. The cold, hard truth is that MOST of the people who play this game enjoy the gameplay - simply because if they didn't, they wouldn't play.
-
HT has no incentive to change the gameplay, I don't really see why he would concern himself with a population of people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.. as long as that number keeps growing. The cold, hard truth is that MOST of the people who play this game enjoy the gameplay - simply because if they didn't, they wouldn't play.
The problem with this is, some just don't know it was/can be better than it is. No one is arguing this is not a great game. I love it dearly myself. If we didn't love it not only wouldn't we play, we wouldn't spend hours writing passionately about ideas to make it even better on these forums.
There has to be a compromise between "easy accessability to the masses" and "maintaining the integrity of the game design concepts for the genre purists". When you concede too much of the latter to appease the former it initiates a self-re-inforcing cycle. The more gameplay is allowed to degrade the more people addicted to gratification without effort join and stay, but also the more those that aspire to a higher level of gameplay, like yourself, leave in droves and never come back. It doesn't take long before the design concept has been compromised so much by the lower common denominator of players it becomes irretrievable from the abyss. Many MMOG's have fallen by the wayside in exactly this way. We owe it to HTC and our community to do whatever we can to prevent that toilet boil effect from swallowing our collective passion that is AH.
-
AH has been a caricature of its former self for... well, probably forever I imagine.
I've burned myself out on this game to the point that the only thing that ever brings me back is new planes, and then only for a week or so. I actually enjoyed the little FFA area in the DA more than any of the arenas my last trip back... I don't believe I even logged into the MA for about 6 months before I just cancelled the account.
I suspect that for most people the game starts out as a 'air combat game', but once they get their bellybutton handed to them the first 5 or 6 flights they give up and it becomes and lemming sort of game, where you find a large green horde and join it.
It would be hard to say that the average skill level hasn't dropped precipitously over the years.. I play maybe 1 week a year now and I'm still better at fighting than about 99.5% of the people I ran into in the FFA area (there was actually only one guy that could really me a hard time, and that was Badboy in his various incarnations) - and they are there to fight (or at least do their best imitation).
HT has no incentive to change the gameplay, I don't really see why he would concern himself with a population of people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.. as long as that number keeps growing. The cold, hard truth is that MOST of the people who play this game enjoy the gameplay - simply because if they didn't, they wouldn't play.
Man granted I agree with you on the skill level but the DA Furball lake is a joke anymore. The skill level there is a bit lower than what's in the MA IMHO. Hell there are now squads in the DA that do nothing but climb to 15k and then try to gangbang lone fighters so they can land kills. DA Furball Lake is a bigger joke than the MA at most times. Every once in a while you can find a good stick or two in there but it's not very often.
I think the DA FB lake has turned into a extreeme example of where the MA is heading.
-
The problem with this is, some just don't know it was/can be better than it is. No one is arguing this is not a great game. I love it dearly myself. If we didn't love it not only wouldn't we play, we wouldn't spend hours writing passionately about ideas to make it even better on these forums.
There has to be a compromise between "easy accessability to the masses" and "maintaining the integrity of the game design concepts for the genre purists". When you concede too much of the latter to appease the former it initiates a self-re-inforcing cycle. The more gameplay is allowed to degrade the more people addicted to gratification without effort join and stay, but also the more those that aspire to a higher level of gameplay, like yourself, leave in droves and never come back. It doesn't take long before the design concept has been compromised so much by the lower common denominator of players it becomes irretrievable from the abyss. Many MMOG's have fallen by the wayside in exactly this way. We owe it to HTC and our community to do whatever we can to prevent that toilet boil effect from swallowing our collective passion that is AH.
I think I've probably been replaced at least tenfold. The heyday of the game for me was when the average MA population was 150 at peak times. The game has more than likely never been healthier than now, from a financial standpoint. So while AH is not a successful 'air combat' game (at least not from my perspective) it is a very successful niche game, and odds are it will remain so.
-
I think I've probably been replaced at least tenfold. The heyday of the game for me was when the average MA population was 150 at peak times. The game has more than likely never been healthier than now, from a financial standpoint. So while AH is not a successful 'air combat' game (at least not from my perspective) it is a very successful niche game, and odds are it will remain so.
But, it can be both if the collective will to make it so is there. The trick would be to not wait for mass panic and hysteria before tweaking it periodically like what precipitated some other major fundamental changes historically. This will help maintain community stability and gently keep the game equally appealing to air combat purists and addicts to gratification without effort simultaneously. Then financial success and game design integrity are both assured without the risk of permanently disenfranchising major categories of patrons.
-
But, it can be both if the collective will to make it so is there.
Yeah, but this isn't there. Horses and water...
You can't make people try, and really, when it all boils down, that's what you're hoping will happen if you change the scoring in this way. You're hoping that people who go for score will make for "better fights" simply because the option to vulch for score is no longer available to them. It's an interesting theory. It might even work for a few people. Even so,
It won't change those that run, run, run away and then turn around for a hot merge;
It won't change those that run away from a single con, call for help, and THEN turn back into single con;
It won't change those that are ok gangbanging you, but run from any chance of being ganged themselves; and
It won't change those that vulch just for the heck of it, anyway.
Basically, it's not going to affect the game in a positive way, at all. To be honest, I see this as just a way to pee in Pacerr et al's cheerios. After all, they will be the ones that feel the pinch. The majority of the customer base... IE, the blissfully ignorant, willful or not, will still happily continue doing the same things they have always done. Why? Because that's what they do every night - stands to reason that's what they enjoy doing, or they wouldn't do it. It's what's fun for them.
Changing around the scoring parameters will not get the masses to all of a sudden find your type of fun, their type of fun. It won't get them to put in the effort to learn how to do that. It won't all of a sudden turn them into the type of glutton for punishment personality required to get good at the "purist" aspects of this game. The majority will still be just as timid and clueless as they are today. No change in scoring is going to change that.
And really, if the point is to increase the amount of "purists" or "dogfighters" or "people who actually care to try and improve," why don't we actually try some things that might accomplish that instead of just taking away the ball from a certain group of people, just because they enjoy what we don't?
You want to see gameplay change? You want to encourage people to try out "our" way of having fun? Stop using terms like "purist." The good sticks already come off as the aristocracy of this place. Fewer in number yet larger in assumed importance, or at least that's the impression I've noticed many, many "plebs" get... Just look at how many people view the DA as an ego fest.
And you know, Zazen, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you or singling you out, and I certainly don't want you to think that I believe I'm above that "purist" mentality myself, because I'm certainly not. There are more than my fair share of quotes, threads, and 200 jabs out there that squarely put me in it... Still, if I really want to do MY part to help keep this game fun for ME, I'D sure better make the effort to develop a longer fuze and less condescending attitude.
-
It won't change those that run, run, run away and then turn around for a hot merge;
It won't change those that run away from a single con, call for help, and THEN turn back into single con;
It won't change those that are ok gangbanging you, but run from any chance of being ganged themselves; and
It won't change those that vulch just for the heck of it, anyway.
I agree with all of that. In fact, that's the point. Improving gameplay without getting to the point of making huge and dramatic changes in reaction to mass hysteria to problems unnecessarily allowed to spin out of control. Instead, proactively tweaking gameplay one minor change at a time before the problem reaches the point of implosion. In this way you can avoid the classic, over-correction that happens when you start to lose control of your car on a slippery road.
-
Yeah, but this isn't there. Horses and water...
You can't make people try, and really, when it all boils down, that's what you're hoping will happen if you change the scoring in this way. You're hoping that people who go for score will make for "better fights" simply because the option to vulch for score is no longer available to them. It's an interesting theory. It might even work for a few people. Even so,
It won't change those that run, run, run away and then turn around for a hot merge;
It won't change those that run away from a single con, call for help, and THEN turn back into single con;
It won't change those that are ok gangbanging you, but run from any chance of being ganged themselves; and
It won't change those that vulch just for the heck of it, anyway.
Basically, it's not going to affect the game in a positive way, at all. To be honest, I see this as just a way to pee in Pacerr et al's cheerios. After all, they will be the ones that feel the pinch. The majority of the customer base... IE, the blissfully ignorant, willful or not, will still happily continue doing the same things they have always done. Why? Because that's what they do every night - stands to reason that's what they enjoy doing, or they wouldn't do it. It's what's fun for them.
Changing around the scoring parameters will not get the masses to all of a sudden find your type of fun, their type of fun. It won't get them to put in the effort to learn how to do that. It won't all of a sudden turn them into the type of glutton for punishment personality required to get good at the "purist" aspects of this game. The majority will still be just as timid and clueless as they are today. No change in scoring is going to change that.
And really, if the point is to increase the amount of "purists" or "dogfighters" or "people who actually care to try and improve," why don't we actually try some things that might accomplish that instead of just taking away the ball from a certain group of people, just because they enjoy what we don't?
You want to see gameplay change? You want to encourage people to try out "our" way of having fun? Stop using terms like "purist." The good sticks already come off as the aristocracy of this place. Fewer in number yet larger in assumed importance, or at least that's the impression I've noticed many, many "plebs" get... Just look at how many people view the DA as an ego fest.
And you know, Zazen, I don't want you to feel like I'm picking on you or singling you out, and I certainly don't want you to think that I believe I'm above that "purist" mentality myself, because I'm certainly not. There are more than my fair share of quotes, threads, and 200 jabs out there that squarely put me in it... Still, if I really want to do MY part to help keep this game fun for ME, I'D sure better make the effort to develop a longer fuze and less condescending attitude.
did you get into the estrogen pills again? :huh
j/k it's an astute observation.
-
I'm guessing he doesn't have one, he probably just has way too much time on his hands and would be equally happy to argue either side. :rolleyes:
Badboy
Actually, although this is definitely not the case on this particular topic, it is true in general. I have been on medical leave for a while, so have had lots of time to express myself. I could also debate anything. I could come up with a compelling argument that society would be vastly improved if all men changed their names to Orville, wore crotchless leather chaps and wielded a riding crop.
-
I could come up with a compelling argument that society would be vastly improved if all men changed their names to Orville, wore crotchless leather chaps and wielded a riding crop.
If it were truly compelling, I might just have to shoot you. :lol