Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Lusche on December 08, 2011, 11:09:44 AM
-
that came to be a minute ago while washing the dishes (wife will be back home from work soon :uhoh), and that's why I post it here and not in the wishlist yet.
Been thinking about strats, targets for bombers, milking of town centers and gameplay for a few days.
How about... :headscratch: making towns and bases only be relevant for 'attack' score, and only the strats relevant for 'bomber' score? We already have a similar thing for fighter mode, which doesn't account for killed GV's.
This would truly set apart bomber (strategic) from attack (tactical) mode, and could have interesting results in gameplay. :joystick:
Thoughts?
-
if it aint broke, dont fix it
-
that came to be a minute ago while washing the dishes (wife will be back home from work soon :uhoh), and that's why I post it here and not in the wishlist yet.
Been thinking about strats, targets for bombers, milking of town centers and gameplay for a few days.
How about... :headscratch: making towns and bases only be relevant for 'attack' score, and only the strats relevant for 'bomber' score? We already have a similar thing for fighter mode, which doesn't account for killed GV's.
This would truly set apart bomber (strategic) from attack (tactical) mode, and could have interesting results in gameplay. :joystick:
Thoughts?
I like it lusche, I would also like to see every plane except bombers default to fighter mode when launched until a legitimate ground target is destroyed, then the sortie would be scored in attack mode! No more "gaming" attack mode to protect your "fighter score" :aok
JUGgler
-
if it aint broke, dont fix it
Exactly my sentiment :)
-
I like it lusche, I would also like to see every plane except bombers default to fighter mode when launched until a legitimate ground target is destroyed, then the sortie would be scored in attack mode! No more "gaming" attack mode to protect your "fighter score" :aok
Well, I think that's a different topic, so I will limit myself just the single remark: It's much less frequently done as one may (and I once did) think ;)
-
The town LancStuka carpet bombers will NOT like this, but I do.
-
Coding is the key, Loosh. Coding is the key. The target does not determine how something is scored, but rather what the vehicle is that is doing the attacking.
-
I don't see that it matters. You're just limiting the points to "attack" score.... Since the vast majority don't play for score, what's the end result?
I'm going to bomb a town with B-25Cs.... If it is changed to the points go elsewhere... Hrm... okay. I'm still going to bomb a town with a B-25C!
-
To be fair, I would add the "attack" category to the B-26 too. (And maybe remove it from the Mossie?)
So we would have:
B-17
B-24
B-29
Lancaster
(Mossie?)
as pure bombers.
and
B-26
Ju-88
Ki-67
B-25C
Boston III
as bomber / attackers.
-
I don't see that it matters. You're just limiting the points to "attack" score.... Since the vast majority don't play for score, what's the end result?
I'm going to bomb a town with B-25Cs.... If it is changed to the points go elsewhere... Hrm... okay. I'm still going to bomb a town with a B-25C!
I don't want to change all and everything. I don't want everyone stop attacking bases in 24's.
I'm trying to increase variety. More reasons to select a medium bomber for a certain mission type. More reasons to use heavy bombers for "strategic" mission types. And finally, make the most difficult target the source of beloved score points instead of easy attacks random town centers.
A matter of balance and variety.
-
Coding is the key, Loosh. Coding is the key. The target does not determine how something is scored, but rather what the vehicle is that is doing the attacking.
Yes, and?
It's not that code is set in stone. We did have quite a few changes that required changes in code ;)
-
If they just made the towns worth less.
I'll still take a lanc out and white flag a town. I won't have to contend with someone going and porking all the town centers and screwing up the timers because they are bombing for score only.
shdo
-
Is your goal more to cultivate a wider sampling of aircraft than the typical MA "B24s slam a field" tactic?
If the goal is to cultivate more medium bombers, I think that changing the scoring category isn't the solution. I think changing the points reward is the route you want to take. Make it more lucrative to bomb in a lesser plane. Make the reward bigger for the planes that take more skill or more daring to fly into harm's way. THEN lower the reward for the big super bombers that can fly into hostile air without an escort, rack up 5 kills, and still make it home.
Meaning, lower the points you get from the B-17 and B-24 but increase them for all smaller bombers. Make the B-26 earn less points than the B-25 because it's far better armed to defend itself, for example. Come up with a "ranking" where the Betty and Ju88 earn the most points per object destroyed and the B-17 and B-24 earn the least (and B-29 of course!)
Just a counter-proposal.
-
I'm not so sure about this because it takes something away but does not give anything back that I can see. If buff drivers enjoy doing a tour and just hitting the town centers, well he's found his fun there and I'm fine with that. They aren't unstoppable either, I enjoy hunting down pilots like that and find it to be a challenge too.
-
if it aint broke, dont fix it
there are alot that have the opinion that the strat system is in fact, broke.
-
Is your goal more to cultivate a wider sampling of aircraft than the typical MA "B24s slam a field" tactic?
If the goal is to cultivate more medium bombers, I think that changing the scoring category isn't the solution.
Yes, that's sort of "goal". But it's just part of my goals, and surely my proposal isn't aimed at radically changing the game and what not. Of course it will not make everyone act totally different all of the sudden - but that's nothing I'm trying for anyway
What I had in mind (not in order of importance!)
- Simple way to increasing the strat target's attractiveness (though I would very much prefer a increased gameplay significance for them)
- Making the most difficult target (distance/target spread/auto puffy/ obvious route) the most rewarding one. I'm not annoyed about the "drop 12 town centers" routine (which is far easier, and with much les risk and effort involved). I just think it's just not the way it as should be
- Increasing the number of long range high altitude sorties and thus increasing the gameplay variety by shifting the focus a tiny bit away from the purely tactical smash&grab
- Making it more attractive to use medium bombers for tactical missions, without forcing anyone to do so. If you still wanna NOE Lancs... fine.
- And I also think there should simply be more differentiation between tactical and strategic missions. Why shouldn't score reflect that difference? It also reflects difference between fighter and attack missions, a line being much more blurry than this one.
I'm very well aware that there may be better solutions for individual aspects or problems. But this is, in my opinion a rather simple and reasonable approach to adjusting several aspects at once.
I'm not so sure about this because it takes something away but does not give anything back that I can see. If buff drivers enjoy doing a tour and just hitting the town centers, well he's found his fun there and I'm fine with that.
I don't take away his ability to do so and have fun. But as I have stated, I think risk, effort & reward should be somewhat proportionate.
And there have many things been "taken away" like that. We once used to be able to spawn to strats in GVs to boost our scores. That has been taken away too without getting anything in return ;)
-
Wonderful idea Lusche may be we could have pie factories to bomb,and thus increase value of said savoury products :old:
-
I like it lusche, I would also like to see every plane except bombers default to fighter mode when launched until a legitimate ground target is destroyed, then the sortie would be scored in attack mode! No more "gaming" attack mode to protect your "fighter score" :aok
JUGgler
I disagree with the concept but would agree to only aircraft carring bombs being in attack mode but as soon as bombs are released, changed to Fighter mode.
-
Something similar would be great. I want my 38 scored as a GV when the 80th is rolling out to defend a spawn from tanks.
It would only go to bomber if we take off.
AWESOME :aok
-
Something similar would be great. I want my 38 scored as a GV when the 80th is rolling out to defend a spawn from tanks.
It would only go to bomber if we take off.
AWESOME :aok
Ok, you support my idea, I support yours. Deal? :aok :D
-
I don't see why we even HAVE the attack category.... Instead of automatic switching, why not do away with it?
Just have "gun hit on planes %," "kills," "bomb hit%," "gun hit on buildings %" and just call it "score" -- no "bomber score" no "attacker" no "fighter score" --- just 1 comprehensive "score"....
Why does it need to be categorized?
-
because your more likely to die when attacking a base????
come on krusty don't be dense. it's because people want to be able to have a high K/D against other planes and be able to attack something now and again and not ruin the K/D.
it's not hard to understand. don't have to agree with it, wasn't this way in a previous life of HT's game but there were plenty of complaints about not having two scoring modes. was also a way to get squadies who worried about K/D to actually carry ord once upon a time too.
it does have the ability to let you "protect" your fighter score when abused and someone will abuse anything.
I would like it if anytime you launched with ord Attack was automatically selected. I don't worry about fighter score but I like to see info on the ord i place on target.
shdo
-
Couldn't your wife have done the dishes when she got home...? Just sayin'
-
A while back a made a thread about increasing the value of the strats to get guys to quit bombing town centers for points. One guy bombing town centers can desynchronize base taking for hours.
Providing someone with no reward for bombing the town centers with certain planes may not be the way ahead, unfortunately the way ahead is to have an effective strategic distribution system. I have seen a couple of neat ideas for ones on the wishlist side.
What I have begun to consider, everytime I have a GFI is whether or not a guy would go to another field, switch sides, or just log if something was not available. Say you dropped the refinery and the new strat someone put in place made it so all airfields are limited to 50% fuel. Would that make folks more prone to defend the strats, or as said above, log?
I really do not think there is an answer. Personally I wish there was a better strat system, or a way to rally folks on one side to defend something, but most folks who play seem to be content doing there thing with squads or by themselves. Status Quo may just be the best way.
-
A while back a made a thread about increasing the value of the strats to get guys to quit bombing town centers for points. One guy bombing town centers can desynchronize base taking for hours.
Providing someone with no reward for bombing the town centers with certain planes may not be the way ahead, unfortunately the way ahead is to have an effective strategic distribution system. I have seen a couple of neat ideas for ones on the wishlist side.
What I have begun to consider, everytime I have a GFI is whether or not a guy would go to another field, switch sides, or just log if something was not available. Say you dropped the refinery and the new strat someone put in place made it so all airfields are limited to 50% fuel. Would that make folks more prone to defend the strats, or as said above, log?
I really do not think there is an answer. Personally I wish there was a better strat system, or a way to rally folks on one side to defend something, but most folks who play seem to be content doing there thing with squads or by themselves. Status Quo may just be the best way.
log
semp
-
A good concept to try and compell players to alter their game play style, if it has become counter productive for game play.
So, I assume that game play suffers from players taking the option to fly to a nearby target and grab easy points for easily destructible objects. :old: Lusche, you and DirtDart are on to something there.
The difference in the type of concepts that you and I have is the motivation. I like to think in terms of community and not just the individual. Score is an individual goal. Increasing your chess piece's chances for "conquering" a map, has both individual and community value.
Here is how the bomb town for score, has become counter productive for game play:
Player A, takes a full load of bombs in a heavy bomber, with no intention of capturing any of the towns he hits, he is successful in obtaining a remarkable "score" for hitting multiple targets at their most vulnerable (condensed) locations.
Player B, takes a full load of bombs in a heavy bomber 30 minutes later, with the intention of preparing one town for a base capture. He hits the required amount of structures in no less than 3 passes, while encountering alerted fighters protecting their field. Only, he has no knowledge of how long ago buildings have been destroyed by Player A, and just as the 9th troop entires the maproom, town pops and capture has been effectively ruined by Player B's own countryman.
Player B loses 2 drones and is badly damaged or low on ammo or fuel and is forced to try and make it home with a considerable lesser score than Player A.
Man that Player A, sure did an awesome job. :rolleyes:
Remove towns from the capture process altogether and I have a completely different view of player A, but for now he is just another person playing an online game as if they were offline.
-
+1 i think its a good idea :salute
-
So you want to make the base attacking hordes bigger? Good idea. :rolleyes:
-
So you want to make the base attacking hordes bigger?
I'm afraid you have to explain that one to me... :)
-
How often has anyone bombing strats affected game play?
-
How often has anyone bombing strats affected game play?
Now that's a very good question :)
(To answer the superficial part of it: Since the strats redesign: Not many times... if at all ;))
-
How often has anyone bombing strats affected game play?
never seen it have any impact whatsoever
-
In the old days you'd see radar dropped a couple times a night. When it was you'd see whole squads drop everything and resupply to get the dar back on. Remember many a night being one of many C47 flying through the mountain passes making resupply runs. :aok
Todays player hasn't a clue as to what "tactical" or strategic" means. The only way your going to get hordes cut back is to restrict them with a game mechanic, zone ENY, zone vehicle limits, or some other mechanic that makes it harder with more people than it could be with less.
While I think more people play for score than admit it making the strats more "valuable" may bring a few more people to hit Strats, but it isn't going to help slow the horde. You still going to have more than enough hitting a single base with no intention of fighting against anything but the buildings.
-
I don't want to change all and everything. I don't want everyone stop attacking bases in 24's.
I'm trying to increase variety. More reasons to select a medium bomber for a certain mission type. More reasons to use heavy bombers for "strategic" mission types. And finally, make the most difficult target the source of beloved score points instead of easy attacks random town centers.
A matter of balance and variety.
I get it. I think folks do attack for score. But many like to just drop the hangars and will continue to do so even if they get no points for it. Are you suggesting B-24 bombs only work against designated targets? or just the points?
-
I get it. I think folks do attack for score. But many like to just drop the hangars and will continue to do so even if they get no points for it. Are you suggesting B-24 bombs only work against designated targets? or just the points?
Just the points. I do not want the bombs to magically fail or similar stuff. Hangars could still be dropped with any kind of plane, though player might bow consider using medium bombers for this kind of tactical attacks, while the 'classic' heavies are going more for the deep raid stuff.
But nobody is forced to do so - It's just as is is already with 'pure' fighters. They still can deack fields or kill town buildings. They just do not score.
-
but it isn't going to help slow the horde
But that is not my intention anyway, though I would not complain if that would happen (verrrry unlikely though).
-
Perhaps having the Bomber, or Bomber/Attack player having to pick a "Mission Profile" in the Hangar whilst selecting their load-out and being scored according to the profile selected may be an option to explore; bombs dropped outside of the selected Mission Profile would not be scored. This does not mean a target would not be destroyed, only that the pilot would not receive score for destroying targets outside of the selected Mission Profile.
For example, Mission Profiles could be "Tactical", meaning surgically hitting airfields and their related airfield targets, or "Strategic", long range bomber missions hitting only the Strat Targets. "Air-to-Ground" missions could also be a category and be scored only by hitting and interdicting GVs, or CVs.
Towns could become "No Value" targets (no points awarded) unless as a part of an organized base take mission planned in the Mission Editor where the Bomber pilot could select "Town" as his mission profile. This doesn't mean Towns couldn't be bombed, it simply means that the Bomber Pilot would not receive any points for bombing the Town unless he/she was a part of an organized mission planned through the Mission Editor for that particular Base/Town where they selected "Town" as their Mission Profile.
Next, make the Strats important enough to warrant a 2 hour Mission by a single set of Bombers to hit them. Raise the amount of time for Strats to resupply themselves significantly. Soften the City Strat and harden the other Strats. Make defending the City Strat very important since it resupplies the other Strats, but make the other Strats a bit more difficult to take down.
-
Perhaps having the Bomber, or Bomber/Attack player having to pick a "Mission Profile" in the Hangar whilst selecting their load-out and being scored according to the profile selected may be an option to explore; bombs dropped outside of the selected Mission Profile would not be scored. This does not mean a target would not be destroyed, only that the pilot would not receive score for destroying targets outside of the selected Mission Profile.
For example, Mission Profiles could be "Tactical", meaning surgically hitting airfields and their related airfield targets, or "Strategic", long range bomber missions hitting only the Strat Targets. "Air-to-Ground" missions could also be a category and be scored only by hitting and interdicting GVs, or CVs.
Towns could become "No Value" targets (no points awarded) unless as a part of an organized base take mission planned in the Mission Editor where the Bomber pilot could select "Town" as his mission profile. This doesn't mean Towns couldn't be bombed, it simply means that the Bomber Pilot would not receive any points for bombing the Town unless he/she was a part of an organized mission planned through the Mission Editor for that particular Base/Town where they selected "Town" as their Mission Profile.
Next, make the Strats important enough to warrant a 2 hour Mission by a single set of Bombers to hit them. Raise the amount of time for Strats to resupply themselves significantly. Soften the City Strat and harden the other Strats. Make defending the City Strat very important since it resupplies the other Strats, but make the other Strats a bit more difficult to take down.
The mission planning tool in AH is not what it used to be, and I don’t see AH making any changes soon. What’s wrong with your plan is that often my squad leaves a base with Heavy P38’s enroute we find that we have been tasked to a secondary target. Or tasked to dump our ords and provide a fighter CAP . That the basis nature of our mission has changed. How do you see these type of changes in mission being accommodated with your plan?
-
The mission planning tool in AH is not what it used to be, and I don’t see AH making any changes soon. What’s wrong with your plan is that often my squad leaves a base with Heavy P38’s enroute we find that we have been tasked to a secondary target. Or tasked to dump our ords and provide a fighter CAP . That the basis nature of our mission has changed. How do you see these type of changes in mission being accommodated with your plan?
Traveler,
What I have proposed is (so far) Bomber-Centric. What you have brought forth is Fighter/Attack. I've no issues with the current Fighter/Attack mode.
Being a Corsair nut myself, I enjoy a good Fighter/Attack Mission. ;-)
As for the Mission Editor, I've no idea what HiTech and crew can do with it; I've only postulated an idea that could potentially be tied to the Mission Editor, if coding such is possible.
As for Bombers flying under the same scenario you have described, perhaps, again, in the Hangar, a Mission Profile could be selected with Primary and Secondary targets also selected under that particular Mission Profile...just some thoughts.
-
Just the points. I do not want the bombs to magically fail or similar stuff. Hangars could still be dropped with any kind of plane, though player might bow consider using medium bombers for this kind of tactical attacks, while the 'classic' heavies are going more for the deep raid stuff.
But nobody is forced to do so - It's just as is is already with 'pure' fighters. They still can deack fields or kill town buildings. They just do not score.
I like the idea. I had mentioned something similar a while back which was increasing the points for Strats over Bases. Your idea takes that to it's end point. :salute
-
To be fair, I would add the "attack" category to the B-26 too. (And maybe remove it from the Mossie?)
B Mossies were used for attack type missions, such as chucking 4k bombs into train tunnels.
EDIT:
It would be nice if the perk point rewards were pretty equal between hitting the city or factories and hit town centers.
-
B Mossies were used for attack type missions, such as chucking 4k bombs into train tunnels.
EDIT:
It would be nice if the perk point rewards were pretty equal between hitting the city or factories and hit town centers.
That was a brain fart on my side anyway. The Mossie doesn't have an attack rating. :o
-
Lusche, it seems to me the answer goes back to perking ordnance. If the system for ordnance was worked out, in say a one for one exchange rate, then you might see an end to lanc stuka and so forth, here is my explanation.
I receive one bomb perk for every object damaged relative to the damage potential of the ordnance. Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe there is a point system of potential damage attached to each ord and when they explode that damage affects what it can. So, if I destroy a tank with a single bomb, I get my bomb perk back, no perk loss (say generic vehicle). If I destroy XX buildings using one XXXX bomb I get my one bomb perk back. Make a system where it is a low sum game. This would force precision with bombing and perhaps put an end to the lancstuka and heavy bombers at 4k dropping 8k of ords on a jeep.
If ords were perked, I would probably award everyone in the game say 20 perks a month, no one is perfect after all. Then it is on the player to improve their ord perks or lose them all based on choices or accuracy. I think that alone would have a huge impact on the game, especially if HTC made the strats the big perk winners for perked ords instead of the towns.
-
I think the idea of perking bombs on bombers is absurd. That is their primary role. It would be like perking guns on a fighter. Perking the larger, or even all, bombs on fighters would help give bombers a more distinct role instead of frequently being overshadowed by bomb laden fighters.
-
I would vote for ords over 500lb to carry perks. It would not be the total load that would carry the perk just the load type.
i.e both the P51 and the Lanc would have free access to 500lb bombs but would carry and equal total perk when 1000lbers are used and the lanc would carry an even higher total perk when using the cookie. The ac has to land successfully to save the perk price)
Some rarer gun load outs could also be perked e.g the three cannon La7
Perk would be set on the hanger option list.
Back on subject
I think level bombers should be rewarded for killing towns and I think also (reluctantly) hangers. But not GV's (if they are even rewarded for killing GV's)
Re attack mode/classification I think a lot more can and should be done with it (que Krusty)
-
I think level bombers should be rewarded for killing towns and I think also (reluctantly) hangers. But not GV's (if they are even rewarded for killing GV's)
That's the status quo.
-
I'm afraid you have to explain that one to me... :)
If there's no buffs to drop the hangers then the hoarde will multiply to ineptly do so with attack planes.
-
If there's no buffs to drop the hangers
:huh
Did I mention such a thing?
-
if it aint broke, dont fix it
I thought it was broke.
-
In regards to Lanc stuka's anyone bailing because they don't want to land should be penalised with a -300 perk point deduction.
-
(...) bailing because they don't want to land should (...)
Now you only have to find a way for the program to identify a players intents and motivations... ;)
-
In regards to Lanc stuka's anyone bailing because they don't want to land should be penalised with a -300 perk point deduction.
Thats wrong in that way.
People may have to shut down AH for various reasons. Does it mean they lose 300 perks?
My internet is crappy, i used to disconnect in every second-third hour. Does it mean i should have lost 300 pers with every single disconnect?
While i agree bomb and bail is super lame, i dont think a perk penality can solve it at all. Just increase the proxy range, for example.
-
I agree you should have 400 perk points deducted :)
-
come on trollio, try harder
-
:rofl
I have a hangover :)