Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on January 06, 2012, 01:03:27 AM
-
I've been thinking, the fights that were going on last I played were usually quite pitiful creatures. Almost always heavily in favor of one side. The ones that were pretty even were usually involving two massive hordes that just resulted in a stagnating fight.
Now bear with me on this, but perhaps a way we could encourage people to get away from the hordes and into some real fights would be to modify the darbar so that the smaller the group, the more lenient it is with regards to the altitude cap. A single plane (or even a bomber formation) won't set off the darbar until the player climbs above 20k. Up to 3 planes can go to 10k without setting off the darbar. Up to 5 can go to 5k. Up to 8 can fly at 2k, 10 can fly at 750ft. 10-15 players can fly at our current 65 ft without showing a darbar, but 15+ will always show a darbar regardless of altitude. They can still horde all they want, but if they want to horde, they'll have to fight for the field.
Those are just some ballpark numbers I threw out there, they are of course up for adjustment. We would need a trial period and see if we need to adjust the requirements for a map win, or the % of buildings to be destroyed before a base capture. But what this would do is encourage players to use small-unit tactics and take a field by being smarter or sneakier than their opponents (yeah I know, using our brains, scary :uhoh). It would also more accurately show a small group's ability to slip past unnoticed, finesse a difficult situation, and reach an objective much more neatly than a larger force, as well as the larger forces' lack of aforementioned abilities.
You can still take a base virtually without a fight (or even without any fight if you're good), you can still choose to shut off your brain and just smash through with brute unthinking force, or you can go somewhere in between. The ONLY change is that you can't both horde and take a base without a fight.
-
Some good ideas! :aok
-
It sounds like it would make it harder to find a fight but encourage high alt porkers or pickers.
-
That is a love/hate situation. Think of it this way, if you're on AH at a particular time of day when few players are on, how do you find where the enemy is at? The radar bar. On the other hand, if you want to take an aircraft in to a situation that is a bit hot for a simple attack run, etc, if you are in anything but the fastest of aircraft you will intercepted or chased down.
I wish there was a way to change dar-bar and NOE settings based on the number of aircraft in a sector. A Mossi or 2 heading in for a precision attack at 5000ft is a bit different than a 20+ P47 brute force attack coming in at 15k against an entire field.
-
That is a love/hate situation. Think of it this way, if you're on AH at a particular time of day when few players are on, how do you find where the enemy is at? The radar bar. On the other hand, if you want to take an aircraft in to a situation that is a bit hot for a simple attack run, etc, if you are in anything but the fastest of aircraft you will intercepted or chased down.
I wish there was a way to change dar-bar and NOE settings based on the number of aircraft in a sector. A Mossi or 2 heading in for a precision attack at 5000ft is a bit different than a 20+ P47 brute force attack coming in at 15k against an entire field.
But its easy! Lets get some P-51Hs, P-39Q, P-80s, etc, etc so we can just go faster!
/sarcasm
-
The radar bar.
I'd like to clarify something... as I understand it The DAR BAR is NOT RADAR...? It's supposed to represent Visual Observation Reports ? As such it's pretty non specific and a simple indicator of enemy activity that is fairly realistic ... It seems to me to work exceptionally well at providing players with much the same information that real pilots had. Am I misinformed? If it ain't broke, lets not screw it up trying to fix it.
:lol
-
no, that you can fly below its minimum altitude of detection would suggest its radar.
Rino, like I said, those were just some very general numbers I thew out there. The main goal is to reward small unit operations, and to place penalties on large hordes (ie, no stealth, which is actually pretty realistic).
We could easily drop the solo altitude to 10k, and reduce other increment each accordingly, or make it 10+ is always visible. Hell, we could drop the reward aspect for small group tactics, and just put penalties on flying in a horde.
But as I've said, the main goal is to encourage players to break away from the horde. Once you've said that the horde is easy to find and always generates a fight, even if a poor one, you've exahusted all of its positive qualities. I feel overall health of the gameplay quality would improve if we could get away from the hordes.
Also, new strategies would result from this. Multiple groups ariving from multiple directions so as not to break the radar limit of either group, while still maintaining overall strength at the target.
-
The game play hasn't changed much over the years, Aces High would need to be re-modeled, for example the Radar was dropped from 200 to 65ft to combat NOE missions, which moved NOE missions to hordes of P51s to drop entire hangers.
I do recall many years ago the fights were far better, and no hording - a few NOE's here and there, nothing special.
Then again many years ago I probably ignored all the hording at the time or was apart of it, pretty sure lusche will drop by to say it hasn't changed :)
-
no, that you can fly below its minimum altitude of detection would suggest its radar.
See...you're making things up again ... Maybe revist the training area. study the BASICS, and LEARN what's actually going on?
"Bar-Dar refers to the green and red bars which appear at the top of each sector containing friendly and/or enemy. It simulates a country’s total air defense warning system of spotters and reports giving a general location of planes."
Low flying planes minimise line of sight and so escape detection. ??? DAR = Detected Aircraft Reports ??? any body know what DAR really stands for?
The main goal is to reward small unit operations, and to place penalties on large hordes (ie, no stealth, which is actually pretty realistic).
The main goal of the GAME is to help the members ENJOY the simulated environment and activitys available to them. NOT to manipulate them into some perverse behavior that limits their options. Visual Observation was a BIG factor in WWII ... The English went so far as to organise a special corp that relied on those unable to serve in combat. They trained personel to recognise enemy aircraft and use mechanical instrument to estimate altitude and record bearings. They built and equipped special posts and wired them into a central operations hub that monitored enemy activity. are you really proposing that this REALISM be scrapped because YOU don't like the way SOME people choose to play the game?
:eek:
-
dar stand for:
-raDAR?
-Daily Afternoon Randomness
-Designated Airworthiness Representative
-Defense Acquisition Radar
-Distributed Array Radar
-Daughters of the American Revolution
not sure many different acronyms.
semp
-
Wow EVZ, if you don't know that you can fly below radar altitude and not have a darbar displayed, you're even dumber than I thought.
"Perverse" is hardly the best word to describe it. Infact, its about the last word anyone who truely understands whats being said would think of. But then again, you've shown a lack of understanding of concepts more complex than, "I want it, gimme gimme gimme!" in your pfeil thread.
As previously stated, this wouldn't limit anyone, unless their end goal is to take bases without fighting, which they can do offline for the exact same expierence. People could still fly as they wished. They can horde if they want, or they can do small group base takes. But they wouldn't be able to avoid fighting by flying NOE with a 30 man horde with the express intent to capture the base before defenders can up and resist.
So really, there isn't any limits or restrictions imposed on anyone. Its simply giving defenders an advantage.
-
DAR = Do A baRrelroll!
(http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/starfox-64-3d-do-a-barrel-roll-screenshot.jpg)
-
Wow EVZ, if you don't know that you can fly below radar altitude and not have a darbar displayed, you're even dumber than I thought.
I guess if reading the training docs HT provides is dumb? Then I'm Guilty ... Dar-Bar is not radar ... it's line of sight observation. Go and read for yourself. http://trainers.hitechcreations.com
Flying UNDER RADAR removes your red dot from within the radar ring. Two different things controlled by 2 different settings... If I got it right? DAR_BAR was set at 250 ft in the last scenario, RADAR was at 450 or 500.
"Perverse" is hardly the best word to describe it.
Perverse is the perfect word, when you get done reading the training doc, look it up.
As previously stated, this wouldn't limit anyone, unless
Unless they're doing something you don't like ... but they obviously do ...
Its simply giving defenders an advantage.
Exactly.
:eek:
-
DAR = Do A baRrelroll!
OK ... Contest time, Best Definition of DAR wins ... Prize = 1st Flight in a DO335 when HT adds it to the game !!!
:rofl
-
OK ... Contest time, Best Definition of DAR wins ... Prize = 1st Flight in a DO335 when HT adds it to the game !!!
:rofl
Distribution of Authentic acRonym... :devil
-
Dorks Arranging game-enviRonmentsettings.
-
I guess if reading the training docs HT provides is dumb? Then I'm Guilty ... Dar-Bar is not radar ... it's line of sight observation. Go and read for yourself. http://trainers.hitechcreations.com
Flying UNDER RADAR removes your red dot from within the radar ring. Two different things controlled by 2 different settings... If I got it right? DAR_BAR was set at 250 ft in the last scenario, RADAR was at 450 or 500.
Perverse is the perfect word, when you get done reading the training doc, look it up.
Unless they're doing something you don't like ... but they obviously do ...
Exactly.
:eek:
First off, do you have any idea how out of date those trainers pages are? The ship gunnery page has no mention of the new system. The GV page isn't even aware of the existance of the M4A3's. Projectile strenght annalysis is god only knows how inaccurate after so long. The stuff about tactics is still relevant, but the stuff about arena settings and specific vehicles might not be.
You've read stuff off of an outdated page, I have in game expierence. Guess which counts for more?
second, Perverse:
"1.(of a person or their actions) Showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences.
2.Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice"
Neither defenition fits this thread. You've achieved linguistics-fail, congrats.
And third, giving defenders and advantage isn't limiting anyone, which is what you accused me of trying to do. Just like in the pfeil thread, you've completly 'effed up your entire argument simply by jumping around, and ignoring facts.
-
Dorks Arranging game-enviRonmentsettings.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
You've read stuff off of an outdated page, I have in game expierence. Guess which counts for more?
Meh. I've done both. And spent a year on the BBS and 3 offline practicing the game. And I STILL suck :P
Neither defenition fits this thread. You've achieved linguistics-fail, congrats.
*snickers in the background*
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
First off, do you have any idea how out of date those trainers pages are? The ship gunner...aware of the existance of the M4A3's. Projectile strenght annalysis ....you've completly 'effed uyour
LOL
Second look reveals MUCH more. ;)
-
Thats spelling-fail, which I openly admit to. I never claimed to be a good speller, and its usually worse at night, since I'm lazy when I'm tired, and think "eh.... f*** it, good enough.". But its not linguistics-fail.
I still use the English language correctly, and don't screw up my definitions when I'm trying to look clever, like EVZ over there.
Oh, and P.S.,
Thanks for the hijack EVZ and B-17's. B-17's, you're exempt from this since you've been reasonable, but I do believe that EVZ is being what he himself defined as an "obstructive idiot" :ahand.
-
Spelling and improper use/non-use of apostrophes.
I would actually say I was the hijacker, in this case at least. My apologies :)
-
Yes, but you're not being the "obstructive idiot", as EVZ termed it in his pfeil thread. Hes basicly putting this down because I was one of the people trying to explain to him with the Do 335 shouldn't really be in the game.
-
Hes basicly putting this down because I was one of the people trying to explain to him with the Do 335 shouldn't really be in the game.
No, I'm putting this down because you are trying to pervert a feature (DarBar) that simulates the reality of a Visual Observation network (like the English Observer Corps). You want to use it as a mechanical means to control player behavior and force them to play the game YOUR way. And because you are misinforming the general population and making claims contrary to HTCs published documentation. ...
NOW you go ahead and explain to the people what I REALLY mean.
:banana:
-
No, I'm trying to improve the game, I'm not at all trying to force behavior that is unreasonable or unacceptable. I'm not trying to do anything contrary to the accepted standards or practices, because there IS no accepted standard or practices. And neither am I trying to force people to play the game 'my' way.
Theres a difference between giving people viable options in play style and 'forcing' them on people. Have you ever stopped to consider that the difficulty of finding a decent sized fight that isn't a horde could be called forcing a style of play on others? No, you didn't, that concept is far beyond your limited cognitive abilities.
Darbar is a longstanding game feature, that serves to inform players of the presence of groups of enemy and friendly aircraft, and their estimated strength. As far as I can remember, you've always been able to fly below darbar level.
Since we don't know the rationale behind the darbar (to prevent base sneaks, to encourage fighting, etc), we can't say if this suggestion is contrary to that accepted 'standard'.
However, if you insist that simple change is perversion (which you likely will), then there aren't words strong enough to describe what you're trying to do to the game. The home page even says "the best WWII and WWII combat experience". No where does it mention postwar 1946 arenas, or 'experimental aircraft that never saw combat in WWI or WWII'. Arguably, all your requests for Do 335's and other post war aircraft are perversions of the entire game, not one individual facet of it.
You are simply trying to portray my suggestion in a negative light for petty and selfish reasons of your own.
-
WWI*
And of COURSE it doesn't mention experimental/non WWII/WWI aircraft, because none of them have been introduced to the game! :rolleyes :bhead
So, then, were the requests for the B-29 and the La-7perversions
of the game? By your logic, then I say yes.
Arguably, all your repquests for Do 335s are perversions of the game, not one individual facet of it.
-
No, I'm trying to improve the game, I'm not at all trying to force behavior that is unreasonable or unacceptable. I'm not trying to do anything contrary to the accepted standards or practices, because there IS no accepted standard or practices. And neither am I trying to force people to play the game 'my' way.
Theres a difference between giving people viable options in play style and 'forcing' them on people. Have you ever stopped to consider that the difficulty of finding a decent sized fight that isn't a horde could be called forcing a style of play on others? No, you didn't, that concept is far beyond your limited cognitive abilities.
Darbar is a longstanding game feature, that serves to inform players of the presence of groups of enemy and friendly aircraft, and their estimated strength. As far as I can remember, you've always been able to fly below darbar level.
Since we don't know the rationale behind the darbar (to prevent base sneaks, to encourage fighting, etc), we can't say if this suggestion is contrary to that accepted 'standard'.
However, if you insist that simple change is perversion (which you likely will), then there aren't words strong enough to describe what you're trying to do to the game. The home page even says "the best WWII and WWII combat experience". No where does it mention postwar 1946 arenas, or 'experimental aircraft that never saw combat in WWI or WWII'. Arguably, all your requests for Do 335's and other post war aircraft are perversions of the entire game, not one individual facet of it.
You are simply trying to portray my suggestion in a negative light for petty and selfish reasons of your own.
I am confused. you want to find small fights because fighting against a horde is not your thing. but you dont want a small group of players to show up on dar, so how will anybody find a fight that is small enough when only the "horde" bar will show?
semp
-
You're missing the forest in all the trees there, bud.
My point is that hes saying this particular change would be a perversion for no more reason that it changes something. Following that logic, wouldn't moving the game away from WWI/WWII be a perversion as well?
Personally, I don't see changes as perversions, so its not my logic. I just think post WWII is a bad idea, since one of two things will happen: 1) it will become a second WWI arena, or 2) it will steal all the player base away from the WWII arenas and turn everything they've done so far into a giant WWI arena.
B-17's, you really would do better to stop trying to pick apart my posts, and use quotes out of context. When you look at things as individuals, you loose their true meanings, which are altered by the context. Quite frankly, you loose sight of the forest in all the trees.
-
I would love to know where the heck you got that extensive vocabulary of yours. :P
And I wasn't using the perversion
out of context; I was simply showing that indeed, you had used that word.
I dunno about the last quote though... it was a little out of context, and now that I'm on the computer, not my phone, I can see what you ACTUALLY wrote. My apologies :salute
-
I am confused. you want to find small fights because fighting against a horde is not your thing. but you dont want a small group of players to show up on dar, so how will anybody find a fight that is small enough when only the "horde" bar will show?
semp
No, the purpose isn't to make small groups harder to find, its to make fighting in smaller groups equally or more effective than fighting in a big horde. If 5 people can do the same thing as 30 people, but do it faster, cleaner, and while keeping the field intact, then what are people going to start doing?
Like I said, those are just ballpark numbers, and can easily be adjusted. Or we could just pick a maximum number of players, and say that any group exceeding that limit will always display a darbar regardless of their altitude. But dot dar and base flashing would remain unchanged.
-
I would love to know where the heck you got that extensive vocabulary of yours. :P
And I wasn't using the out of context; I was simply showing that indeed, you had used that word.
I dunno about the last quote though... it was a little out of context, and now that I'm on the computer, not my phone, I can see what you ACTUALLY wrote. My apologies :salute
I don't see where you're going with this. Yes, I used the word perversions, whats your point? I never denied using it, I never said we shouldn't. All I was doing was pointing out the giant gaping holes in his argument.
And the B-29 and La7? Complete non sequiturs. I've already said I don't think change is a perversion. I was simply saying that by his logic, any change is a perversion. It was implyed that either, by definition of the word perversion, everything new or different is a perversion, or none of it is a perversion just because its change, but that it could be a perversion based on the primary definition. And therefore the use of the word perversion in a negative context in this particular, specific, isolated (as in he is singleing out this specific thread) instance is inappropriate.
-
I'm SERIOUSLY confused now.
Count me out :salute
-
Theres a difference between giving people viable options in play style and 'forcing' them on people.
And then of course there is - LETTING THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT TO - .
Darbar is a longstanding game feature, that serves to inform players of the presence of groups of enemy and friendly aircraft, and their estimated strength. As far as I can remember, you've always been able to fly below darbar level.
Yes, as previously stated, Visual Observation requires LINE OF SIGHT. Below certain altitudes, Line of sight becomes limited and unreliable.
Since we don't know the rationale behind the darbar
You mean since you REFUSE to accept HTC's published explanation that it represents a country's Visual Observer Network? (see earlier post for a link to the HTC training program page.
However, if you insist that simple change is perversion (which you likely will)
Maybe you're catching on! I suppose we could make believe the Observers were all having a party and got drunk on duty, or were just ticked off at the boss, or were boffing the wife instead of watching for planes ... or ? hmmm do I feel another contest coming on ???
:D
-
No, the purpose isn't to make small groups harder to find, its to make fighting in smaller groups equally or more effective than fighting in a big horde. If 5 people can do the same thing as 30 people, but do it faster, cleaner, and while keeping the field intact, then what are people going to start doing?
Like I said, those are just ballpark numbers, and can easily be adjusted. Or we could just pick a maximum number of players, and say that any group exceeding that limit will always display a darbar regardless of their altitude. But dot dar and base flashing would remain unchanged.
so you dont want 5 guys to show up on dar so they can quickly roll bases. what is the difference between 5 guys who dont want opposition and 30 guys that will overwhelm a base? none, they all just want to roll bases unopposed.
semp
-
EVZ, do you realize they can still do what they want? Its just adding more options, nothing is being taken away.
No, thats not what a rationale is. A rationale is the fundamental reason for something's existance. We don't know WHY htc decided to add the darbar, we don't know what they hoped the effect would be, and so I can't go against that end goal because I don't know what it is.
And you've still failed to respond to the fact that, based on your use of the werd pervert, you yourself are trying to pervert the game. Are both of us trying to pervert the game (based on your use of the word and its defenition) or are neither of us trying to pervert the game? It has to be one or the other, based on defenitions.
Semp, because 5 people can be stopped by 3 people or even 2 if those 2 people are good, where as 30 people can't really be stopped by 10 people. It would allow for smaller, more numerous fights, one big fight, or something in between the two.
And btw, do you have any real criticism of this? Or are you just confused.
-
EVZ, do you realize they can still do what they want? Its just adding more options, nothing is being taken away.
Except the DARBAR... duh...
A rationale is the fundamental reason for something's existence. We don't know WHY htc decided to add the darbar,
Sure we do ... it realistically simulates the WWII combat environment of ground observers reporting aircraft contacts .... Double DUH ...
And you've still failed to respond to the fact that, based on your use of the werd pervert,
Sorry, no comment. I have no more desire to see the English language reinvented than I do the DarBar system.
And btw, do you have any real criticism of this? Or are you just confused.
IS there ANYONE out there you have failed to confuse by this point? ... Duh x 3 ...
Inre: What WERE those observer corp geezers doing when they failed to spot those planes - Maybe the Germans air-dropped some St. Pauli Girl Blow Up Dolls?
:x
-
See Rule #4
-
Except the DARBAR... duh...
Sure we do ... it realistically simulates the WWII combat environment of ground observers reporting aircraft contacts .... Double DUH ...
Sorry, no comment. I have no desire to see the English language reinvented than I do the DarBar system.
IS there ANYONE out there you have failed to confuse by this point? ... Duh x 3 ...
Inre: What WERE those observer corp geezers doing when they failed to spot those planes - Maybe the Germans air-dropped some St. Pauli Girl Blow Up Dolls?
:x
LOLOL
^This. Is. AWESOME!!!!
He's right, too; darbar was the game-friendly version of the observer corps. Which means that HTC came up with the idea, COMPARED it to the real thing, said "wow, this is actually a decent representaion of that aspect of WWII!!"
THAT'S the "rationale"
-
No, that's the support for it, that's not necessarily why they put it in the game. Since theres so many things that happened/were used in WWII that aren't in the game, saying "they put in in the game because it represents something in WWII" carries no water.
Its rationale is what they ultimately hoped to achieve by adding it. Did they hope to promote fights? Did they hope to make it harder to sneak bases? Make it easier to find friendlies and work together?
Find that, and we can know if my suggestion goes against it. Till then, you really don't have any argument to support the 'this is a perversion' argument.
BTW, why are you supporting him? He's provably wrong almost every time he says something.
-
No, that's the support for it, that's not necessarily why they put it in the game.
Ummmm... care to look at your previous definition of "rationale"?
No, thats not what a rationale is. A rationale is the fundamental reason for something's existance. We don't know WHY htc decided to add the darbar, we don't know what they hoped the effect would be, and so I can't go against that end goal because I don't know what it is.
What I posted WAS a reason to add the darbar...
Just to be clear:
try: rationale [rash-uh-nal]
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: logic for belief, action
Synonyms: account, excuse, explanation, exposition, grounds, hypothesis, justification, motivation, motive, philosophy, principle, raison d'ętre, rationalization, reason, reasons, song and dance, sour grapes, story*, the big idea, the whole idea, theory, whatfor, why and wherefore, whyfor
Notes: a rationale is given for a future course of action, whereas a rationalization is offered for a past action
-
Ummmm... care to look at your previous definition of "rationale"?
What I posted WAS a reason to add the darbar...
Just to be clear:
'The fundamental reason it exists', and 'why it exists' are the same thing.
But you're right. It could be the rationale for the darbar. But again, that might not be their rationale for the darbar.
However, it could just as easily be that they wanted to make it harder to avoid fighting. Or maybe they added it just because Dale thought it would be neat.
Either way, we don't know THEIR rationale for adding the darbar, and so we can't tell if my suggestion goes against it.
-
Either way, we don't know THEIR rationale for adding the darbar, and so we can't tell if my suggestion goes against it.
Doesn't denial of consensual reality constitute psychosis? Grasping at straws is one thing ... but grasping at IMAGINARY STRAWS is ???
DAR BAR is a simple yet elegant element of a simulated WWII environment. The pollution of that environment evidently isn't as important to some people as they say it is. The proposed revision of DARBAR is completely artificial and has no analog in reality of THAT historical period, or any other that -I- know of.
:rolleyes:
-
Oh, it does actually, and its very simple:
A single plane is less likely to be seen than a group of 10 planes, and is ever so much more hard to spot than a formation of 30 aircraft spread out all over the sky.
-
EVZ, do you realize they can still do what they want? Its just adding more options, nothing is being taken away.
Semp, because 5 people can be stopped by 3 people or even 2 if those 2 people are good, where as 30 people can't really be stopped by 10 people. It would allow for smaller, more numerous fights, one big fight, or something in between the two.
And btw, do you have any real criticism of this? Or are you just confused.
how can 3 guys stop your 5 if the darbar wont show anything? and btw we have stopped 30 guys with a lot less than 10. ghi once stopped over 50 by himself by shooting down every single goon for about 2 hours.
you still havent proved how your idea will help the game, while hinting that it will break up into smaller fights is not necessarily what is going to happen. the idea behind darbar is to help others find a sector where activity is happening. you want to find a small fight then look for a small darbar. you want to furball among 100's then look for 2 or 3 darbars in one sector. you dont want darbar to show then go noe, it's just that simple.
and something is taken away btw. the ability to find small fights.
semp
-
ghi once stopped over 50 by himself by shooting down every single goon for about 2 hours.
:rofl
-
how can 3 guys stop your 5 if the darbar wont show anything? and btw we have stopped 30 guys with a lot less than 10. ghi once stopped over 50 by himself by shooting down every single goon for about 2 hours.
you still havent proved how your idea will help the game, while hinting that it will break up into smaller fights is not necessarily what is going to happen. the idea behind darbar is to help others find a sector where activity is happening. you want to find a small fight then look for a small darbar. you want to furball among 100's then look for 2 or 3 darbars in one sector. you dont want darbar to show then go noe, it's just that simple.
and something is taken away btw. the ability to find small fights.
semp
random person: "hey look, guncrasher, the base is flashing, and I can see the aircraft attacking the town from the tower. Wanna go defend?"
Guncrasher: "naw, I don't see any darbars, so I'm going to assume the base is safe."
That how you operate in game?
Alright, thats a valid point. How about we just remove the NOE ability for groups larger than a set number of planes? Small fights aren't any less hard to find, but defenders won't run into the seemingly ever-present horde of 30 NOE planes that give almost no warning.
It wouldn't limit people from hoarding, but it would give defenders a reasonable chance to make a fight of it. Small fights are still visible when they happen, but hordes can't both sneak up on a base, and swamp the defenders with 15 to 1 odds.
-
random person: "hey look, guncrasher, the base is flashing, and I can see the aircraft attacking the town from the tower. Wanna go defend?"
Guncrasher: "naw, I don't see any darbars, so I'm going to assume the base is safe."
That how you operate in game? considering that you dont play the game.
Alright, thats a valid point. How about we just remove the NOE ability for groups larger than a set number of planes? Small fights aren't any less hard to find, but defenders won't run into the seemingly ever-present horde of 30 NOE planes that give almost no warning.
well if you want this then make another wish.
It wouldn't limit people from hoarding, but it would give defenders a reasonable chance to make a fight of it. Small fights are still visible when they happen, but hordes can't both sneak up on a base, and swamp the defenders with 15 to 1 odds.
I play almost every night and we have been busting almost every single noe attack that the bishops/rooks have sent our way. it creates some pretty intense fighting for about 2 or 3 minutes, till we kill every single one of them. actually busting noe raids are pretty fun and you want to take our fun away :eek:?
what people are trying to tel you is that darbar works as intended the way it is. no need to fix what isnt broken. you can try to do the "well then you are stupid for not wanting some change" thing that some people try. but it still wont make a bad wish look good.
semp
-
Hey, just saying, you make it sound like the darbar is the only possible way you can tell if a base is under attack, and that if NOE's were made even a tiny bit easier (say the old 200ft altitude, where it was easy to fly NOE the whole time even over land), then sneak captures will be rampant because the dot dar and base flashing don't work for some reason.
Changing darbar wouldn't be because the darbar is broken, but as a means to encourage non-horde playing. Yeah, you can fight hordes for 1/2hr -45 mins, but then (for me at least, and I'm sure I'm not the only one) it just gets.... dull.
Right now, if you want to help with a capture, you kinda HAVE to join the horde, unless you have a group of good, skilled squaddies on (I usually don't.... didn't... whatever).
-
tank-ace i totally understand what you are trying to accomplish. but changing the darbar is not gonna change anything. anyway, all that needed to be said has been said :salute.
semp