Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on July 29, 2013, 04:36:48 PM
-
If a GV is killed by a ground attack aircraft, give the AC perk points for the kill, but don't charge the GV player for the loss. If a GV is killed in any other manner, including by another GV, charge the GVer perk points for the loss as usual.
This was suggested in another thread, and it appeals to me for some reason. For one thing, it would encourage perked GVs to get off the tarmac. I would like to get a chance to try to kill King Tigers with lesser GVs, and this is not practical if they are sitting at the VBase. Another benefit might be to reduce antagonism felt in some situations by GVers towards unopposed ground attack AC guys, sometimes disparaged as "bomb tards". Anything which improves the social atmosphere is probably good for the game.
Yes I realize that the seeming assymetry of this suggestion will distress some, but look at it as a possibly beneficial game-play tweak.
MH
-
As a matter of fact, I have thought about something like that for a long time, along with other measures aimed at encouraging players to use the fat tanks more offensively instead of just sitting on the base.
Usually it's King Tigers sitting on a base waiting for cheap Panzer & T-34/85 attacking (because an attacking tank can almost universally be considered as a loss at the moment it spawns in somewhere). Wouldn't it be great when more often a KT would be brought in to battle the KT sitting on a Vbase in a epic shootout instead of simply dropping a 1000lbs on it?
-
so you are saying king tigers never had bomb dropped on them in RL ? :rolleyes:
-
so you are saying king tigers never had bomb dropped on them in RL ? :rolleyes:
Read it again, Cobia, I know you can do it if you try. :)
MH
-
so you are saying king tigers never had bomb dropped on them in RL ? :rolleyes:
I have to admit I can't figure out how you can have read this out of TDeacons post :uhoh
-
Why make it asymmetric? Is a guy flying a C hog or a Tempest being dragged to a wirble having his gameplay disrupted any less by the GV he has no interest in?
Wiley.
-
that wouldn't bother me any, I spent a good portion of time hitting the spawn at V85 from a nearby carrier. Drop two bombs, hit 2 or 3 and rearm and repeat. No way i would up a perk tank over there, it's just to easy.
-
Why make it asymmetric? Is a guy flying a C hog or a Tempest being dragged to a wirble having his gameplay disrupted any less by the GV he has no interest in?
Wiley.
This is absolutely not comparable in any way.
-
This is absolutely not comparable in any way.
Care to explain that?
Wiley.
-
Absolutely ridiculous.
No.
-
I have to admit I can't figure out how you can have read this out of TDeacons post :uhoh
I suppose that sarcasm is dead now in the world eh
but anyways,here is my take on it
player A cry cause player B drops bomb and kills perk tank and player A lose perk points
so now player A wants to be immune to losing perk points due to getting killed by a bomb.
so my theory is this,when a wirble/osty/m16 gets a kill on a perk plane,no perks are lost also.
-
Inclined plane the GVs.
-
dont give perks to tanks for killing aircraft either.
semp
-
No cost, no. Maybe only lose half or a quarter of the perk value. A Tiger II is a tough nut to crack for a plane.
-
A death has consequences. I have lost Tigers and other perk GV's and I have taken them from others. Keep it the way it is. -1
-
I remember way back a there would often be tiger raids on airfields. We would take the ords dwn, then the VH, then roll tigers into a furball rolling field and vulch hundreds of planes in one sortie, literally hundreds. People used to find it funny. There would be a hell storm of Il2s and jabos trying to get through the furball to take the tigers out. Seems back then people had more balls for audacious combats. These days the majority seem far more concerned with simply not dying than with having fun with audacious combats.
-
I remember way back a there would often be tiger raids on airfields. We would take the ords dwn, then the VH, then roll tigers into a furball rolling field and vulch hundreds of planes in one sortie, literally hundreds. People used to find it funny. There would be a hell storm of Il2s and jabos trying to get through the furball to take the tigers out. Seems back then people had more balls for audacious combats. These days the majority seem far more concerned with simply not dying than with having fun with audacious combats.
I remember that, once I had 30 something kills. ran out of rounds and had to use mg to kill more. when the vh was finally pup i had nothing to defend myself with.
I understand what the op is saying, but there's no guarantee that the tigers will be used off concrete.
semp
-
Why should perked GVs be immune to losing their perks if bombed? It's a risk inherent with taking out any vehicle, whether it's a plane or a GV, that you'll be attacked or bombed. By making perked tanks immune to being bombed, it's not going to change people's tactics and move them off the concrete and away from the V bases.
ack-ack
-
remove GVs from Aces High
-
remove GVs from Aces High
why??? its a combat sim not a flight sim
-
I remember way back a there would often be tiger raids on airfields. We would take the ords dwn, then the VH, then roll tigers into a furball rolling field and vulch hundreds of planes in one sortie, literally hundreds. People used to find it funny. There would be a hell storm of Il2s and jabos trying to get through the furball to take the tigers out. Seems back then people had more balls for audacious combats. These days the majority seem far more concerned with simply not dying than with having fun with audacious combats.
the perk value is the limiting factor for this,, 100 perks for a king tiger that can be bombed is a high price to pay when the only way you can recover the cost is thru successful base capture, if you survive that is!
On the other hand , I always thought GV perks didn't accumulate nearly fast enough,,IE. risk a hundred perk tank ,,get 50 kills,, land to make 5 perks or so!,,, to many things can go wrong in the king tiger to make it worth the possible expense !, IMHO!
As far as not losing perks if bombed,,, I'm against it!
Re figure the GV perk system instead so that 100 perks can be earned more quickly or,,, lower the cost,, if you want more high dollar tanks out and about! For all the tanking I do,,, I'm always around 500 perks tops ,,in GVs so I don't leave concrete in the T2 unless I know the ords are down at any ,,near,,,enemy bases. And if I see one around my base,, I'm in the M-18 hauling the mail ,,, trying to find the back end of that big cat!!!
Jeff
-
As a GVer, I'll say the biggest deterrent to upping a KT is the threat of ords. You know there are the love muffines who will fly für 15 minutes just to kill you, expressly for the reason of screwing you out of your perks.
My opinion is that with the Jagdpanther, you will almost never see a Tiger II leave concrete. I know I won't, unless it's defensively at a base exclusively under GV attack. It's just not with writing a check for 100 perks, when a 15 perk Panther will do the job just fine.
-
Whisky, I hear what you're saying. Though I don't think things were different back then, only that losing the perks was not a concern, having fun in the tank was more important.
-
Just make them cheaper if we want more off concrete.
-
get 50 kills,, land to make 5 perks or so!,,, to many things can go wrong in the king tiger to make it worth the possible expense !, IMHO!
Dear God... do perks for GV's really accumulate that slowly?
-1 for the perk tank bomb immunity wish. Reconfigure your wish to a different multiplier so you can regain perks faster is the best compromise.
-
I remember that, once I had 30 something kills. ran out of rounds and had to use mg to kill more. when the vh was finally pup i had nothing to defend myself with.
I understand what the op is saying, but there's no guarantee that the tigers will be used off concrete.
semp
If gv's do not have the risk of losing their perk price to a bomb tard P51D armed with 2/1000 lb bombs I guarantee that there will be a much larger variety of tanks off concrete. Especially the King Tiger, Tiger, Jagdpanther, and Panther.
If anything, I'd wish for the loss of perks to be less if destroyed by air. Instead of full price, maybe 1/2 or 1/3.
-
Want to move perk vehicles off of the concrete? Lower the cost and make it so that they are gone the moment you spawn. A safe landing won't even get them back, just get you a 1.25 multiplier on perks earned that sortie.
Because of how aircraft are used this wouldn't have to be applied to aircraft.
-
If gv's do not have the risk of losing their perk price to a bomb tard P51D armed with 2/1000 lb bombs I guarantee that there will be a much larger variety of tanks off concrete. Especially the King Tiger, Tiger, Jagdpanther, and Panther.
If anything, I'd wish for the loss of perks to be less if destroyed by air. Instead of full price, maybe 1/2 or 1/3.
why isnt spawn fest like v85 have swarms of perk tanks? the danger there is the other tanks and not the air.
semp
-
Want to move perk vehicles off of the concrete? Lower the cost and make it so that they are gone the moment you spawn. A safe landing won't even get them back, just get you a 1.25 multiplier on perks earned that sortie.
Because of how aircraft are used this wouldn't have to be applied to aircraft.
That seems like a pretty reasonable general idea to me. The perk costs/multiplier would need to be tweaked heavily, but I think it might produce better tank usage than concrete parking.
Wiley.
-
Thinking more about it, it would be even more effective than I originally had considered. Sitting on concrete would become actively detrimental to the longevity of a perk tank.
Prices would, of course, need to be drastically lowered, perhaps a fifth or tenth of their current costs.
-
why isnt spawn fest like v85 have swarms of perk tanks? the danger there is the other tanks and not the air.
semp
c'mon man that's not anywhere near accurate I landed 25 kills like a day ago or so the threat is from the air all the camped get mad and egg I for one do it to clear out some areas I have more fear from eggs at any spawn than I do a tank and will never take a panther out unless it's dirt cheap let alone a tiger of any kind perks in tanks are just hard to earn to justify loosing a tiger 2 I haven't been playing for 30 years like some of you guys so I don't have 30000000000000 perks to toss about
-
Perk points are for spending. In other words perk points are for losing. You can't spend vehicle perk points if you land successfully in the perk vehicle.
-
Perhaps do that to a degree (say 30 perks for a king Tiger), but along with that, add a 1.5x perk multiplier for GVs (after the whole equation for perks earned) so that a very good tanker has a real chance at breaking even.
But I can guarantee this still won't get them out and about anywhere near an airfield. But it's a start.
-
Bombing tanks is too easy. Maybe it is time to reevaluate the perk system when it comes to A/C vs GV. But the heavy armor tanks should keep their high perk price because they were historically in very short supply. Reduce the perk cost by half when bombed.
If the perk factor is adjusted for the A/C vs GV, then it only fair if the perk system is adjusted for GV vs A/C.
Reduce the perk cost by half when the A/C is shot down by a GV. BTW.....I chuckle every time I main gun an A/C with a tank. The animation when they go down is hilarious.
:salute
-
To the suggestion that we lose gv perks on spawn, uhhh no. Apply that logic to losing perks for upping planes...You'd almost NEVER see another Tiger 2 except on concrete again. It's rare, but I do run into them on occasion,
Looks like all the typical comments/arguments/etc are here:
Make a good suggestion to be pondered, get shot down by many who refuse to think/consider it, remain hangar queen...
-
I just took a King Tiger out at V85 spawn (spawning in from V76 I mean), and landed 7 kills.
-
if the perk price is too high (ie so high the ride becomes a hanger queen) then maybe HTC should review it.
but to suggest that GV's become immune to the consequences of ac action is not a wish I would like to see come true.
MA action should propagate and encourage the interaction of GV's and AC's IMO and that means that GV's get bombed/straffed/rocketed and AC's be vulnerable to ground fire.
Bring the PTAB to Aces High!
-
Wouldn't it be nice IF you could pay "with perks" to have an AA drone to accompany your tank?
It would be like bomber drones, staying close to your tank and you could switch to it at will, it could also be killed independently of your tank and vice versa.
Then through the expenditure of more perks you could have some AA cover for your King Tiger or any "non AA" GV for that matter:x
Just a thought!
JUGgler
-
why isnt spawn fest like v85 have swarms of perk tanks? the danger there is the other tanks and not the air.
semp
Just 2 days ago I upped a Fw190F-8 with a 250kg bomb and the rockets. I did two sorties and both times I was shot down by enemy fighters providing cover for the gv fest. However, both times I was able to drop my 250kg (550 lb) bomb and get three kills each time thanks to the enemy gv's huddling behind a mound or barn. Also, both times I was able to make a 2nd and 3rd pass with the Pb1 rockets and though I did not earn any kills, I did track or turret 2 differnt tanks on each sortie.
There is plenty of threat from the air at V85, and V85 is not a good example because is rare. In most situations there is not the chance to land kills while spawning in to an away gv spawn point.
-
:aok
As a matter of fact, I have thought about something like that for a long time, along with other measures aimed at encouraging players to use the fat tanks more offensively instead of just sitting on the base.
Usually it's King Tigers sitting on a base waiting for cheap Panzer & T-34/85 attacking (because an attacking tank can almost universally be considered as a loss at the moment it spawns in somewhere). Wouldn't it be great when more often a KT would be brought in to battle the KT sitting on a Vbase in a epic shootout instead of simply dropping a 1000lbs on it?
-
IMO as some others have said, it's how GVs accumulate perks. If I take out a Mossie and kill 2-3 P-51s I can easily land a 10-15 perk sortie. An M8 killing 6 or 7 Tanks no where close. So maybe it the OBJ/ENY or perk multiplier that needs to be adjusted.
-
Want to move perk vehicles off of the concrete? Lower the cost and make it so that they are gone the moment you spawn. A safe landing won't even get them back, just get you a 1.25 multiplier on perks earned that sortie.
Because of how aircraft are used this wouldn't have to be applied to aircraft.
All that does is to further discourage the use of perked GVs, which makes things worse. Remember, the issue with perks usually isn't that one doesn't have them, but that they are depressing to lose in a game context (a "failure"). Loosing GV perks to a plane is even worse, as it takes minimal skill to kill even the best GV with a plane. Imagine how your enjoyment would be affected if the game included a random 1/3 chance that your perk plane would be destroyed at some point during your flight, possibly in the middle of something interesting. That's how it feels sometimes. So the OP is basically an attempt to lessen this negative element, and encourage a bit more GV game play diversity than we have currently.
A better solution would be maps designed with locations where GVs could operate relatively free from AC interference, but this idea requires map support, which is hard to come by. Some people just won't try to see the other guy's point of view.
MH
-
Imagine how your enjoyment would be affected if the game included a random 1/3 chance that your perk plane would be destroyed at some point during your flight, possibly in the middle of something interesting.
...So like when someone drags your plane to a nest of wirbles during a base defense? Kinda like that?
The arena is populated by other types of vehicles. It's part of the game. We have AA vehicles for a reason.
Why not just skip the middleman and have the GV's Ahoy arena that doesn't allow aircraft?
Wiley.
-
...So like when someone drags your plane to a nest of wirbles during a base defense? Kinda like that?
No, it would be like you are engaging in base defense, and someone in an orbiting space ship decided to obliterate you with a laser beam from 1000 miles away. The point being that for all practical purposes death is likely, and there's nothing you can do about it, thus the analogy with random events.
The arena is populated by other types of vehicles. It's part of the game. We have AA vehicles for a reason.
If you think this is adequate to deter bombing of an expensive perk tank, I suggest you try taking one out with attack aircraft around, and see how long you last.
Bottom line is consider the *reason* for the OP, which is to get more perk tanks driving around the countryside instead of sitting on concrete. Try to avoid the knee-jerk ground-attack-versus-GV response.
MH
-
Aparently you guys missed the point where I said perk costs would need to be drastically lowered along with not refunding the pe rk price. Think Tiger IIs for 10-20 perks. At 10 perks that is equal to a 10 to 1 k/d ratio with the current priced Tiger II, which is a bit higher than its ove rall k/d ratio.
-
Just 2 days ago I upped a Fw190F-8 with a 250kg bomb and the rockets. I did two sorties and both times I was shot down by enemy fighters providing cover for the gv fest. However, both times I was able to drop my 250kg (550 lb) bomb and get three kills each time thanks to the enemy gv's huddling behind a mound or barn. Also, both times I was able to make a 2nd and 3rd pass with the Pb1 rockets and though I did not earn any kills, I did track or turret 2 differnt tanks on each sortie.
There is plenty of threat from the air at V85, and V85 is not a good example because is rare. In most situations there is not the chance to land kills while spawning in to an away gv spawn point.
i have gotten 5 kills with 2 1k bombs in a pony. however most guys cant drop bombs for crap in any fighter. we have guys on the ground that get 10, 15, 20 kills then they die to another enemy tank. I have been there before I got my ch stick and most of the time I got killed by gv's and not airplanes. sure there's airplanes bombing, but the real threat there are the tanks.
semp
-
i have gotten 5 kills with 2 1k bombs in a pony. however most guys cant drop bombs for crap in any fighter. we have guys on the ground that get 10, 15, 20 kills then they die to another enemy tank. I have been there before I got my ch stick and most of the time I got killed by gv's and not airplanes. sure there's airplanes bombing, but the real threat there are the tanks.
semp
Sometimes what you say above is true, but frequently it isn't. In these cases, if someone takes an expensive perk tank out in the terrain, sooner or later, some ground attack guy will get it. As the GVer, you know this will occur, so you are reluctant to move off the concrete. A few guys do, but most don't. It's not because they don't have the points, but because it is depressing to lose perks to something you can't control.
Also, I'm not thinking of spawn camping, but the more interesting "GV dogfight" type of thing, where you move and shoot, and use the terrain. 10+ kill implies a spawn camping situation.
MH
-
No, it would be like you are engaging in base defense, and someone in an orbiting space ship decided to obliterate you with a laser beam from 1000 miles away. The point being that for all practical purposes death is likely, and there's nothing you can do about it, thus the analogy with random events.
...Kind of like flying along and being shot by a vehicle on the ground you had no chance to see. I'm really not seeing any difference here.
If you think this is adequate to deter bombing of an expensive perk tank, I suggest you try taking one out with attack aircraft around, and see how long you last.
The tanks get me long before the aircraft.
Bottom line is consider the *reason* for the OP, which is to get more perk tanks driving around the countryside instead of sitting on concrete. Try to avoid the knee-jerk ground-attack-versus-GV response.
MH
I just don't see a good reason why perk tanks should get preferential treatment over everything else in the game.
Wiley.
-
remove GVs from Aces High
Got my vote! There ruining the air game. :old:
-
Got my vote! There ruining the air game. :old:
And this highly intelligent statement was motivated by the last time your P51 was chased down and killed by a GV??? Exactly how are they "ruining the air game"? If they provide more income for HTC, which they do, I would think they would support the air game.
MH
-
...So like when someone drags your plane to a nest of wirbles during a base defense? Kinda like that?
The arena is populated by other types of vehicles. It's part of the game. We have AA vehicles for a reason.
Why not just skip the middleman and have the GV's Ahoy arena that doesn't allow aircraft?
Wiley.
no,, if you chose to go where wirble's are,, that is your decision,, if you up a 262,, chances are your not gonna go fly around low and slow near an enemy GV spawn,, tanks don't have that kind of escape like planes,, stay above 2 k from the ground and stay alive,, tanks are stuck to the ground,, no where to run,, no place to hide,,,, and in most cases,, a big red flashing light goes off as soon as they spawn in, That to anyone who's played for long knows is either an NOE raid,, or GVs,, better up a heavy fighter and go check it out!
-
no,, if you chose to go where wirble's are,, that is your decision,, if you up a 262,, chances are your not gonna go fly around low and slow near an enemy GV spawn,, tanks don't have that kind of escape like planes,, stay above 2 k from the ground and stay alive,, tanks are stuck to the ground,, no where to run,, no place to hide,,,, and in most cases,, a big red flashing light goes off as soon as they spawn in, That to anyone who's played for long knows is either an NOE raid,, or GVs,, better up a heavy fighter and go check it out!
If you choose to go where strike aircraft are, that is your decision. What is the difference? Wirbles can spawn in directly below you giving you no chance to react.
Quite often, when you're in a low fight, you may not be aware of where the vehicle spawns are, or the wirbles may have actually moved away from the spawn. Outside of icon range, a hidden wirble is nearly impossible to detect until it's firing.
All I see is a request for special treatment because they're being killed in a way they don't like.
-
no,, if you chose to go where wirble's are,
Nope. Thanks to the 600 yard icon it isn't my choice until well after I am in gun range of the things. Whereas my enemy has a 6000 yard icon fix on his Wirbles so knows exactly where to go.
-
Tanks are there to be bombed. Toughen up cupcake. :D
-
Tanks = land-borne moving targets for aircraft
PT Boats = sea-borne moving targets for aircraft
:cheers:
-
Just a thought, but maybe increase the earned perks for resupplying damaged towns and bases.
-
I'm starting to quite like the idea of when you take a perked vehicle or aircraft, it costs much less but your perks are gone when you spawn. It could result in more aggressive behavior across all types due to the fact you want to get more kills to earn perks and there's no benefit beyond the usual to flying to survive.
Perk earning might need to be tweaked to make it work, but I think it's a better solution to get the perk tanks off the concrete and get the perk planes to be more aggressive as well.
Wiley.
-
Just 2 days ago I upped a Fw190F-8 with a 250kg bomb and the rockets. I did two sorties and both times I was shot down by enemy fighters providing cover for the gv fest. However, both times I was able to drop my 250kg (550 lb) bomb and get three kills each time thanks to the enemy gv's huddling behind a mound or barn. Also, both times I was able to make a 2nd and 3rd pass with the Pb1 rockets and though I did not earn any kills, I did track or turret 2 differnt tanks on each sortie.
There is plenty of threat from the air at V85, and V85 is not a good example because is rare. In most situations there is not the chance to land kills while spawning in to an away gv spawn point.
Same thing happens with virtually all high speed ordnance carriers. You might not necessarily survive to land, but you'll sure as hell make it to the target.
-
I'm starting to quite like the idea of when you take a perked vehicle or aircraft, it costs much less but your perks are gone when you spawn. It could result in more aggressive behavior across all types due to the fact you want to get more kills to earn perks and there's no benefit beyond the usual to flying to survive.
Perk earning might need to be tweaked to make it work, but I think it's a better solution to get the perk tanks off the concrete and get the perk planes to be more aggressive as well.
Wiley.
So you think that kill streaks primarily come from aggresive behavior? My observation is that they primarily come from group spawn camping (GVs) or hording (AC). So that will probably be what you are encouraging more of with this scheme. (Of course ability is required as well for streaks, but ability alone won't cut it against the horde, except for the top 1% of players).
MH
-
So you think that kill streaks primarily come from aggresive behavior? My observation is that they primarily come from group spawn camping (GVs) or hording (AC). So that will probably be what you are encouraging more of with this scheme.
MH
Not streaks, but kills over time, which would still be rewarded by camping or hording, same as it is now. What it would affect is, you wouldn't gain anything from preserving your perk ride at all costs other than landing bonus.
Wiley.
-
Perk the A20 :)
-
Not streaks, but kills over time, which would still be rewarded by camping or hording, same as it is now. What it would affect is, you wouldn't gain anything from preserving your perk ride at all costs other than landing bonus.
Wiley.
Hmmm; well this may be worth discussing further, but perhaps you guys should start a separate thread for it. My OP was fairly limited in scope, and was a focused, quick fix sort of thing.
MH
-
Tanks cannot fly!!! :noid
they cannot choose to go over too another base at 10k,, 5 k,, 20 k,, a plane can,,,, 3 dimensional verses 2 dimensional basically
When you take off,, make a list of things not to do,, on that list add,,, don't fly to close to the ground anywhere near an enemy GV spawn! or a train!! :airplane:
if you don't have enough situational awareness to know your close to the ground,, that's not the tank or the wirbles fault,, that is the pilots fault,,, trains have gunners too,, I read it every few days as I log in,, yet they have no Icon,,,
you all probably learned not to fly over them tho didn't you? I wish there were more trains all over the map,, but that's another thread I'm sure!!
-
This sounds like a "I had 20+ spawn camping kills and was on my way to land when this sweetheart in an A20 "easymoded me to death" whine.
I don't think eliminating perk loss from being killed by planes will do much of anything, it will only encourage more spawn campers. One of the greatest things in the game is to Lancstuka 20 -30 spawn campers. :devil They deserve nothing less than the worst treatment possible :rofl. GV fights "if you could call them that" were nothing but a butt load of campers and 2-3 camp busters trying to end the camp. Not much of a fight for the campers if you ask me, They got to land lots of kills and get all those "WTGs" but how much accomplishment is that? It's no different than vulching or skimming the edge of ACK range of a base, with alt and whackamoling those few who launch and try to give an account of themselves. Campers and vulchers deserve the worst treatment possible :D
Now with that said, finding a way to encourage less spawn camping and more movement would only improve the "ground war". There should be a radius around a spawn that is a "no harm" zone for the spawn owners only, say 2,000 yds. No points would be lost and no kills registered within this circle, you could still be destroyed it just wouldn't be counted. This would force spawn campers to move out away from the spawn and give the spawners a bit of manouvering room so maybe a fight might break out! :O This idea would also spread out attacking aircraft and limit the "1 bomb, 6 kill" affect!
Oh and GV icon should be lessened to 200 yds :D Let friendly GVs have the responsibilty of marking "with smoke" enemy positions!
Flame On !
:salute
JUGgler
-
That sounds good to be honest
-
I gave a good 20 or 30 tanks to 85 today just for the fun of it,,, if it doesn't cost to much,, it's almost as much fun as getting the spawn! That said,, a safe zone doesn't sound all that bad,, but if you want to break spawn camps,, your gonna have to figure out how to get T2s out at spawns like 85,,, as it is, they cost to much,, or they are to hard to replace in perks,,IMHO
-
Dude, we were about to be camped, and I upped a KT. I nailed a Panzer trying to worm good way around the flank, a few hetzers and several Jagdpanthers. Biggest help was that everyone concentrated on me, letting my buddies move into position and kill campers.
And it's kinda the way a Tiger II should be used; a heavy support vehicle to soak up fire that would destroy other tanks, and intimidate the enemies.
-
Or.......perk the ords!!!!!!!
Hoarding goes down, and less bomb tarding!
Win-win :banana:
-
I don't like such fixes..............
IMO there should be more methods of attrition of GV's from the air not less...........
The challenge is to do this and maintain some balance. My view is that the icon system and the spawn system at some point need more attention.
Re icons I believe they should be speed sensitive i.e. the faster you are travelling the closer to the vehicle you have to be to see its icon.
e.g if 100mph~icon @ 1000yards then 66mph~icon @ 1500yards & 150mph~icon @660yards [icon range=(100/speed)*1000] an adjustment (increase) for when the GV is travelling more then 10mph may be appropriate although I would prefer to see tracks extending behind the tank which were proportionate to speed. Equally however add the ability for GV's to "dig in" under camo such that the icon range is shortened albeit that the time to erect and remove such camo is fixed (30 secs?).
This would be for ALL GV's, enemy and friendly (for several reasons) and from all air craft. (the Storch still sees more because its slower!)
Re spawns I believe that the spawn point is now well beyond its use by date. It facilitates camping, it also means that airborne defences upping to locate incoming GV's have a single point (or small zone) to head directly toward. This IMO is far to easy. Going back to RL GV logistics I would prefer the concept of a spawn road. This is a dynamic road (between two bases) on the clip board map that a player could click on to set his own spawn point along that road. Having spawned the player can leave the road. If an area of road is "camped" then the player may choose to spawn further back. The road could be divided into sections (for mission settings) or fully dynamic or both. I believe that this would be the end of camping as we know it. Flanking manoeuvres and consequences will prevail very much as in RL.
While on this rant I will bring up other pet subjects that relate in some context to GV v AC interaction............... level bombers should be forced to release from F6 (bomb aimer position) and release should only be enabled #secs (5secs) after entering the F6 position. Where ac share both an attack and level bombing category then when choosing bombing the F6 should be enforced as above. When choosing attack then formations should be disabled but pilot release (Pos 1, F1 not F3) of bombs enabled. I am sure this will not stop the lancastuka phenomenon but it will inhibit it. The biggest dive bomber/attack ac we have in the game is the Ju88 but I never see it used as such.
Perk ordinance, make suicide bombing (or bombing careless of loss) an expensive business with consequences. Then introduce the PTAB for the IL2M3.
-
Your bomber f6 time limit will get the bombers killed while doing there normal job or level bombing
Most of the time I'm hopping from the guns to the bomb sight right up till the time to drop,, your asking bombers to give up a five second window for fighters to freely shoot up the bombers knowing they either can't defend themselves or will cause them to miss there drops
Don't take away someone's ability to do what the planes or GVs original roles are,, all for the sake of a few players supposed or perceived abuse ,
-
Then make it 2 secs............ just not instantaneous
-
Then make it 2 secs............ just not instantaneous
its already there,, you can't go from guns directly to the bomb sight,, first you must return to the pilots seat!if you add 2 seconds to the pilot to bomb sight,, your still making it more difficult for bombers to do what they are supposed to do.
-
its already there,, you can't go from guns directly to the bomb sight,, first you must return to the pilots seat!if you add 2 seconds to the pilot to bomb sight,, your still making it more difficult for bombers to do what they are supposed to do.
well then maybe it would require the ability to be able to go directly from guns to bomb sight..the key point is that the lancstuka would not be able to dive bomb with reliability if there was a release delay when moving between pilot and F6.................
-
I say no if you up a tank then you understand the risk or being bombed -1
-
well then maybe it would require the ability to be able to go directly from guns to bomb sight..the key point is that the lancstuka would not be able to dive bomb with reliability if there was a release delay when moving between pilot and F6.................
id have to see we're it is written that the pilot of a lanc couldn't drop the bomb load
-
I say no if you up a tank then you understand the risk or being bombed -1
As has been said before, you're essentially writing off those perks the instant you spawn up. Which is completely unfair, IMO.
The issue is that all almost all of the perk aircraft are, in addition to being better in combat, faster. This allows them to escape if the situation goes south, and thus you stand a reasonable chance of landing your perk aircraft. Additionally, not all damage for a perk aircraft would be considered catastrophic damage. You could be missing both flaps, rudder, an aileron, all your guns, half your tail, your landing gear, and an elevator, and you would still not have taken catastrophic damage. Compare that to a GV, where there is literally 1 damageable component that wouldn't be considered "catastrophic" at most, while some vehicles are ONLY capable of taking catastrophic damage.
Tracks: catastrophic Engine: catastrophic Turret: catastrophic Pintle: minor or N/A (about like losing ONE of the 7.92mm guns on a Spitfire, 109, etc).
Basically, with a GV, its is literally do or die if you leave the base, since you can't turn around and run in many cases, which forces you to reverse at 5mph for a few minutes until you're behind cover. And even when you do get to turn around and run, enemy fighters can cover a full sector in only a hair over 4:30, assuming an average speed of 330mph with ordnance. And the Panther, the fastest perk tank of any serious cost takes over 8:15 to cover the 6k required for landing. A Tiger II would take around 9:20 to do the same. And this is all assuming you can go in a strait line at full speed for the entire time.
Given the animosity with which these vehicles are hunted, you WILL lose those 100 perks if you take up a Tiger II. So no, it is not fair to say "you knew I was going to headhunt you worse than a 262, since its almost a guaranteed kill".
Hell, you wouldn't even have to cut the cost in half if a perk PLANE is killed by a TANK. The reasons are that the perk plane can both avoid dying to the GV's by flying a mere 3000ft off the ground, and can escape at will. And that upping a perk plane naturally entails much less risk than upping a perk tank, simply by the nature of their existence.
Basically everyone needs to either quit whining about concrete sitters, or agree to a change of the GV perk system.
-
I'm trying to work up sympathy but I'm not quite there yet.
If a player is so afraid of losing perks .... don't use them. The bank grows. Collect your dividend next year. ;)
-
I'm trying to work up sympathy but I'm not quite there yet.
If a player is so afraid of losing perks .... don't use them. The bank grows. Collect your dividend next year. ;)
You miss my point. Consider the following
1) The 262 is twice as valuable as a Tiger II in terms of perks.
2) The 262 is headhunted less than the Tiger II, due to the low odds of catching one to kill it.
3) The 262 faces risk to GV's in only a few situations, while the Tiger II faces a high risk from aircraft in almost all of them.
4) The 262 will exit the 1000yd effective range of the Wirbelwind in less than 4.35 seconds, and the maximum range of the Ostwind in less than 15.21 seconds. So assuming a worst-case scenario where you happen to fly right over an osti and a wirb and both can instantly turn their turrets to follow you, you will be within range for about 30 seconds total, and for about 12 seconds for the wirble. But realistically you will be in danger for about 8.5 seconds total, and in serious danger for less than 6 seconds.
However in the absolute best case scenario, a Tiger II will take about 9 minutes and 20 seconds to exit the danger zone of aircraft. It will also be vulnerable to fire from enemy GV's as well, since it has its butt facing the enemy for the duration of this 9 1/2 minutes. Realistically, this time will strech to about 11-12 minutes.
5) There are 30 perk GV's that stand a very good chance of killing the Tiger II all the way out to about 1700yds, should the shell strike the absolute thickest portion of the armor. There is no functional equivalent for the 262.
Basically, despite being twice as valuable, the 262 faces less than half the risk of a Tiger II.
-
The point I'm missing is ...... ? :huh
-
For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.
Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.
Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.
-
For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.
Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.
Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.
Sure there is. Don't wanna risk losing perks? Don't use `em. :D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img69/2448/3nc.png)
:salute :cheers:
-
This sounds like a "I had 20+ spawn camping kills and was on my way to land when this sweetheart in an A20 "easymoded me to death" whine.
I don't think eliminating perk loss from being killed by planes will do much of anything, it will only encourage more spawn campers. One of the greatest things in the game is to Lancstuka 20 -30 spawn campers. :devil They deserve nothing less than the worst treatment possible :rofl. GV fights "if you could call them that" were nothing but a butt load of campers and 2-3 camp busters trying to end the camp. Not much of a fight for the campers if you ask me, They got to land lots of kills and get all those "WTGs" but how much accomplishment is that? It's no different than vulching or skimming the edge of ACK range of a base, with alt and whackamoling those few who launch and try to give an account of themselves. Campers and vulchers deserve the worst treatment possible :D
Now with that said, finding a way to encourage less spawn camping and more movement would only improve the "ground war". There should be a radius around a spawn that is a "no harm" zone for the spawn owners only, say 2,000 yds. No points would be lost and no kills registered within this circle, you could still be destroyed it just wouldn't be counted. This would force spawn campers to move out away from the spawn and give the spawners a bit of manouvering room so maybe a fight might break out! :O This idea would also spread out attacking aircraft and limit the "1 bomb, 6 kill" affect!
Oh and GV icon should be lessened to 200 yds :D Let friendly GVs have the responsibilty of marking "with smoke" enemy positions!
Flame On !
:salute
JUGgler
I mentioned this in another thread of mine. I still support it. +1
Or.......perk the ords!!!!!!!
Hoarding goes down, and less bomb tarding!
Win-win :banana:
I suggest an ENY system, personally I think it would be better, because those who are new to the game can still get big bombs and not have to 'pay' for it. While those who are 'better' don't have to get the bigger bombs and actually have more incentive to get the smaller bombs (because I suggested getting a kill with a smaller bomb would = more perks).
For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.
Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.
Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.
Agreed, now we just have to find an effective way of doing so.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
For the 262 last tour, of 369 losses, only 14 were due to vehicles of all types. However, for the Tiger II, out of 294 losses, 71 were the result of aircraft of all types. In othe words 3.79% of all 262's were killed by GV's, while 24.14% of all Tiger II's were lost to aircraft. By stats, aircraft pose roughly 8 times the risk to the Tiger II that GV's do to a 262.
Basically, the Tiger II is losing more than 2.5x the number of perks to aircraft as the 262 is losing to GV's, despite costing half as much. This means that even if we cut perk loss from aircraft in half (to account for the 8x greater risk), Tiger II's will still be losing more perks.
Given those facts, theres no way to justify leaving the GV perk system alone.
Agreed; furthermore, not to mention the amount of times a :furious'r tries to bomb them and misses, i.e. numerous attempts to get the perky but fail before a gv dooms it...Additionally, anybody who loses a 262 to a gv in almost all but a fraction of cases was being careless. The only time it where it may not qualify as careless is if they are nearly out of fuel and have no choice but to land at a base where a gv is firing on the base. I've shot down 262's with a wirb and thought wth is he doing...I don't up Tiger II's because the risk/reward is way too low.
I'd bet you could put the TII numbers up against a Panther on any day and the risk/reward balance would be enormously in the Panther's favor. Perk ftr ords if they aren't dropped on town/base, guarantee that would have an effect, but again not many are going to agree to it.
The reason I don't think we are going to get far with this:
There is an animosity toward gv'ers.
Flame on flyboys.
-
There is an animosity toward gv'ers.
Flame on flyboys.
Not so much. Nor is there undue coddling. Who needs to get over what? :D
-
Arlo, the thing you're not getting is that as it stands, the only way to get your perks worth out of a Tiger II is to camp and concrete sit.
It is the literal equivalent of using the 262 to vulch at a deacked field.
Just because you don't feel the system is broken doesn't make you right. Most seem to disagree on fact.
-
Arlo is just being...........Arlo.
-
Arlo is just being...........Arlo.
As was said, a Tiger doesn't cost the equivalent of a 262.
Alas, the nature of a Tiger is no different than the nature of a Sherman. You plod along
in the mud covered in armor and sporting a cannon. A Tiger has an advantage over other
GVs. If HTC decides (with the introduction of tank destroyers) that it'll cost even less, so
be it. However, the request of the OP was to not lose precious perkies because their GV
was killed by aircraft. Huh. :huh
Coordinate GV use better then. Work as groups. Up the Warbles and Oopsties first and
position them before the costly Tih-gers spawn. Call in air support. You know, the virtual
equivalent of what the real life Panzer corps may have done in your shoes. Or up Panzers
(or Shermans for that matter).
Oh the unfairness of it all? Oh the humanity! :D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img543/4348/vxuz.png)
-
id have to see we're it is written that the pilot of a lanc couldn't drop the bomb load
or where it is written that he could? the absence of a negative does not prove a positive. I note that 617 squadron still used bomb aimers at 60ft.
But (I will admit) it is a game play consideration more than a RL modelling request.
neither is it the main plank of my "wishes" above.
I suppose that if it could be argued that heavy bombers could also be designated attack aircraft then I would revert to the wish to see the attack classification button implemented for them with bomb release from Pos 1 (F1 only) enabled but formation disabled.
I think that if this (attack mode heavy bombers) were implemented on the basis such as " we have found one or two RL precedents therefore it is enabled for all to do it all the time" it would be a retrograde step.
-
hmm, big GV's not being very useful when lots of enemy planes are around and not many of your own? the M/A might be a bit more realistic then people say :D
-
Sure there is. Don't wanna risk losing perks? Don't use `em. :D
(http://imageshack.us/a/img69/2448/3nc.png)
:salute :cheers:
(http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr285/semperac/262kill.jpg) (http://s492.photobucket.com/user/semperac/media/262kill.jpg.html)
semp
-
If HTC decides (with the introduction of tank destroyers) that it'll cost even less, so
be it. However, the request of the OP was to not lose precious perkies because their GV was killed by aircraft. :confused:
I agree with Arlo on this............
If the perk price of the Tiger II NOW causes it to be hardly ever used........ then lower it.
IMO the TigerII should be a fairly rare combatant.
Re the argument regarding extracating any vehicle to a "successful landing" when attacking (an enemy base)I think there is merit in further discussion here. I am not in favour of non combatants picking up proxy kills because they happen to be within range of a de spawning GV.
I think GV's should be able to despawn more successfully than now. This would warrant more discussion IMO. I am currently in favour of a time delay during despawn to deny its abuse as a method of escape from immediate combat. If possible the time delay would be proportional to the quantity/proximity of enemy vehicles to the despawning GV.
-
Lesson the perk loss for a ditch maybe? And shorten the distance from a fight to 3.5k for a safe landing might help
As of now ,there is no way to know if your going to get a safe landing or not,,,, maybe some kind of marker on the screen to let you know if you can land safely or not?
-
maybe some kind of marker on the screen to let you know if you can land safely or not?
My first instinct was that this could be abused but actually what's wrong with knowing there is some enemy within 6k (or what ever the range is).
very simple mechanism (using FE data already in place) to make despawning less of a lottery. It akin to having advice from local infantry re general enemy disposition.
-
My first instinct was that this could be abused but actually what's wrong with knowing there is some enemy within 6k (or what ever the range is).
First thing that springs to mind is waiting by an enemy spawn that is empty, marker goes away you know somebody's there, and if you are positioned right the general direction they are.
It might be ok if it worked something along the lines of updating only once every 30 seconds or so. Still gives you the info you're clear to land in reasonably timely manner, but doesn't give too much exact info when guys spawn in.
As to the OP, perhaps the idea should also be extended to ship guns? They're completely out of reach and there's nothing to be done about it as well. That's the real 'dropping out of nowhere' death from above.
Wiley.
-
Yes some sort of time delay might help..... I think if the advice is its safe (to despawn) then it must be so
I suppose it could be a pop up when you end sortie..... "Enemy activity reported in your area" with a pair of buttons "Return to base" or Return to action".
But then concrete sitters would object to that if a they were listening to bombs whistling in. :P
-
The thing about the delay would be that you have to let the player now when it updates. Say have an indicator on the information ring in TC mode, red light / green light type of thing.
Have it blink yellow for a sec when it updates.
-
Not all GC's have a TC mode but the point is good......
Reckon Wiley should post it as a new wish thread topic.... Would get my vote FWIW. ( which is not a lot ! )
-
Not all GC's have a TC mode but the point is good......
Reckon Wiley should post it as a new wish thread topic.... Would get my vote FWIW. ( which is not a lot ! )
yea originally was going to say, A light on the dash but not everything has a dash,, It could be inside the main gun sight on a tank or anywhere,,, but if it is green to land,, you need to have about a five second window so you don't look to see the light,, then hit .EF and get a ditch! 5 seconds might be more than enough but the time it takes to EF needs to be compensated for!
-
Not all GC's have a TC mode but the point is good......
Reckon WWhiskey should post it as a new wish thread topic.... Would get my vote FWIW. ( which is not a lot ! )
Appologies original post corrected.
-
;-). I'll post it next week if know one chimes in here sbout it! From HTC. Anyway!
-
This sounds like a "I had 20+ spawn camping kills and was on my way to land when this sweetheart in an A20 "easymoded me to death" whine.
<snip>
Actually, this is not what I had in mind in my OP. You do have a healthy imagination though, if that's what you make of it.
MH
-
<snip>
However, the request of the OP was to not lose precious perkies because their GV
was killed by aircraft. Huh. :huh
<snip>
Er, no, that's not what the OP's original request was either, nor was it motivated by the death of a perked GV. Read it again...
The thing I don't get about your posts and simlar posts in this thread is *why* do you care?? It sounds like a knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "if GV guys want it, it must be bad". If this idea were implemented, and the bigger GVs started roaming around more, you could still bomb them to your heart's content. More easily, even.
MH