Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: smoe on September 22, 2013, 10:51:29 AM
-
I would like to make a new rule. Instead of allowing only WWII planes that have scene combat in the game, how about allowing some stock planes which the Reno Air Races classifies as a WWII fighters? I.E. P-51H Mustangs, F-8F Bearcats and Hawker Sea Fury's. A lot of late model missing fighters were combat ready before WWII ended.
-
There really are quite a few neat, usable aircraft with interesting histories that were used during WWII and that have yet to be added. We really aren't at the point where the only things that could be used in the MA are post war super fighters.
-
Ya we have enough super fighters as it is. I think the trend should go the other way. Add incentives to those aircraft less capable so we see more of those in the cartoon skies.
-
Ya we have enough super fighters as it is. I think the trend should go the other way. Add incentives to those aircraft less capable so we see more of those in the cartoon skies.
+1 for this. -1 for the OP.
-
Agree with Karnak. First off, there remains many AH models that need to be brought up to AH2 standards. There remains a lot of aircraft/vehicles (and variants) throughout the course of WW2 that AH does not have in game yet that have served in combat in numbers.
I do not think it is wise to open the door to post WW2 craft. That goes beyond what the original theme and purpose of this game is. Also, in order to really appreciate what HTC (and the players who submit skins of AC/GV's) has to go through to thoroughly research, create, model, and implement the vehicles that we enjoy, you would have to experience the tediousness of it yourself. I think the system works fine as it is.
-
Another thing to consider is that as more capable rides are added it makes it harder for the usable, but not top end, rides. The F8F is better than the Spit XVI, but the Spit XVI has a chance against it. A C.205 is really in a bad place against a Spit XVI, but against an F8F it is completely screwed. Even added as perk planes they have an impact, felt more harshly by the older units and that dampens the desire to even try the older units because of the chance of meeting a super fighter.
-
quote from fugitive "add incentives to those aircraft less capable so we see more of those in the cartoon skies."
I propose Hitech add "perks per sortie" as an incentive to fly less capable planes.
-
I would like to make a new rule. Instead of allowing only WWII planes that have scene combat in the game, how about allowing some stock planes which the Reno Air Races classifies as a WWII fighters? I.E. P-51H Mustangs, F-8F Bearcats and Hawker Sea Fury's. A lot of late model missing fighters were combat ready before WWII ended.
There's just not enough no for this.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/no-effin-way.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/jonah-hill-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/John-Krasinski-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/john-cleese-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/jake-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/646.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/486.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/short-answer.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/sherlock-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/rickey.gif)
-
There's just not enough no for this.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/no-effin-way.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/jonah-hill-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/John-Krasinski-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/john-cleese-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/jake-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/646.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/486.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/short-answer.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/sherlock-no.gif)
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/rickey.gif)
Where do you find all of these lol :rofl :aok
-
The internet. Too much junk there. Really.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/gallery/no/
-
World war Two was fought with the first 3 years of Aircraft: P-40, Spitfire, 109s.
P-51H for example might of been in production, but it didn't do squat - plenty of other aircraft flew combat and served their purpose before we start adding aircraft that didn't even change the war effort.
-
World war Two was fought with the first 3 years of Aircraft: P-40, Spitfire, 109s.
:huh :headscratch: what?
-
I would like to make a new rule. Instead of allowing only WWII planes that have seen combat in the game, how about allowing some stock planes which the Reno Air Races classifies as a WWII fighters? I.E. P-51H Mustangs, F-8F Bearcats and Hawker Sea Fury's. A lot of late model missing fighters were combat ready before WWII ended.
FYI
-
FYI
Thanks Zoney...now the original request makes scents. :P
-1 on OP. I'm told this game is about equipment that saw combat in WW2 in squadron strengths. That seems to be a very reasonable premise and they still have plenty of legitimate combat aircraft to add.
-
Is it time to plug the J2M already again? :x
-
The correction was offered because there are many here that do not speak or read or write English as their native language. I think it is these folks that might appreciate being shown the correction. I think there are also many English speakers who may not know the correct usage and might also want to. I understand that none of us are perfect but most of us would like to continue learning.
I make many mistakes typing. I lost half of my right pinkie finger, (in a motorcycle roadracing crash where it was trapped between the handlebar and the ground at about 140mph, instantly gone), and now must constantly move my right hand to the right so I can access those letters it used to cover. I try to proof read and correct these mistakes before I post to make my posts reasonably easy to understand.
Please do not think I am trolling you or have a "holier-than-thou" attitude.
:salute
-
While they may not be classed as late war birds the Italians had some planes I would like to see like the S.M.79-1 Sparviero bomber and the Macchi MC 200 Saetta fighter.
-
While they may not be classed as late war birds the Italians had some planes I would like to see like the S.M.79-1 Sparviero bomber and the Macchi MC 200 Saetta fighter.
Yes.
-
Ya we have enough super fighters as it is. I think the trend should go the other way. Add incentives to those aircraft less capable so we see more of those in the cartoon skies.
why? :headscratch:
-
quote from fugitive "add incentives to those aircraft less capable so we see more of those in the cartoon skies."
I propose Hitech add "perks per sortie" as an incentive to fly less capable planes.
I know this was intended to be a funny answer, but it's only funny if one accepts that the perk system is incentive to fly less capale planes. It's not. The reward for flying older planes is tah dah! you get a perk ride. so if people cash in their perks you get a super plane for every terd plane. that doesn't change the ballence of planes to the terds.
What would be an incentive is to include PERKS Earned in the Rank system. :salute
-
I know this was intended to be a funny answer, but it's only funny if one accepts that the perk system is incentive to fly less capale planes. It's not. The reward for flying older planes is tah dah! you get a perk ride. so if people cash in their perks you get a super plane for every terd plane. that doesn't change the ballence of planes to the terds.
What would be an incentive is to include PERKS Earned in the Rank system. :salute
Ah. Ok. Perk more late rides. Increase the perk cost on those already perked.
Better? :D
-
Hitech could change the scope of perk farming rides. Make the purpose and results a 1 to 1 tangible saels menu for most players rather than our slightly arcane process. Give the customer an easy to understand reason for flying a guppy into a barrel full of starving sharks.
Designate six to eight of the early and mid war rides specifically "Perk Earners" even under that tab name in the hanger. For flying them and landing say 3-5 kills in a sortie, you earn 50-60 perks. Anything less is under the in place perk multiplier. A clarification would be using the same concept as when choosing a fuel load out you get a time at Mil power estimate. Under the "Perk Earner" tab each aircraft has a note telling the number of kills to perks earned. This satisfies two basic rule of sales. "What's in it for Me" and "Greed". Fast way to get you into everything but a 262. Then only an evening for the 262 in some cases. Yes we all know someone who will do it in one sortie. But, he would already have 100 - 262 rides sitting in his bank from tours past unused.
Something the same could be done with the He 111 and Betty to earn B29 points. Sink a CV with an He 111 and get the points for a B29. Heck, reward sinking a CV with any aircraft's torpedo in such a manner if you land the sortie. As a 5 inch gunner they don't get closer than 3-4k to me anymore because that close to the water you just look at the range in the 5 inchers HUD and adjust short.
This is no different than selling cars in a bad economy by offering 0% and other incentives. Initially having a bunch of vets running around in the perk earners might make it easier on the newbies in their favorite hotrods of survival. I think the vets would have ch200 and forum fun calling each other names over using easy mode late war rides to take advantage of each other when some were flying a perk earner.
-
Bustr may have something here. :D
-
Ah. Ok. Perk more late rides. Increase the perk cost on those already perked.
Better? :D
well my point is that if you include Perk points earned in the ranking system, no one needs cash them in for a benefit. It means if you score the exact same stats in a P-40 as a guy in a tempest, you are ranked much higher. Which you should be. Those that play the point system will move toward lower ENY rides, and away from Uber rides...even the non perk Uber rides like Pony's LaLas, n1kis, and Spits. :salute
-
People are still playing for score??
And someone really reads the AH front page every month to see who gamed the system like it matters??
Most of that died off after SHawk stopped putting himself on the front page every month for years. Numbers in this game are more mental effort than your average player wants to deal with. And the things you have to do to get on the front page are only interesting to a tiny percentage of the players with time on their hands.
What's in it for me, and greed, is how you sell everything on this planet. We ain't getting any younger, and our new players are millennials. In the gaming world they operate by: What's in it for me, and greed.
Make doing something worth it "now" for them, and they will climb over your cold dead body getting there.
If you fly a P40C and land 3 kills you will get 50 points.
A 262 right now is worth 200 points.
A 163 right now is worth 100 points.
A F4u-4 right now is worth 36 points.
A Tempest right now is worth 35 points.
No different than the Flying Tigers and their contracts in WW2.
Numbers as an abstract cannot be used to shame any single player in the MA as a measure of their game manhood related to the score because we all know how it can be gamed. The kills landed message affirms a player but, really cannot be used to shame anyone's performance. It does act as a filter to highlight talented players. Including perk points in the score to create a leveling visa ride choice introduces the ability to shame players at any moment for not being a real man. Then you introduce the fertile ground unintended consequences of ch200 and PM bullying.
So Vinkman if it will affirm you for all of your unsung personal effort in dog rides:
All salute Vinkman the Master of Aces High Dog Rides!! :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute
-
People are still playing for score??
And someone really reads the AH front page every month to see who gamed the system like it matters??
Most of that died off after SHawk stopped putting himself on the front page every month for years. Numbers in this game are more mental effort than your average player wants to deal with. And the things you have to do to get on the front page are only interesting to a tiny percentage of the players with time on their hands.
What's in it for me, and greed, is how you sell everything on this planet. We ain't getting any younger, and our new players are millennials. In the gaming world they operate by: What's in it for me, and greed.
Make doing something worth it "now" for them, and they will climb over your cold dead body getting there.
If you fly a P40C and land 3 kills you will get 50 points.
A 262 right now is worth 200 points.
A 163 right now is worth 100 points.
A F4u-4 right now is worth 36 points.
A Tempest right now is worth 35 points.
No different than the Flying Tigers and their contracts in WW2.
Numbers as an abstract cannot be used to shame any single player in the MA as a measure of their game manhood related to the score because we all know how it can be gamed. The kills landed message affirms a player but, really cannot be used to shame anyone's performance. It does act as a filter to highlight talented players. Including perk points in the score to create a leveling visa ride choice introduces the ability to shame players at any moment for not being a real man. Then you introduce the fertile ground unintended consequences of ch200 and PM bullying.
So Vinkman if it will affirm you for all of your unsung personal effort in dog rides:
All salute Vinkman the Master of Aces High Dog Rides!! :salute :salute :salute :salute :salute
A common misunderstanding is confusing an analysis of the games many player's motivations for the posters. I am observing that many play for score. I don't. Many fly dog rides to add challenge when their ability reach a certain level, or to brag. I don't. I don't really fly dog rides [K4, 410, 190-A5] are the planes I am in the most. They are just the planes I like.
The rest is of your response is trolling.
Out. :salute
-
you're just weird Vinkman :D ...but you are fun to wing with.
it would be interesting to see how many players in the arenas actually play for score and/or achievements...any bets that it's over 55%?
-
I still want the XB-70 Valkyrie! :x
-
you're just weird Vinkman :D ...but you are fun to wing with.
it would be interesting to see how many players in the arenas actually play for score and/or achievements...any bets that it's over 55%?
I would bet that 55% or more would say that score or achievement affect their plane choice SOMETIMES. How often it affects their choice would be the other axis of a lusche type Histogram.
What other explanation is there of for all the runners in the game? :salute
-
it would be interesting to see how many players in the arenas actually play for score and/or achievements...any bets that it's over 55%?
Probably depends much on how we define "playing for score"
I'd guess only a very small minority is really playing for score, in the sense of doing only things they deem to be beneficial to their score and strictly avoiding anything else. Thus placing their score above everything else
A much greater percentage would be the ones looking to achieve a good score, but not letting their gameplay excessively dominate by that, for example by plane choice, doing a mission that they know to be 'hurting their score'. Of course, they will occasionally do something that's good for their score, if opportunity arises. I'm one of them ;)
Often their prime motivation in the game is something different, for example winning the war.
The next group would be those looking at their score, being happy when it improves, but otherwise not really caring much about it, and almost never letting score considerations guide their game.
And the last ones really don't care about score.... and often are willing to let everybody know, constantly (Most talk about score in game is coming from those 'not caring about it' :D)
And yes, I do thing those caring about score more than everything else is only a small minority. Most players have one or several other different motivations dominating their game.
-
What other explanation is there of for all the runners in the game? :salute
They don't want to be shot down (=lose), which can be a very significant psychological motivation even if you don't track your score at all.
-
I still contend part of the perk system should consider total number of plane types in play based on WW2 use data base for the given time period.
As an example say the data suggested 262s in the MA war period made up 4%(WAG) of the expected combat planes available for flight. That would allow four, 262s per every hundred players per country to be taken from the hanger. For the game portion of the simulation that 2% number as an example might have to be higher for overall player satisfaction. The point is put a limit on the number of high performance planes to add to the current perk control system. It would be close to the system now used to help control country imbalances.
-
you're just weird Vinkman :D ...but you are fun to wing with.
it would be interesting to see how many players in the arenas actually play for score and/or achievements...any bets that it's over 55%?
That's easy, if they have any fighter flights in attack they are playing for score. Who would even think to change the box for a fighter unless you think about score in the first place?
-
That's easy, if they have any fighter flights in attack they are playing for score. Who would even think to change the box for a fighter unless you think about score in the first place?
Not that easy. It can also be just a secondary consideration... "If I'm going to attack that base or defend this one vs GV, why shouldn't I use the correct score category?". It still doesn't have to mean score is their main motivation behind that sortie.
-
That's easy, if they have any fighter flights in attack they are playing for score. Who would even think to change the box for a fighter unless you think about score in the first place?
I have scores in both Fighter and Attack, and I have never dropped a single bomb. Every month I like to seperate out an aircraft or 2 that i only fly fighter and then I fly the rest in attack. I don't do it for score per say but I do it so I can easily track how I am doing in the fighters I have designated as "Fighter. I focus more when I amin "Fighter", I simply have a different mindset. It is more of an FSO mindset. This month the only thing I have flown in "fighter" is the ME262, and I only have 2 sorties in it. I'm not trying to manipulate my score. The game gives me the option of choosing 'Fighter" or "Attack" and I choose to use them as I please. There are no rules for how I should use them nor have I ever heard a prponderance of public opinion on how they should be used.
-
I have scores in both Fighter and Attack, and I have never dropped a single bomb. Every month I like to seperate out an aircraft or 2 that i only fly fighter and then I fly the rest in attack. I don't do it for score per say but I do it so I can easily track how I am doing in the fighters I have designated as "Fighter. I focus more when I amin "Fighter", I simply have a different mindset. It is more of an FSO mindset. This month the only thing I have flown in "fighter" is the ME262, and I only have 2 sorties in it. I'm not trying to manipulate my score. The game gives me the option of choosing 'Fighter" or "Attack" and I choose to use them as I please. There are no rules for how I should use them nor have I ever heard a prponderance of public opinion on how they should be used.
There ya go, that's a good idea too. I think I might borrow that to track how I do in "new" planes I'm trying to become familiar with.
Thanks.
:salute
-
:rofl :aok
-
WWII air combat covers all the planes that fought in WWII.
If you start adding planes that didn't fight in WWII that are significantly better than the ones that did typically fight in WWII, all that will happen is that a lot more people will fly those and a lot fewer people will fly the planes that were most representative of the war.
What's the point of that? If you want that, why not add F-16's or space ships?
-
That ^ is called "War Thunder."
-
Well I always thought of the WWI arena as a waste of effort. Instead they could have added early WW2 rides to provide for a better early war arena and scenarios. I mean if they want to do the flying circus thing there's always the Spanish "Civil War" for example, with the very-early Bf109 models, I16 (or was it the 15???) and we have the Polish planes which we see none of in AH. The D.520 would also be interesting... and so the list goes.
It would be wise (in my humble opinion) of HTC trying not to compete with other fantastic WW1 sims but rather continue to play their strong hand in the WW2 lineup of a/c by adding to and expanding upon it.
-
Some portion of the player base always agitates for WWI and Korean War. Air Warrior had a WWI arena and a Korean War arena, and neither saw much use.
The golden age of dogfighting is WWII -- best mix of performance but still close enough to see your enemy well.
-
Some portion of the player base always agitates for WWI and Korean War. Air Warrior had a WWI arena and a Korean War arena, and neither saw much use.
The golden age of dogfighting is WWII -- best mix of performance but still close enough to see your enemy well.
Hey, they dogfought face to ace in Korea. :D
(http://acepilots.com/planes/Dogfighters_Series_3_Part_2_by_WS_Clave.jpg)
(Spanish Civil War - bipes on steroids)
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e219/smithanddietz/PIC_0015.jpg)
-
Hey, they dogfought face to ace in Korea. :D
Jets are at the speed where a 360 takes a long time, and getting to within 1000 yards was work in the Air Warrior Korean War arena.
-
Jets are at the speed where a 360 takes a long time, and getting to within 1000 yards was work in the Air Warrior Korean War arena.
They had throttles and flaps. ;)
It was interestin'. It got hard when it went FR. The KWRR regulars didn't much like that what with g-forces and stalls. :t
-
Well I always thought of the WWI arena as a waste of effort. Instead they could have added early WW2 rides to provide for a better early war arena and scenarios.....continue to play their strong hand in the WW2 lineup of a/c by adding to and expanding upon it.
Excellent point :aok