Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on October 02, 2013, 10:31:31 AM
-
Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle. This can be adjustable.
Rationale:
1) Assumption is that HTC wants to attract GV subscribers as well as AC subscribers. If not, all bets are off.
2) If so, they need to consistently provide a portion of the main LW arena where GVs can play relatively unmolested by AC. It is frustrating for experienced players to realize that any halfway competent player in a plane can kill their expensive perk tank, and there is nothing they can do about it. Imagine then how much worse it is for new player.
3) The preceding is best achieved by integrating GV-safe and GV-open-season areas over the entire map, on all maps. Thus, they will always be there, no matter when you log on.
4) But map changes are a lot of extra work for HTC.
5) The OP allows use of existing maps with a simple rules change.
6) The “war” can still be fought and won using the air bases, which comprise the majority on all maps. VBases can also be captured to “win the war” if attackers are able to do so without bombing GVs within the circle.
7) GVs can still be bombed normally everywhere else, so that play style is retained.
MH
-
Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle. This can be adjustable.
Rationale:
1) Assumption is that HTC wants to attract GV subscribers as well as AC subscribers. If not, all bets are off.
2) If so, they need to consistently provide a portion of the main LW arena where GVs can play relatively unmolested by AC. It is frustrating for experienced players to realize that any halfway competent player in a plane can kill their expensive perk tank, and there is nothing they can do about it. Imagine then how much worse it is for new player.
3) The preceding is best achieved by integrating GV-safe and GV-open-season areas over the entire map, on all maps. Thus, they will always be there, no matter when you log on.
4) But map changes are a lot of extra work for HTC.
5) The OP allows use of existing maps with a simple rules change.
6) The “war” can still be fought and won using the air bases, which comprise the majority on all maps. VBases can also be captured to “win the war” if attackers are able to do so without bombing GVs within the circle.
7) GVs can still be bombed normally everywhere else, so that play style is retained.
MH
Bring a wirble friend.
If this is the case, then GVs should lose perks many more perks if they kill any plane with their main gun while in a Vbase radar (or airfield). Also, lose perks if wirbles get any kills in Vbase radar.
1 sided (in my opinion) whine wish.
Something that would be PRODUCTIVE to Aces High. Would be to add portable 88mm anti-tank/anti-aircraft batteries. That a Jeep or M3 would tow. That would work exactly like our 88mms at base, that you could shoot at tanks with AND defend your tanks with from planes.
This isn't productive, it's a "keep away area". Not fun for the plane members of Aces High.
-1 for this wish.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
I will say no thanks. I enjoy air to ground and ground to air combat and don't want it reduced. If my pricey perk tank gets bombed, I can up a wirble or plane and try and extract revenge. When I lose a perk tank its usually because I'm camping or causing enough trouble to where I don't blame the guy one bit for dropping an egg on me.
If I run low on perks, the "free" or really cheap tanks are capable of accomplishing about anything. When CraterMA pops up in rotation, a couple hours in a Panzer F and M3 in Tank Town and perks stack up pretty fast.
-
BTW, I realize that the usual 10 anti-GV guys will post negative replies, because, by in large, they enjoy the current situation, which forces GVers to be mice to their cats everywhere on the map. And I can see why, if you don't GV much, this seems like it might be over-controlling the game (violates the traditional "free-for-all" philosophy).
However, don't forget that HTC has apparently decided to support GVs as an equal part of their game, as evidenced by all the new GV models introduced, and the new GV control mode. Once this step was taken by HTC, the fundamental inferiority of GVs relative to AC becomes central to a large minority of the player base, rather than peripheral as before. Thus, it seems approprate to reexamine the traditional "laissez faire" attitude and to perhaps take steps to adjust to the new reality, such as that suggested in this OP.
Speaking for myself, I will maintain my subscription regardless, even though the current situation makes the game less fun than it could be. However, those mostly interested in GVs will be frustrated, and may not become and/or remain a part of the paying AH community.
MH
-
It is an interesting idea, but I am not sure it would be very effective.
-
It is an interesting idea, but I am not sure it would be very effective.
Well, HTC could probably try it relatively easily to see how well it works. I assume you are thinking that the revenge motivation would still determine what people do? I had my Panther hunted down by a formation (!) of B24s yesterday in TT. I guess that the question is how many perk points would someone be willing to lose in order to obtain revenge. I think it would deter the griefers at least.
MH
-
The notion that bombing a GV base and hitting a GV should be penalized strikes me as ludicrous. I think the greifer would be parking in the GV hanger.
-
Well, HTC could probably try it relatively easily to see how well it works. I assume you are thinking that the revenge motivation would still determine what people do? I had my Panther hunted down by a formation (!) of B24s yesterday in TT. I guess that the question is how many perk points would someone be willing to lose in order to obtain revenge. I think it would deter the griefers at least.
MH
Not an anti-GVer. Very bad to assume as to the reasons why anyone posts anything, because most of the time someone is wrong.
As for the bold part of your statement (above), a wish similar to this would be FAR more better to address the problem.
All heavy bombers shouldn't be able to drop bombs under 5000 feet.
(However, some bombers who have the option to carry things like Torpedos (ju88 and He111 (I think)) would be able to drop only torpedos at their respective altitudes/speeds. Including the LANC with it's anti-bridge bomb :devil )
I am a GVer, but I do understand that HTC while supporting the GVs doesn't give you the right to be a jerk to those you know won't support your wish.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
From TDeacon "Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle"
Its a Bloody Aircraft game with tanks I GV enough to know that bombing GVs is common enough to be a pain but the part i quoted is an excuse to make GVs impervious to danger.
GVs are targets no matter what you cant stop people from doing it and its not really fair to punish people for playing the game the way they its there 15$ (Rant over)
-
How is penalizing one segment of the player base for playing the game going to increase subscribers? Make no mistake about it, all your wish amounts is to penalize the player for simply playing the game. There is absolutely nothing wrong about a player bombing another player's GV, after all it's part of the game mechanics.
ack-ack
-
There is NOTHING wrong with punishing players for "playing the game" if it is a detrimental aspect of the game. What those of you who stated otherwise are ignoring, is AH ALREADY punishes people for bad behavior. Kill shooter for example.
The difference here is that Deacon's gripe is FAR LOWER on the scale of distasteful behavior than shooting one's own countryman. That does not make it right.
I don't think Deacon's idea is the right answer to this problem, but his concerns are absolutely a problem and are NOT just a matter of people "playing the game." It's a minor form of harassment, it's poor sportsmanship and immature behavior just to name a few.
I hear more complaints about people running from air to air engagements just to come back and pick than I do about Deacon's complaint and in my opinion, sore losers looking for sucker punch-revenge kills are the lower form of life.
The facts are, GVs are already more vulnerable to air attack than in real life. They are helpless for the most part. They are an important part of the game and any imbalance is bad for business.
This game needs to set itself apart from the squeaker-fests found in FPS's. If someone want's revenge for getting their bellybutton kicked in a fair fight then so be it, but don't make it so easy that they can make a bee-line right to you and send you to tower 5 minutes after you killed them.
-
Aces High by it's nature promotes, but doesn't require, cooperative gameplay. AA and air cover are better solutions then penalizing players for playing within the rules.
-
There is NOTHING wrong with punishing players for "playing the game" if it is a detrimental aspect of the game. What those of you who stated otherwise are ignoring, is AH ALREADY punishes people for bad behavior. Kill shooter for example.
The difference here is that Deacon's gripe is FAR LOWER on the scale of distasteful behavior than shooting one's own countryman. That does not make it right.
I don't think Deacon's idea is the right answer to this problem, but his concerns are absolutely a problem and are NOT just a matter of people "playing the game." It's a minor form of harassment, it's poor sportsmanship and immature behavior just to name a few.
I hear more complaints about people running from air to air engagements just to come back and pick than I do about Deacon's complaint and in my opinion, sore losers looking for sucker punch-revenge kills are the lower form of life.
The facts are, GVs are already more vulnerable to air attack than in real life. They are helpless for the most part. They are an important part of the game and any imbalance is bad for business.
This game needs to set itself apart from the squeaker-fests found in FPS's. If someone want's revenge for getting their bellybutton kicked in a fair fight then so be it, but don't make it so easy that they can make a bee-line right to you and send you to tower 5 minutes after you killed them.
First off punishing people for playing the game within the rules is bad for bussiness FLS has a point the game does not require co-op game play its there 15 Dollars so they can play anywaythey like within the game rules
-
From D-Day on this was the SOP for German tanks. Pilots were imbedded with front line units to call air strikes because they could speak attack pilot. Or light aircraft were used, or the troops and tankers called it in themselves. Just like our game works now.
Forward Cntrlr: Dog flight leader we have a tiger blocking our column West of alpha12 sector, east entrance to Malme village.
Dog flight Ldr: roger, 5 heavy inbound, 3 minutes.
Forward Cntrlr: Left of the church 1000yds, behind the wall.
Dog flight Ldr: roger, confirmation. 1 minute.
Boom, Dead tiger.
Forward Cntrlr: thank you dog flight leader.
Dog flight Ldr: roger, back on station, call if you need us.
If you don't want to get shot for your $14.95 in Aces High. Find another game, or put up your own custom arena. I don't like getting shot or bombed anymore than the next guy. Tanking is no more special than flying. Everyone gets killed in this game and no one likes it less just because they are not in a tank. Hitech is not Obama, and the MA is not a government program to provide charity to tankers because they say they are victims of being bombed too much.
The only rule in the MA: "No Rules"
-
First off punishing people for playing the game within the rules is bad for bussiness FLS has a point the game does not require co-op game play its there 15 Dollars so they can play anywaythey like within the game rules
Actually my point is that your team mates can cover you.
-
-1 to this wish. I am as terrified as anyone when I take a Tiger II out of the safety of my base and out into the big bad world where it can get bombed with impunity, but that is all part of the fun, so I do it anyway.
The only thing I would possibly endorse that would make it tougher to hunt and kill gv's from the air is the complete removal of enemy gv icons being visible to aircraft. That would make it much easier to hide from planes. If you are moving and/or firing that would give your position away just as it does now. Storches would still be able to see icons, giving them some reason for being. I could definitely support that idea, but anything beyond that gets a no vote from me.
-
Actually my point is that your team mates can cover you.
Just goes to show i have trouble understanding what people say
-
Just goes to show i have trouble understanding what people say
It seems clear, reading the BB, that nobody understands anybody. :lol
-
<snip>
The facts are, GVs are already more vulnerable to air attack than in real life.
<snip>
Actually, I would not entirely agree with this; think Normandy 1944. My OP is not motivated by a desire to be strictly realistic (as that's not the main purpose of the game), but instead by practical game play considerations, in order to provide some GV-safe areas on every map without map changes. I claim that GVers will generally appreciate this and derive greater enjoyment from it, and that ground attack guys will still have all the opportunities they need to kill GVs on the majority of the map.
I recall HTC saying something like, in AH, the platforms (AC and GVs) are intended to be realistic simulations, while the game in which they operate is intended to be fun rather than strictly historical and realistic. In support of this concept, consider AH game mechanics such as base capture, instant GV repairs, robotic bomber gunners, kill shooter, etc. All these are not strictly realistic, but give us a generally fun sandbox in which to play with our P40s and Yaks.
Although this thread has a personal angle to it, it is not motivated by a particular event or GV death, but instead is motivated by my experience in playing GVs over the last several years, and especially since the new GV control AI.
MH
-
There is NOTHING wrong with punishing players for "playing the game" if it is a detrimental aspect of the game. What those of you who stated otherwise are ignoring, is AH ALREADY punishes people for bad behavior. Kill shooter for example.
Yes, a game won't last for very long if a player is being punished for playing the game as designed and intended. It is part of the intended game design for ground vehicles to be destroyed by aircraft, as it's part of the intended design for aircraft to be shot down by ground vehicles. Penalizing one segment because they bombed a ground vehicle, which is part of the intended game play is rather silly and frankly, quite stupid. Especially so if you then don't penalize the other segment (GVer's) for shooting down a plane, while you penalize the flyer for bombing a tank. Any game that is designed like that has an idiot for a developer.
Killshooter was added to the game to prevent possible griefing/harassment as team killing is not part of the intended game design so players that try to engage in such behavior are penalized for it. It's far different than penalizing a player for bombing a tank, which is in no way detrimental to the game in any fashion.
The difference here is that Deacon's gripe is FAR LOWER on the scale of distasteful behavior than shooting one's own countryman. That does not make it right.
The difference is Deacon wants to play while having his cake and eating it too. Notice how there is no penalty for a GV shooting down a plane or a 'safe area' for planes to fly unmolested by flak panzies? Also, bombing a ground vehicle is not 'distasteful behavior' of any sort, it is part of the intended game design as envisioned by HiTech.
I don't think Deacon's idea is the right answer to this problem, but his concerns are absolutely a problem and are NOT just a matter of people "playing the game." It's a minor form of harassment, it's poor sportsmanship and immature behavior just to name a few.
You're correct, Deacon's idea is definitely not the correct answer, in fact it is a knee jerk reaction to being bombed while in a ground vehicle. It is not a minor form of harassment/griefing either, just like shooting down another plane isn't or a ground vehicle shooting down a plane isn't.
I hear more complaints about people running from air to air engagements just to come back and pick than I do about Deacon's complaint and in my opinion, sore losers looking for sucker punch-revenge kills are the lower form of life.
I find those that die and then come to whine about it and change how the game is played because they got butt hurt they were killed to be 'low forms of life' to use your own words.
The facts are, GVs are already more vulnerable to air attack than in real life. They are helpless for the most part. They are an important part of the game and any imbalance is bad for business.
The main reason why GVs are so vulnerable to air attack in game is the fact most that GV do not use proper tactics and strategy to defend themselves from air attacks. In real life, if any commander would send out his armored force like players do in the game with little to no AAA, would be relieved of command. Yes, GVs are an important part of the game but making them immune or giving them 'sanctuary' in the MA so they are free from air attack while not providing the same luxuries to the segments of the player base (those that fly) creates an imbalance, doesn't correct it and that is bad for business.
This game needs to set itself apart from the squeaker-fests found in FPS's. If someone want's revenge for getting their bellybutton kicked in a fair fight then so be it, but don't make it so easy that they can make a bee-line right to you and send you to tower 5 minutes after you killed them.
"Revenge" killing is part of the game and this game already sets itself apart from the FPS games.
ack-ack
-
<snip rant>
You're an angry man, AckAck ...
Consider this. A Mr. Henry Ford makes black cars. TDeacon likes blue cars, and requests that they be made in addition to the black ones. Strangely enough, however, there is a vocal minority of black car owners who object to this, and start a negative publicity campaign against the blue car idea. People are funny sometimes, aren't they?
MH
-
<snip>
1 sided (in my opinion) whine wish.
Refer to your second post (quote included below), where you warn us that it is “…very bad to assume as to the reasons why anyone posts anything…”.
Something that would be PRODUCTIVE to Aces High. Would be to add portable 88mm anti-tank/anti-aircraft batteries. That a Jeep or M3 would tow. That would work exactly like our 88mms at base, that you could shoot at tanks with AND defend your tanks with from planes
FYI, manual AH 88s are extremely easy to kill with a strafing fighter, and one outside of protecting light acks would be dead meat.
This isn't productive, it's a "keep away area". Not fun for the plane members of Aces High.
Sure it’s productive. Assuming HTC wants to further support GVs, it allows for some GV-safe areas on all maps, without the expense of map changes (creation of tank towns etc.). BTW, I am a “plane member” of Aces High, and it doesn’t bother me at all.
Not an anti-GVer. Very bad to assume as to the reasons why anyone posts anything, because most of the time someone is wrong.
Not sure what you are talking about here, as your comments don't match the quotation.
As for the bold part of your statement (above), a wish similar to this would be FAR more better to address the problem.
<snip>
The part you made bold has nothing to do with the OP “wish”, but was a side comment in conjunction with the discussion with Karnak. BTW, note how he is able to post contrary views, while remaining calm and avoiding personal insults.
I am a GVer, but I do understand that HTC while supporting the GVs doesn't give you the right to be a jerk to those you know won't support your wish.
<snip>
I assume this is intended to be a personal insult?
MH
-
You're an angry man, AckAck ...
Consider this. A Mr. Henry Ford makes black cars. TDeacon likes blue cars, and requests that they be made in addition to the black ones. Strangely enough, however, there is a vocal minority of black car owners who object to this, and start a negative publicity campaign against the blue car idea. People are funny sometimes, aren't they?
MH
Except the person asking for the blue car also demands to have it half off while demanding the buy that wants the black car pay full sticker price.
ack-ack
-
Except the person asking for the blue car also demands to have it half off while demanding the buy that wants the black car pay full sticker price.
ack-ack
If I understand your point, I shouldn't ask you to subsidize my desired playing style, with yours? Fair enough.
But wouldn't the OP would theoretically still allow bombing GVs on most of the map, thus theoretically preserving the ground attack play style? I am sure that many GVers will still play outside the VBase circles, and will thus still be vulnerable to bombing on most of the map. (If they don't, then the idea would need to be modified, as ground attack play is valid too). I mean I did try (in my imperfect way) to consider this from both sides. I used to fly a lot years ago, and hopefully will again when I build my new computer. The OP idea doesn't bother me from a aircraft-user's perspective, because I understand the desire of some GVers for their own sandbox. It seems fair.
MH
-
Except the person asking for the blue car also demands to have it half off while demanding the buy that wants the black car pay full sticker price.
ack-ack
Careful Ack-Ack, he'll call you a child molester and bank robber if you continue to disagree with him.
-
Actually, I would not entirely agree with this; think Normandy 1944.
Then you are missing the point. I was not referring to Germany's army in the death throws of it's last days. I was referring to a more evenly matched or idelic time. In 44 the luftwaffe was beaten to a pulp and the only defense tanks had was land based. Even then it wasn't as bad as AH.
AH is designed to be a game/war that is evenly matched mechanically. Notice all sides have tiger tanks, not just one side.
My OP is not motivated by a desire to be strictly realistic
Nor was mine.
Yes, a game won't last for very long if a player is being punished for playing the game as designed and intended...
..."Revenge" killing is part of the game and this game already sets itself apart from the FPS games.
Really? So your saying because revenge killing has been tolerated, that it is designed into the game? Then why are 163s and 262s perked? Couldn't be they would run rampant because they are everyone's FAVE plane could it?
Or is it more likely everyone would get so tired of being bashed by the dweebs that hate losing that everyone gives up their favorite rides resulting in a never ending arms race?
Yes, I think that is by far the REAL reason perk planes are perked.
So on the one hand, it's not ok to 1 up everyone by grabbing a 262 when you suck at every other fighter. But it is ok to grab B24s when you suck in a tank.
...Penalizing one segment because they bombed a ground vehicle, which is part of the intended game play is rather silly and frankly, quite stupid.
...Is far different than penalizing a player for bombing a tank, which is in no way detrimental to the game in any fashion.
Also, bombing a ground vehicle is not 'distasteful behavior' of any sort, it is part of the intended game design as envisioned by HiTech.
...
I think you're wrong on all counts. But hitechs your buddy. If you say he designed this game to let some puss rage about losing, that he can throw his little tantrums at will. Then I believe you. I wonder what he would do if it was his tank.
Or maybe the game was designed to be a fun game decided by relative skill and revenge kills were meant to be earned in a fair battle or by chance, not just an unintended consequence of how the game was set up.
Especially so if you then don't penalize the other segment (GVer's) for shooting down a plane, while you penalize the flyer for bombing a tank. Any game that is designed like that has an idiot for a developer.
I didn't agree with Deacon's idea of how to do punish anyone and I didn't comment on GVs shooting planes.
Killshooter was added to the game to prevent possible griefing/harassment as team killing
Team killing and revenge kills are the same crimes, just different targets. Some loser goes on a rage and decides to pee in the punch bowl.
The difference is Deacon wants to play while having his cake and eating it too. Notice how there is no penalty for a GV shooting down a plane or a 'safe area' for planes to fly unmolested by flak panzies?
And again, I didn't agree with his idea and I don't know what he "wants." But I don't recall any of the rules of the wish list being "you must provide a fully developed idea or don't provide any."
The main reason why GVs are so vulnerable to air attack in game is the fact most that GV do not use proper tactics and strategy to defend themselves from air attacks. In real life, if any commander would send out his armored force like players do in the game with little to no AAA, would be relieved of command.
So where do you propose they get this AAA support in AH? An official request for reinforcements? Just curious.
Yes, GVs are an important part of the game but making them immune or giving them 'sanctuary' in the MA so they are free from air attack while not providing the same luxuries to the segments of the player base (those that fly) creates an imbalance, doesn't correct it and that is bad for business.
And again, stop trying to spoon feed me your words. I didn't agree with the idea, only the concept of balancing the ground war with the air war. And I agreed that punishments work. Deacon's idea, no.
I find those that die and then come to whine about it and change how the game is played because they got butt hurt they were killed to be 'low forms of life' to use your own words.
Well for once we agree. But I didn't see any mention of a specific "butt" invasion in the OP so I don't consider this wish qualified.
What Deacon DID mention is an undesirable aspect of the game no matter what prompted him to post or whether his idea was any good or not. It's a problem that chases away discerning adult customers who don't come to this game with Andrew Dice Clay's ego.
Revenge is sweet, I love it myself. I have been on both sides of Deacon's complaint. I did the insta-revenge and I have gotten bounced that way. Still bad for business. It happens in ALL the BEST games. Still bad for business.
Even major league sports recognizes that childish behavior is like a poison. And by god they put an end to those retarded end zone dances.
-
Really? So your saying because revenge killing has been tolerated, that it is designed into the game?
There is nothing wrong about going after the person that just shot you down, it is part of the game and not because it's been 'tolerated', it's part of the game design. I have no idea where you get its something that shouldn't be tolerated or has no place in this game. It's rather amusing that someone actually thinks like that.
Then why are 163s and 262s perked? Couldn't be they would run rampant because they are everyone's FAVE plane could it?
Perking planes that would, unperked, cause an imbalance has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's wish or showing an example of bad game play. Your example is just as inane as TDeacon's car example or his child molester/bank robber comparison.
Or is it more likely everyone would get so tired of being bashed by the dweebs that hate losing that everyone gives up their favorite rides resulting in a never ending arms race?
Again, has nothing to do with the OP's wish, just another example of using a poor example to try and prove a failing point.
Yes, I think that is by far the REAL reason perk planes are perked.
If unperked, all you would see would be jets and rocket planes. Just like when the F4U-1C was unperked, it accounted for close to 30% of all kills and majority of flights so it was perked.
So on the one hand, it's not ok to 1 up everyone by grabbing a 262 when you suck at every other fighter. But it is ok to grab B24s when you suck in a tank.
Again, another terrible example. Apples and oranges. A 262 being perked has nothing to do with someone upping a bomber or a heavy fighter to bomb a GV. Again, planes attacking GVs is a designed part of the game, just like GVs shooting down planes is a designed feature of the game.
I think you're wrong on all counts. But hitechs your buddy. If you say he designed this game to let some puss rage about losing, that he can throw his little tantrums at will. Then I believe you. I wonder what he would do if it was his tank.
You can think what you wish, it's not going to make your argument or the OPs wish any more valid. It's a terrible wish that punishes people for playing the game as it was designed. HiTech is my buddy? :rofl
HiTech designed this game so Player A can shoot down/blow up Player B and vice versa. Having shot down HiTech before (at the '98 WB Con), I can tell you that he would re-up and hunt me down and fight me again, which is what he did. He didn't whine, he didn't change the game so I couldn't shoot down P-51Ds and he didn't ban my account or kick me out of the Con.
Or maybe the game was designed to be a fun game decided by relative skill and revenge kills were meant to be earned in a fair battle or by chance, not just an unintended consequence of how the game was set up.
Of course the game was designed to be fun, if it wasn't fun people wouldn't play. If you don't feel that your tank being bombed is fun, then maybe this game isn't for you. If you don't feel that the person that you just shot down should hunt you, then maybe this game isn't for you.
Team killing and revenge kills are the same crimes, just different targets. Some loser goes on a rage and decides to pee in the punch bowl.
They are two different things, like apples and oranges. You don't want to see the difference because if you did, then you'd realize that you really have no point and just arguing for arguing sake and losing at it.
So where do you propose they get this AAA support in AH? An official request for reinforcements? Just curious.
He can ask on country channel, ask squadron mates or create a mission. People ask all the time for gunners and such, asking for a little AAA support isn't difficult.
And again, stop trying to spoon feed me your words. I didn't agree with the idea, only the concept of balancing the ground war with the air war. And I agreed that punishments work. Deacon's idea, no.
Wasn't spoon feeding you anything, just pointing out in your argument that you were wrong.
Well for once we agree. But I didn't see any mention of a specific "butt" invasion in the OP so I don't consider this wish qualified.
What Deacon DID mention is an undesirable aspect of the game no matter what prompted him to post or whether his idea was any good or not. It's a problem that chases away discerning adult customers who don't come to this game with Andrew Dice Clay's ego.
Revenge is sweet, I love it myself. I have been on both sides of Deacon's complaint. I did the insta-revenge and I have gotten bounced that way. Still bad for business. It happens in ALL the BEST games. Still bad for business.
Even major league sports recognizes that childish behavior is like a poison. And by god they put an end to those retarded end zone dances.
I don't know why you insist on trying to portray "revenge killing" as an example of detrimental game play or trying to use it as a point to support the OP. :headscratch:
ack-ack
-
FYI, manual AH 88s are extremely easy to kill with a strafing fighter, and one outside of protecting light acks would be dead meat.
I assume this is intended to be a personal insult?
MH
Doesn't mean that the portable 88 shouldn't be added. Would be a nice artillery piece at the least.
No, I don't do personal insults. If you took it that way, I apologize.
I try and compromise, to get a sort of 'even ground' among all sides with a wish. Having invulnerability in a certain area or a penalty of 'taking away points' in an area is OP and could be abused. That is why I tried to reason, and give alternatives. Not trying to throw sand or bash anyone, just simply trying to assist with what I think would be a good addition and not be a bother to another side.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
I am a GVer, but I do understand that HTC while supporting the GVs doesn't give you the right to be a jerk to those you know won't support your wish.
I assume this is intended to be a personal insult?
No, I don't do personal insults. If you took it that way, I apologize.
Your last post included a quote of mine which has been inaccurately edited; I give the correct sequence above. FYI, when I am trying to conduct a rational discussion, I find it insulting to be accused of being “a Jerk”, and I don’t think that my posts in this thread warrant that sort of comment. However, if you didn’t mean it, I accept your apology.
With respect to the OP, I want to be clear; this is a significant change to the game, and intentionally so. The evolution of AH has progressed such that GVs are now significantly emphasized, although still secondary to AC. Given this evolution, the clear disparity in game capability between GVs and AC warrants a reexamination and I believe an adjustment, and I have been attempting to do this in the OP and other threads.
So I see the OP and similar suggestions as correcting a serious existing game play imbalance. Logically, such a correction cannot itself be “balanced”. Analogy: Suppose my car is veering off the road to the left. I need to turn the steering wheel to the right to stay on the road. If I limit myself to “balanced” steering wheel input, I will continue to veer off to the left, and crash.
MH
-
Then you are missing the point. I was not referring to Germany's army in the death throws of it's last days. I was referring to a more evenly matched or idelic time. In 44 the luftwaffe was beaten to a pulp and the only defense tanks had was land based. Even then it wasn't as bad as AH.
AH is designed to be a game/war that is evenly matched mechanically. Notice all sides have tiger tanks, not just one side.
Nor was mine.
Really? So your saying because revenge killing has been tolerated, that it is designed into the game? Then why are 163s and 262s perked? Couldn't be they would run rampant because they are everyone's FAVE plane could it?
Or is it more likely everyone would get so tired of being bashed by the dweebs that hate losing that everyone gives up their favorite rides resulting in a never ending arms race?
Yes, I think that is by far the REAL reason perk planes are perked.
So on the one hand, it's not ok to 1 up everyone by grabbing a 262 when you suck at every other fighter. But it is ok to grab B24s when you suck in a tank.
I think you're wrong on all counts. But hitechs your buddy. If you say he designed this game to let some puss rage about losing, that he can throw his little tantrums at will. Then I believe you. I wonder what he would do if it was his tank.
Or maybe the game was designed to be a fun game decided by relative skill and revenge kills were meant to be earned in a fair battle or by chance, not just an unintended consequence of how the game was set up.
I didn't agree with Deacon's idea of how to do punish anyone and I didn't comment on GVs shooting planes.
Team killing and revenge kills are the same crimes, just different targets. Some loser goes on a rage and decides to pee in the punch bowl.
And again, I didn't agree with his idea and I don't know what he "wants." But I don't recall any of the rules of the wish list being "you must provide a fully developed idea or don't provide any."
So where do you propose they get this AAA support in AH? An official request for reinforcements? Just curious.
And again, stop trying to spoon feed me your words. I didn't agree with the idea, only the concept of balancing the ground war with the air war. And I agreed that punishments work. Deacon's idea, no.
Well for once we agree. But I didn't see any mention of a specific "butt" invasion in the OP so I don't consider this wish qualified.
What Deacon DID mention is an undesirable aspect of the game no matter what prompted him to post or whether his idea was any good or not. It's a problem that chases away discerning adult customers who don't come to this game with Andrew Dice Clay's ego.
Revenge is sweet, I love it myself. I have been on both sides of Deacon's complaint. I did the insta-revenge and I have gotten bounced that way. Still bad for business. It happens in ALL the BEST games. Still bad for business.
Even major league sports recognizes that childish behavior is like a poison. And by god they put an end to those retarded end zone dances.
-
How do you type with your head in the sand?
There is nothing wrong about going after the person that just shot you down, it is part of the game and not because it's been 'tolerated', it's part of the game design.
Some people in this game take the "honorable fight" ideology too far in the MA. You seem to be at the other extreme.
Like I said, I have some revenge kills under my belt, but I generally do unto others as they do unto others and at least I know a cheap kill when I see it. They give me little pleasure because they take little skill and are only enjoyed by little men.
There's nothing wrong with upping bombers to carry on the fight. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to get the guy who is better than you. There is something wrong with failing to discourage poor sportsmanship that turns away mature customers in exchange for a few sore losers who don't care.
Apples and oranges. A 262 being perked has nothing to do with someone upping a bomber or a heavy fighter to bomb a GV.
You are a poor excuse for a spin doctor. Pickin that orange whilst it was still green don't make it an apple.
Here let me say it again, maybe you get your color vision back. So on the one hand, it's not ok to 1 up everyone by grabbing a 262 when you suck at every other fighter. But it is ok to grab B24s when you suck in a tank.
He can ask on country channel, ask squadron mates or create a mission. People ask all the time for gunners and such, asking for a little AAA support isn't difficult.
:lol Yea, that's a winner. What is the average success rate again? 2%?
"Hey can someone sit in a wirble and protect me?" :rolleyes:
-
-1 to this wish. I am as terrified as anyone when I take a Tiger II out of the safety of my base and out into the big bad world where it can get bombed with impunity, but that is all part of the fun, so I do it anyway.
The only thing I would possibly endorse that would make it tougher to hunt and kill gv's from the air is the complete removal of enemy gv icons being visible to aircraft. That would make it much easier to hide from planes. If you are moving and/or firing that would give your position away just as it does now. Storches would still be able to see icons, giving them some reason for being. I could definitely support that idea, but anything beyond that gets a no vote from me.
I like this idea since the in rl their was no Icons at all and I wouldent be mad if I got egged with no icons cuz that person had to work for it
-
I like this idea since the in rl their was no Icons at all and I wouldent be mad if I got egged with no icons cuz that person had to work for it
Well if you like the no-icons idea, say so in my other wish thread "Alternative ... (etc.)". Currently it's being dominated by the people who like things the way they are.
MH
-
Attack from the air against ground based assets such as armor is part of war. Ask the Waffen SS Panzer groups at Normandy in 1944. It took the 2nd SS Panzer division Das Reich 10 days to make the 300 mile trip to Normandy because of allied air power and the smaller delaying tactics by the Resistance in the rear.
I except being bombed by aircraft as part of the game. I hate the drives just to get into position to get a shot at another tank way more than I do getting bombed. If we had the DOT in here and had to keep a log book we would all be out of service for 8 hrs with all this driving lol. Tightening up the spawn points would go a log way to improving game play for the Tanker folks.
-
Attack from the air against ground based assets such as armor is part of war. Ask the Waffen SS Panzer groups at Normandy in 1944. It took the 2nd SS Panzer division Das Reich 10 days to make the 300 mile trip to Normandy because of allied air power and the smaller delaying tactics by the Resistance in the rear.
I except being bombed by aircraft as part of the game. I hate the drives just to get into position to get a shot at another tank way more than I do getting bombed. If we had the DOT in here and had to keep a log book we would all be out of service for 8 hrs with all this driving lol. Tightening up the spawn points would go a log way to improving game play for the Tanker folks.
Tanks in AH aren't as vulnerable as they were in ww2 because 1) They had to be found first. When panzer divisions got bombed, it was a matter of chance and strategic defeat, not raging losers knowing exactly where you were and revenge killing. 2) You cant call up riechsmarshal von dVweebstoutin and demand AA ground units or air cover. You have to ask for it, and in the best times you'll be lucky to get any help 5% of the time. 3) you have a big red icon over your head. 4) A panzer division might have thousands of small arms surrounding it besides the AA, to pose at least some kind of threat to attackers.
-
Change the “rules” so that you gain 0 perk points (or even lose some) if you bomb a GV inside a VBase radar circle. This can be adjustable.
...
How about:
"Disable all guns on a GV when he sits on concrete/runway/rearm-pad".
Perked planes go down to flak just the same as non-perked planes. Why should it not apply the same way in the opposite direction?
Perks are meant to be lost, otherwise they are meaningless - deal with it!
-
How about:
"Disable all guns on a GV when he sits on concrete/runway/rearm-pad".
Perked planes go down to flak just the same as non-perked planes. Why should it not apply the same way in the opposite direction?
Perks are meant to be lost, otherwise they are meaningless - deal with it!
You could start a wish for this; I myself never have had a problem with GVs on air bases. I have been killed in a GV by AC 100 times for every time I've been killed in an AC by a GV. And remember, I've been playing these games since Mac-Amiga Air Warrior in 1989.
I am not adamantly opposed to your idea, but I don't think it's really necessary from a game play perspective.
MH