Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TDeacon on October 03, 2013, 06:48:26 PM
-
Change the “rules” so that GVs inside a VBase radar circle have no icons when seen from the air, except for Storches. (Yes this is a big change, which shifts the balance in the direction of GVs on *a portion of* the map. It is intended to make it difficult to kill GVs from the air in these areas. No this is not a whine motivated by a recent death in the MA.)
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 despite this rule change.
7) GVs can still be seen and bombed normally everywhere else, so that play style is retained.
MH
-
-1
-
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/nope_logo2.gif) (http://s295.photobucket.com/user/waystin2/media/nope_logo2.gif.html)
-
Why is it so hard to understand that: once one takes an aircraft or vehicle out of the hanger and into a combat zone, it is open season on them?
:headscratch:
-
see D-day and what happened to the Wehrmacht after.
P47 and Typhoons own you.
Your wish should be re-worded to:
"please can I have a squaddie that will up a fighter aircraft and cover me!" or at least pork ords because I'm too lazy to do it myself.
-
Why are guys like you such dicks what's wrong with no gv icons. RL didn't have icons but I guess then you would have to work for it huh. This game will fail with attitudes like yours so resistant to change cuz it's not what YOU think will benifit the game. It's a shame most look up to people like you when you do nothing for the game but try and keep it the same
-
Why is it so hard to understand that: once one takes an aircraft or vehicle out of the hanger and into a combat zone, it is open season on them?
:headscratch:
You do realize that "open season" would still apply on most of the map, don't you? The idea here is to add additional scope to the game, not reduce it. IMHO, additional scope will appeal to more people, and increase the fun level, and hopefully attract more subscribers. As I have said elsewhere, my best friend is an AFV modeler, and would be interested in this game if they put some GV-safe areas in it.
You also should remember that this proposed change applies equally to all of us, including you and me. All advantages and disadvantages apply to all of us, and it is in that sense balanced.
MH
-
see D-day and what happened to the Wehrmacht after.
P47 and Typhoons own you.
Your wish should be re-worded to:
"please can I have a squaddie that will up a fighter aircraft and cover me!" or at least pork ords because I'm too lazy to do it myself.
+1
-1 to the wish
-
make aircrafts immune to gvs within an airfield's radar :aok
-
You do realize that "open season" would still apply on most of the map, don't you? The idea here is to add additional scope to the game, not reduce it. IMHO, additional scope will appeal to more people, and increase the fun level, and hopefully attract more subscribers. As I have said elsewhere, my best friend is an AFV modeler, and would be interested in this game if they put some GV-safe areas in it.
You also should remember that this proposed change applies equally to all of us, including you and me. All advantages and disadvantages apply to all of us, and it is in that sense balanced.
MH
You could start a poll.
-
You could start a poll.
Already has. :D
-1
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/jon-stewart-nonono.gif)
-
Already has. :D
-1
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/no/jon-stewart-nonono.gif)
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Picture6_zpsbc5cc481.jpg) (http://s239.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/media/Picture6_zpsbc5cc481.jpg.html)
-
make aircrafts immune to gvs within an airfield's radar :aok
+1 :aok
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Picture6_zpsbc5cc481.jpg) (http://s239.photobucket.com/user/tymekeepyr/media/Picture6_zpsbc5cc481.jpg.html)
Buck Murdock! :lol That is the best part of the whole movie.
-
Vehicle icon range is already reduced to well within AA range so why don't you just ask somebody to come out in a wirb and shoot the bombers that have to fly low and slow to spot you in the first place? Or ask on country for a fighter to kill that juicy ordnance laden aircraft?
-
Vehicle icon range is already reduced to well within AA range so why don't you just ask somebody to come out in a wirb and shoot the bombers that have to fly low and slow to spot you in the first place? Or ask on country for a fighter to kill that juicy ordnance laden aircraft?
You do think about these things before you post them, don't you?? No? Well because of course most people have better things to do than baby-sit other people's game play.
But here's an idea. Why don't you perform this function? I'll announce on channel 200 whenever I need you to cover me in a Wirble or fighter. You of course will then immedately bail from your current plane, and tag along behind me, in order to provide that wirble/fighter cover that you advocate. Looking forward to your post where you agree to undertake this function...
MH
-
You do realize that "open season" would still apply on most of the map, don't you? The idea here is to add additional scope to the game, not reduce it. IMHO, additional scope will appeal to more people, and increase the fun level, and hopefully attract more subscribers. As I have said elsewhere, my best friend is an AFV modeler, and would be interested in this game if they put some GV-safe areas in it.
You also should remember that this proposed change applies equally to all of us, including you and me. All advantages and disadvantages apply to all of us, and it is in that sense balanced.
MH
You could start a poll.
Yes I could, but why? I already know that there is a significant minority of rabid anti-GV guys, although I don't understand why. In any case, the point of the thread is to make a suggestion to the company who owns the game.
BTW, You didn't respond to my question.
MH
-
You do think about these things before you post them, don't you?? No? Well because of course most people have better things to do than baby-sit other people's game play.
But here's an idea. Why don't you perform this function? I'll announce on channel 200 whenever I need you to cover me in a Wirble or fighter. You of course will then immedately bail from your current plane, and tag along behind me, in order to provide that wirble/fighter cover that you advocate. Looking forward to your post where you agree to undertake this function...
MH
If you can't find someone to cover you then thats the chance you take. It is the same with flying wing with another fighter, or being cover for a bomber group. What you are asking for is a death free zone from anything other than another GV. In that vein fighter guys could ask for a death free zone over a base while they vulch, and bomber should ask for one over the strats so they could concentrate on bombing instead of going defensive.
The biggest problem with the idea, and ideas like this is you guys can't seem to see the other side of the coin.
-
You do think about these things before you post them, don't you?? No? Well because of course most people have better things to do than baby-sit other people's game play.
But here's an idea. Why don't you perform this function? I'll announce on channel 200 whenever I need you to cover me in a Wirble or fighter. You of course will then immedately bail from your current plane, and tag along behind me, in order to provide that wirble/fighter cover that you advocate. Looking forward to your post where you agree to undertake this function...
MH
You're absolutely right, nobody is going to follow you around 24/7 with a wirb or fighter. However, if your tanks are being harassed by aircraft you can feel free to request assistance on country and I am sure that more often then not at least one person will come to assist. Not because we like to "baby-sit" you, but because we like to kill things. :)
Here, let me try this again. The furball area at the center of the map exists to create combat of all kinds, not just the kind you enjoy. Some people like gving, some enjoy furballing, others want to bomb things. Just because you dislike being bombed does not mean that they should be forced to stop bombing you. Please accept that this game is not a Burger King. You can't always "Have it your way".
-
You're absolutely right, nobody is going to follow you around 24/7 with a wirb or fighter. However, if your tanks are being harassed by aircraft you can feel free to request assistance on country and I am sure that more often then not at least one person will come to assist. Not because we like to "baby-sit" you, but because we like to kill things. :)
Sounds good, but doesn't work, because people don't like to fly CAP. We see this everywhere in the game (strats, CVs, etc.) and not just over GVs. Calling for help after the A20 shows up is futile; even if someone ups to help you, you are dead way before they get there. In the Wirble case, sometimes people show up in a Wirble. However, having it follow you around is impractical without ruining the GV “furball” experience. It’s like requiring a fighter escort for a plane-versus-plane fight; not practical. Believe me, I’ve tried these types of solutions, and about 20 other ones, and none of them work very well. The sad fact is, we have a fundamental imbalance in AH with respect to the GV-AC tactical interactions. If HTC really wants to take advantage of this additional game play (and subscriber) opportunity, which they themselves have introduced into their game, they IMHO need to provide a portion of the map where this imbalance is corrected.
I really encourage you to try GVing yourself (outside of a horde, and to make it really educational, use an expensive perk tank). You will see how it goes, and understand the motivation for these threads better. If you want, I can up with you and give you pointers. I’m not the best GVer in the game, but I am certainly competent. Shoot me a PM.
Here, let me try this again. The furball area at the center of the map exists to create combat of all kinds, not just the kind you enjoy. Some people like gving, some enjoy furballing, others want to bomb things. Just because you dislike being bombed does not mean that they should be forced to stop bombing you. Please accept that this game is not a Burger King. You can't always "Have it your way".
Remember, this isn’t the OzKansas TT thread. Also, FYI, I enjoy game fighter-to-fighter combat as well as GV combat; I started out with the former over 20 years ago. However, the former can be found anywhere on the AH map, while worthwhile GV combat areas are hard to find.
MH
-
If you can't find someone to cover you then thats the chance you take. It is the same with flying wing with another fighter, or being cover for a bomber group. What you are asking for is a death free zone from anything other than another GV. In that vein fighter guys could ask for a death free zone over a base while they vulch, and bomber should ask for one over the strats so they could concentrate on bombing instead of going defensive.
The biggest problem with the idea, and ideas like this is you guys can't seem to see the other side of the coin.
That's sort of correct, in that GV-safe areas are being asked for. But I don't think that puritanical reactions are appropriate here. This suggested rule change is not morally "good" or "bad", but just expedient and practical, in that it increases the fun factor for GVers by adding an additional play mode. So far it's good. Now what are the side effects to the non-GVers? Well, the only one I can think of is that some GVers will choose to play in the separate arena / VBase GV-friendly zones. So to that extent, there will be fewer easy ground attack targets. But I think that current evidence strongly suggests that many GVers will still operate outside the GV-safe zones, as they participate in the overall "war" and base capture efforts. Thus there would still be GVs to bomb normally. If my theory is correct, then, it's win-win. What's wrong with that?
So, I can see the other side of the coin. I even alluded to this in my OPs, though you may have missed it.
-
That's sort of correct, in that GV-safe areas are being asked for. But I don't think that puritanical reactions are appropriate here. This suggested rule change is not morally "good" or "bad", but just expedient and practical, in that it increases the fun factor for GVers by adding an additional play mode. So far it's good. Now what are the side effects to the non-GVers? Well, the only one I can think of is that some GVers will choose to play in the separate arena / VBase GV-friendly zones. So to that extent, there will be fewer easy ground attack targets. But I think that current evidence strongly suggests that many GVers will still operate outside the GV-safe zones, as they participate in the overall "war" and base capture efforts. Thus there would still be GVs to bomb normally. If my theory is correct, then, it's win-win. What's wrong with that?
So, I can see the other side of the coin. I even alluded to this in my OPs, though you may have missed it.
It removes players from the game. It removes options for players who are not just here for airplanes or tanks, but for doing what they want at a given time. I suck in GVs, but if there is a hot GV fight I'll jump into a GV to have fun and add numbers (and a target) in that fight. Put the GVers in a different arena and that no longer happens.
So, go ahead and create a GV only arena, or space in the Dueling Arena, but make it like the Dueling Arena with no base capturing, war winning or perks. If you want to move the lines and such, play in the MA and help create the diversity of combat seen in the MA.
-
AH is designed to promote teamplay. One player can't do it all, or be invicible in any way. When I have a spit8 on my p51's tail I need a wingman, not an artifial rule to assist me.
-
It must be tough to find someone else who puts your gameplay enjoyment over everyone else's
huh? Of course they must also being in the right place, with the right aircraft, with the skills needed
to eliminate the opposition before they destroy your tank.
I guess it will also be handy if they had a thick skin, so when they eventually fail to safe your tank,
they can put up with the wonk wonking on country channel about how bad they suck. :D
-
Has someone found a big wheel of cheese to accompany this thread, yet?
-
Has someone found a big wheel of cheese to accompany this thread, yet?
(http://blogs.inlandsocal.com/iguide/cheese.JPG)
-
It removes players from the game. It removes options for players who are not just here for airplanes or tanks, but for doing what they want at a given time. I suck in GVs, but if there is a hot GV fight I'll jump into a GV to have fun and add numbers (and a target) in that fight. Put the GVers in a different arena and that no longer happens.
So, go ahead and create a GV only arena, or space in the Dueling Arena, but make it like the Dueling Arena with no base capturing, war winning or perks. If you want to move the lines and such, play in the MA and help create the diversity of combat seen in the MA.
Not quite right. It removes players (at their choice) from the ground attack shooting gallery, not from the game; GVing is part of the game. Furthermore, it increases options overall. That's because most of the map remains the same (so same options on that portion). But in addition, there are now areas of the map which are GV-friendly (thus new options).
The dueling arena idea has been shot down in several ways in previous posts. Firstly, it lacks visibility, and the game lacks an adequate advertising method. Secondly, people grief in the dueling arena. There were other issues as well, but I don't recall them at the moment.
MH
-
Not quite right. It removes players (at their choice) from the ground attack shooting gallery, not from the game; GVing is part of the game. Furthermore, it increases options overall. That's because most of the map remains the same (so same options on that portion). But in addition, there are now areas of the map which are GV-friendly (thus new options).
The dueling arena idea has been shot down in several ways in previous posts. Firstly, it lacks visibility, and the game lacks an adequate advertising method. Secondly, people grief in the dueling arena. There were other issues as well, but I don't recall them at the moment.
MH
Reread what I wrote.
It removes options from the game. Players who will normally fly, but should a big GV fight happen find it fun to jump into a GV and play the role of target would no longer have that option. The players who would form that fight are functionally removed from the game.
-
Reread what I wrote.
It removes options from the game. Players who will normally fly, but should a big GV fight happen find it fun to jump into a GV and play the role of target would no longer have that option. The players who would form that fight are functionally removed from the game.
I reread what you wrote, but it still looks the same as before (...).
I don't see how you come up with "...would no longer have that option...". The OP only increases GV-friendliness inside VBase circles. If players attack an air base and some want to "...play the role of target...", they will be able to, as those areas are unchanged from currently. As you know, there are plenty of "...big GV fights..." near air bases.
Also, removing GV icons inside VBase circles won't completely deter bombing. It will just make it slightly more difficult. However, I guarantee you that many of the fine individuals (like the guy who has provided us with the nice picture of the cheese) posting on this thread will redouble their efforts to kill GVs if this change is implemented, and I'm sure they will find partial workarounds. In particular, there are *very* few good firing positions which are under trees, so GVs behind hills or on hills will unfortunately still be visible to determined ground attack pilots.
MH
-
I was referring to the separate arena suggestion in your post I quoted.
Removing icons from GVs is a 100% bad idea. Even the 600 yards is a bad idea so long as friendlies have a 6000 yard visibility on GV icons. Every single time I have died to a Wirbie had been because some runner ran to his little flak battery which proceeded to interfere in an air-to-air fight.
Perhaps you can see why I am not all that sympathetic to GVers complaints about aircraft bombing them when I have lost many fighters to Wirblewinds that were defending nothing but friendly fighters.
-
I was referring to the separate arena suggestion in your post I quoted.
Yea; that was another thread by Mano. I am not entirely sure a separate GV arena is a good idea, but would be willing to try it, and it shouldn't take much SW development by HTC to set it up as a trial. BTW, we don't even know if people would use the separate arena, and it is almost a certainty than many users of GVs would stay in the regular MA, thus preserving the existing styles of play you are concerned about. But, as to the OP ...
Removing icons from GVs is a 100% bad idea. Even the 600 yards is a bad idea so long as friendlies have a 6000 yard visibility on GV icons. Every single time I have died to a Wirbie had been because some runner ran to his little flak battery which proceeded to interfere in an air-to-air fight.
<snip>
Remove icons for both friendly and enemy GVs (in the VBase circles), and your problem is solved. BTW, this increases the GV-friendliness of the zones further, because people would need to worry about killshooter. (I would say “as in real life” but won’t, as this is a game play discussion).
MH
-
Remove icons for both friendly and enemy GVs (in the VBase circles), and your problem is solved. BTW, this increases the GV-friendliness of the zones further, because people would need to worry about killshooter. (I would say “as in real life” but won’t, as this is a game play discussion).
MH
Removing icons from both enemies and friendlies will 100% not happen. Both sides use the same equipment and while HTC may make it harder for planes to attack GVs, they are not going to make it impossible.
Quite honestly, it seems like the GV only fans are not going to be satisfied until GVs are completely dominant over aircraft. Enemy GV icon ranges were brutally reduced, to the point that the first sign of a Wirbelwind is a face full of 20mm, and GVers were happy for a bit. Now you want no icons so that planes will killshoot themselves if they attack GVs. What is the end point demand? SAMs? Auto destruction of any airplane that comes within 1500 yards of an enemy GV?
-
yes! :old:
Deacon would be happy with that :old:
And the ability to shoot planes with your main cannon, this happened everyday in the war :old:
Makes you wonder why they invented SAMS :old:
-
-1
AH already caters far too much to GVers, to the detriment of what should be (in my opinion) the games main focus
-
Removing icons from both enemies and friendlies will 100% not happen. Both sides use the same equipment and while HTC may make it harder for planes to attack GVs, they are not going to make it impossible.
Just trying to address your running-to-wirble concern, Karnak. Whatever ...
Quite honestly, it seems like the GV only fans are not going to be satisfied until GVs are completely dominant over aircraft. Enemy GV icon ranges were brutally reduced, to the point that the first sign of a Wirbelwind is a face full of 20mm, and GVers were happy for a bit. Now you want no icons so that planes will killshoot themselves if they attack GVs. What is the end point demand? SAMs? Auto destruction of any airplane that comes within 1500 yards of an enemy GV?
No, the request is for GV-friendly zones (no-icon flavor) within the VBase circle, leaving the rest of the map with rules as currently in force. I am not impressed with rhetorical excess and sophistry, and hopefully HTC won't be either.
MH
-
Just trying to address your running-to-wirble concern, Karnak. Whatever ...
That can be addressed quite adequately by simply making friendly GV icons have the same range rules for aircraft as enemy GV icons do. That has the distinct advantage of not making it suicidal to attack any GV from the air.
No, the request is for GV-friendly zones (no-icon flavor) within the VBase circle, leaving the rest of the map with rules as currently in force. I am not impressed with rhetorical excess and sophistry, and hopefully HTC won't be either.
MH
That's what you say now. My bet is, should your wish be granted, that a month or three after being granted you, or somebody else, will be here in the Wishlist asking for yet another tweak to help GVs against aircraft a little bit more. Sure, what I posted was hyperbolic, but I do honestly believe that the GV favoring wishes won't cease until GVs have an overwhelming advantage over aircraft.
EDIT:
The problem with your idea is that it breaks one of the core design rules: consistency. Under your system new players would find that GVs inexplicably sometimes had icons and sometimes did not, something that has the appearance of a bug. Less attentive players as well.
-
Deacon, you might find more support if you put this somewhere that ppl who play the game will see it. :old:
-
Deacon, you might find more support if you put this somewhere that ppl who play the game will see it. :old:
Or if he asks for a decent wish ;)
-
Flew cap for all tanks in the crater today using the FM2, P47d11, and Yak9t. Saw one gver that got on my nerves as he was perched on top of the mountain in a tiger shooting down at all the other tanks with no way for them to shot back at him. Did one gv bomb mission and removed that tiger to level the playing field. 200 whine ensued which is normal. I had a good flight that time and enjoyed bombing his tank :t
On a side note I also saw Tdeacon in the same spot yesterday in a perk tank and had he not been on my side I would have bombed him to
-
Or if he asks for a decent wish ;)
How dare you!
Deacon is trying very very hard to shoot GVs and needs lots of time to practice :old:
In future please do not drop bombs on Deacon not until he has actually got kills in a Tank :old:
Many thanks
-
(http://blogs.inlandsocal.com/iguide/cheese.JPG)
Outstanding!!! :aok :aok
Just need a wine glass, now.
Actually, one wine glass for the libations and one whine glass for the tears...
-
Flew cap for all tanks in the crater today using the FM2, P47d11, and Yak9t.
I've been shot down by enemy Wirbies while flying CAP for the GVs.
-
I've been shot down by enemy Wirbies while flying CAP for the GVs.
...and that happens.
You seem to be OK with that, like it's part of the game or something. :)
-
That can be addressed quite adequately by simply making friendly GV icons have the same range rules for aircraft as enemy GV icons do. That has the distinct advantage of not making it suicidal to attack any GV from the air.
That's what you say now. My bet is, should your wish be granted, that a month or three after being granted you, or somebody else, will be here in the Wishlist asking for yet another tweak to help GVs against aircraft a little bit more. Sure, what I posted was hyperbolic, but I do honestly believe that the GV favoring wishes won't cease until GVs have an overwhelming advantage over aircraft.
EDIT:
The problem with your idea is that it breaks one of the core design rules: consistency. Under your system new players would find that GVs inexplicably sometimes had icons and sometimes did not, something that has the appearance of a bug. Less attentive players as well.
I can only speak for myself, but the motivation for my suggestions is to give me and others a place where GVs can play relatively unmolested. It has nothing to do with any sort of us-versus-them dynamic between GVs and AC, since I like both. It's also not part of some sort of master plan for gradual eroding the GV-AC relationship. If nothing is changed, I will still play the game, because I am experienced enough to deal with the current situation. However, if HTC is hoping to attract and keep new players based on their GV game, I think the current situation will frustrate the new guys too much for optimal retention.
I do think that your fear of GVs having an overwhelming advantage over AC is kind of silly, since the latter can fly, go over 10 times as fast, and have more firepower.
Yes, the consistency thing bothers me too. However, I haven’t yet thought of a better way to do it, except for doing new maps with separate chained VBases and chained air bases, separated by distance or mountains. Nobody is going to do maps like that, though.
MH
-
Deacon, you might find more support if you put this somewhere that ppl who play the game will see it. :old:
HTC will see it here. They don't decide on what to put in their game based on a few Forum posters, most of whom are obviously trolling.
MH
-
Flew cap for all tanks in the crater today using the FM2, P47d11, and Yak9t. Saw one gver that got on my nerves as he was perched on top of the mountain in a tiger shooting down at all the other tanks with no way for them to shot back at him. Did one gv bomb mission and removed that tiger to level the playing field. 200 whine ensued which is normal. I had a good flight that time and enjoyed bombing his tank :t
On a side note I also saw Tdeacon in the same spot yesterday in a perk tank and had he not been on my side I would have bombed him to
The reason I was up there in a Firefly are the Rook Tigers and Jagdpanthers which were up there as well. The first time I tried it, I was killed by a Jagdpanther. The second time, I fell down the cliff. The third time I would have had a good rear shot on the Tiger, but you bombed it (...). Usually I use Panzer IVHs, which have much better gun depression, and are thus much more effective on those plateaus.
You seem to be implying some sort of moral superiority because you blasted someone's Tiger with a plane in Tank Town? That's actually funny in a pathetic sort of way. Much better if you let us GVers handle people on plateaus, but of course you need to justify your dweebery.
MH
-
When I bombed that tiger no friendlies were on the plateaus. When I was in a fighter and first spotted the tiger on the platuaus a friendly was almost over the lip. I strafed the tiger to try to distract him for the friendly to no avail, the tiger 1 nailed him as soon as he crested. Bombing tanks that are almost impossible for other tanks to get to, or kill from long range is not dwebery its what you should do if your providing air support for your GV team mates.
-
When I bombed that tiger no friendlies were on the plateaus. When I was in a fighter and first spotted the tiger on the platuaus a friendly was almost over the lip. I strafed the tiger to try to distract him for the friendly to no avail, the tiger 1 nailed him as soon as he crested. Bombing tanks that are almost impossible for other tanks to get to, or kill from long range is not dwebery its what you should do if your providing air support for your GV team mates.
I was just approaching the crest when someone (I recall that it was you) killed the Tiger. His engine was on, and he didn't know I was coming. Quite unnecessary.
Almost without exception, it is annoying when "friendly" AC bomb opponents in a tank battle, let alone when their AC bomb us. Maybe it's my anti-horde mentality and sense of fair play, or maybe it's just self-serving (I want to get the kill myself), but that is how I see it. I see you do GV, so it's not that. Do you just spawn camp and trade shots at long distance, or do you like me prefer GV "furballing," involving maneuvering over the terrain to get position (yes that includes going up on hills and plateaus)? Maybe the former is the problem.
MH
-
When I bombed that tiger no friendlies were on the plateaus. When I was in a fighter and first spotted the tiger on the platuaus a friendly was almost over the lip. I strafed the tiger to try to distract him for the friendly to no avail, the tiger 1 nailed him as soon as he crested. Bombing tanks that are almost impossible for other tanks to get to, or kill from long range is not dwebery its what you should do if your providing air support for your GV team mates.
No good deed goes unpunished. :D
-
On the crater map you can move about a bit so I like to hunt down those that have killed me before. Sometimes in the small hills and trees and if that gets boring I'll go into the town.
-
What about simply making GVs more resistant to bomb explosions so as to require greater accuracy to have effect with bombs?
-
What about simply making GVs more resistant to bomb explosions so as to require greater accuracy to have effect with bombs?
That's a slippery road... :uhoh
But I tell you GV guys what one of my personal 'adjustments' would be - reduced perk loss for GV's when being bombed by planes.
The problem is the perk cost largely reflect the capability of tanks in ground combat, as it should be. The Tiger II for example substantially outclasses its opposition and thus fully deserves the 100 perk price tag. Or the JagdPanther its 30 perks (actually I think they are still rather low)
But when it comes to planes&bombs, both are about as much sitting ducks as any other tank. And unlike perk planes, there is nothing much you can do about it, if someone else decides to bomb ya, he will bomb ya. You can't fight him, you can not run away, and you can hardly evade. You can only stay at home and sit on concrete, ready to .ef
And that's one reason why you see so few of them going out there and fight their equally powerful brethren - because one of them has to leave home for that and will soon have a bomb on its head.
-
That's a slippery road... :uhoh
But I tell you GV guys what one of my personal 'adjustments' would be - reduced perk loss for GV's when being bombed by planes.
The problem is the perk cost largely reflect the capability of tanks in ground combat, as it should be. The Tiger II for example substantially outclasses its opposition and thus fully deserves the 100 perk price tag. Or the JagdPanther its 30 perks (actually I think they are still rather low)
But when it comes to planes&bombs, both are about as much sitting ducks as any other tank. And unlike perk planes, there is nothing much you can do about it, if someone else decides to bomb ya, he will bomb ya. You can't fight him, you can not run away, and you can hardly evade. You can only stay at home and sit on concrete, ready to .ef
And that's one reason why you see so few of them going out there and fight their equally powerful brethren - because one of them has to leave home for that and will soon have a bomb on its head.
This.
I can support.
If the same can be applied to planes being killed by gvs, then +1 for both. (Gotta be fair after all :D)
But seriously, I think THIS is the best wish I've seen in awhile re-guarding this issue.
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
That's a slippery road... :uhoh
Yes and no. The problem with bombs that detonate after hitting the ground is that the vast majority of their destructive energy is redirected back into the air. I actually think AH is very liberal with its blast radius as it is.
-
That's a slippery road... :uhoh
But I tell you GV guys what one of my personal 'adjustments' would be - reduced perk loss for GV's when being bombed by planes.
The problem is the perk cost largely reflect the capability of tanks in ground combat, as it should be. The Tiger II for example substantially outclasses its opposition and thus fully deserves the 100 perk price tag. Or the JagdPanther its 30 perks (actually I think they are still rather low)
But when it comes to planes&bombs, both are about as much sitting ducks as any other tank. And unlike perk planes, there is nothing much you can do about it, if someone else decides to bomb ya, he will bomb ya. You can't fight him, you can not run away, and you can hardly evade. You can only stay at home and sit on concrete, ready to .ef
And that's one reason why you see so few of them going out there and fight their equally powerful brethren - because one of them has to leave home for that and will soon have a bomb on its head.
Good idea +1 :aok
-
<snip>
But I tell you GV guys what one of my personal 'adjustments' would be - reduced perk loss for GV's when being bombed by planes.
<snip>
Lusche, I agree with your analysis of the problem, but your solution doesn't appeal. I have plenty of GV perk points, and in fact they keep increasing. The main irritant to being bombed in the middle of an interesting GV fight is that it ruins the fight. We play AH for the fights, not to accumulate perk points. Furthermore, your solution has little visibility to the ground attack guys, so their behavior, both good and bad, would remain unchanged.
MH
-
Lusche, I agree with your analysis of the problem, but your solution doesn't appeal. I have plenty of GV perk points, and in fact they keep increasing. The main irritant to being bombed in the middle of an interesting GV fight is that it ruins the fight. We play AH for the fights, not to accumulate perk points. Furthermore, your solution has little visibility to the ground attack guys, so their behavior, both good and bad, would remain unchanged.
MH
So, you are just looking to control the way folks play?
Change their behavior to suit your style of gameplay.
Gotcha :aok
-
-1 for the original wish just because I like bombing tanks and sometimes they can only be found around vehicle bases. With no icons the visibility seems poorer than it should be because of the picture quality. In a gv battle there are often guys sitting still for a long time with their engine off making approach very difficult. Especially if they are concealed from three sides. I am glad if a friendly ground attacker gets rid of him or bombs some spawn campers. I think the fear of getting bombed speeds up the fight a little. Nobody usually takes a B29 for a flight unless they get a lot of altitude, friendly air superiority or escort. Same should be with the Tiger 2, except the altitude part of course.
-
So, you are just looking to control the way folks play?
Change their behavior to suit your style of gameplay.
<snip>
Yes, that is correct. However, what you guys keep ignoring is that it would just be in the VBase circles, so that normal style of play would still occur everywhere else. There is no way to fix the problem without changing behavior, since the behavior is the problem (yes I know you think it isn't a problem, but you are mistaken). Note that it is inherent to any game that the *rules of the game* are designed to control the behavior of the players. Thus, our game is already full of mechanisms designed to control behavior, such as the strat system, perk points, killshooter, etc., etc.
MH
-
-1 for the original wish just because I like bombing tanks and sometimes they can only be found around vehicle bases. With no icons the visibility seems poorer than it should be because of the picture quality. In a gv battle there are often guys sitting still for a long time with their engine off making approach very difficult. Especially if they are concealed from three sides. I am glad if a friendly ground attacker gets rid of him or bombs some spawn campers. I think the fear of getting bombed speeds up the fight a little. Nobody usually takes a B29 for a flight unless they get a lot of altitude, friendly air superiority or escort. Same should be with the Tiger 2, except the altitude part of course.
You inadvertently point out one of the essential reasons why we need some sort of GV-safe areas in the game. A player can always unilaterally take precautions to protect his/her perk plane, such as altitude in the case of the B29. There is no equivalent unilateral precaution that the Tiger II guy can take. Of course operating in a horde solves all problems, but forcing this behavior lessens the quality of the game.
BTW, you are entirely mistaken in suggesting that attacking GVs *need* attack planes in order to succeed. Several common ways to counter a concealed GV are bring a friend to approach from 2 sides, or if alone, take a route 1-2K off to the side thus forcing him to move if he wants to engage you, or climb a hill (if the terrain has any) to see over the ambusher's cover, etc. Since I play alone, I often do the latter 2, although there are other tactics as well. There is a lot more depth to the GV game than stationary spawn camping and shooting from a "firing line" of GVs. In fact, the more interesting part of the GV game is experienced when you realize this and begin to play and learn accordingly.
MH
-
I LIKE bombing gvs, much like I like shooting buffs and fighters down.
You looking to give gvs a bomb free zone. Let's doe the same for bombers and fighters as well and everyone can hide in their little safe zones....... All 8 or 10 of the final game subscribers any way.
Give it up TDeacon
-
I LIKE bombing gvs, much like I like shooting buffs and fighters down.
You would still be able to do this under the changed regime.
You looking to give gvs a bomb free zone. Let's doe the same for bombers and fighters as well and everyone can hide in their little safe zones....... All 8 or 10 of the final game subscribers any way.
<snip>
GVs clearly need at least one place in the MA where they can "furball" unmolested, because of their massive inferiority to planes WRT speed, position (i.e. they fly), and firepower. Planes clearly do not have an equivalent need relative to GVs. Again, take out a few 100 point King Tigers into the typical battle, and see what happens. Not very fun is it? One shouldn't post on these matters before trying to play on both sides of the fence.
MH
-
Unless they make the spawn in totally random over a large area Decon the fight wouldn't last long in the GV "fur ball area". Take 85 spawn for example. Its a great battle at first but as soon as a tiger or panther gets to the rear of either side people stop spawning in as it is impossible to kill them. I wasted 5 tiger2s at that camp once trying to nail the guy on top of the ridge. I took at least 20 rounds while I was turning my gun to aim at the guy. I got him eventually but man the perks I wasted :rofl
TDeacon I have to ask do you think its fair for a tiger 2 or panther to postion himself to the rear of a spawn and shot everything that ups in the rear? I like snailmans Idea a lot. I personally don't care that the tiger guy loses his perks just that hes not shooting me in the rear anymore when I up :)
-
AH is GV friendly. Wish granted.
-
Unless they make the spawn in totally random over a large area Decon the fight wouldn't last long in the GV "fur ball area". Take 85 spawn for example. Its a great battle at first but as soon as a tiger or panther gets to the rear of either side people stop spawning in as it is impossible to kill them. I wasted 5 tiger2s at that camp once trying to nail the guy on top of the ridge. I took at least 20 rounds while I was turning my gun to aim at the guy. I got him eventually but man the perks I wasted :rofl
TDeacon I have to ask do you think its fair for a tiger 2 or panther to postion himself to the rear of a spawn and shot everything that ups in the rear? I like snailmans Idea a lot. I personally don't care that the tiger guy loses his perks just that hes not shooting me in the rear anymore when I up :)
I agree that sometimes spawn camping is too unbalanced and not good for the game. While Luche's idea might help lessen the impact of being spawn camped by a horde, there may be better ways. One of them is to consider ways to "spread out" the spawn. There could be a set of multiple available locatons (like 10 to 20), 1K out from the the spawn point in different directions, choosable by the spawing player (so you can pick one out of LOF and don't have to reorient yourself each time). The former is a game-mechanics change, and wouldn't require map changes, btw. There are other ideas as well, which have been floated previously in the Wishlist Forum. I think the problem is that the devs haven't yet focused on the spawn point problem. Maybe they don't yet think it's a problem, and we should lobby them with some more "fix the spawn point" threads.
MH
-
You inadvertently point out one of the essential reasons why we need some sort of GV-safe areas in the game. A player can always unilaterally take precautions to protect his/her perk plane, such as altitude in the case of the B29. There is no equivalent unilateral precaution that the Tiger II guy can take. Of course operating in a horde solves all problems, but forcing this behavior lessens the quality of the game.
BTW, you are entirely mistaken in suggesting that attacking GVs *need* attack planes in order to succeed. Several common ways to counter a concealed GV are bring a friend to approach from 2 sides, or if alone, take a route 1-2K off to the side thus forcing him to move if he wants to engage you, or climb a hill (if the terrain has any) to see over the ambusher's cover, etc. Since I play alone, I often do the latter 2, although there are other tactics as well. There is a lot more depth to the GV game than stationary spawn camping and shooting from a "firing line" of GVs. In fact, the more interesting part of the GV game is experienced when you realize this and begin to play and learn accordingly.
MH
There are several precautions a Tiger II guy can take. You can make a sortie with a perk free tank to see who else and what are present (Wirbles, friendly fighters etc). It takes roughly an hour to reach 30k in a B29. One could drive a Tiger away from the spawn and approach from a different side. Attack planes usually hang around the spawn. If you see friendlies leaving then the Tiger could be driven along the convoy road away from enemies and exit on the road near to the supply depot for a maximum chance of keeping the perks. Once a perk plane`s icon is seen many will go through a great deal of trouble to catch that aircraft. Same is with the GVs I imagine. B29`s or any aircraft`s position can be found by following a dar bar.
I did not suggest anything about the attack aircraft. I just said I am glad when a friendly aircraft takes out a sitting GV that is very difficult to spot. Long time players probably know all the best places for sitting and waiting. Sometimes I enjoy fighting in a GV and I don`t mind getting bombed or seeing friendly aircraft attack enemy GVs.
-
You would still be able to do this under the changed regime.
LOL!!! no I wouldn't. Who would come out of the bomb free zone? very few because much like the the draw of the MA ove any other arena most of the GVers would fight in the bomb free zone because thats where most of the players are.
GVs clearly need at least one place in the MA where they can "furball" unmolested, because of their massive inferiority to planes WRT speed, position (i.e. they fly), and firepower. Planes clearly do not have an equivalent need relative to GVs. Again, take out a few 100 point King Tigers into the typical battle, and see what happens. Not very fun is it? One shouldn't post on these matters before trying to play on both sides of the fence.
MH
I'm sure the buff guys feel the same way while they are "just trying to bomb" something and those pesky fighters keep coming along to shoot them down.
I'm sure the fighter guys feel the same way while they are "just trying to furball" and those bomber guys keep killing the Fighter hangers.
You can't take away the fun of one player to insure the fun of another, not when BOTH are paying to play.
-
I can only speak for myself, but the motivation for my suggestions is to give me and others a place where GVs can play relatively unmolested. It has nothing to do with any sort of us-versus-them dynamic between GVs and AC, since I like both. It's also not part of some sort of master plan for gradual eroding the GV-AC relationship. If nothing is changed, I will still play the game, because I am experienced enough to deal with the current situation. However, if HTC is hoping to attract and keep new players based on their GV game, I think the current situation will frustrate the new guys too much for optimal retention.
I do think that your fear of GVs having an overwhelming advantage over AC is kind of silly, since the latter can fly, go over 10 times as fast, and have more firepower.
Yes, the consistency thing bothers me too. However, I haven’t yet thought of a better way to do it, except for doing new maps with separate chained VBases and chained air bases, separated by distance or mountains. Nobody is going to do maps like that, though.
MH
The bold section really cuts to what you want, an area where GV's are basically so hard to spot that no one is going to want to fly an A/C over there and bomb them OR strafe them with ground attack A/C. However what you seem to want to ignore is AH is a MMO, guess what that means. That your gameplay is absolutely NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYONE ELSE'S GAME PLAY. The GV icon range has already been reduced to a point that wirbs are extremely difficult to spot until you are well within their effective range. You have a GV "furball" going on and you're being harassed by enemy A/C then a couple of the friendly ground pounders up a wirb and provide protection. No one is going to do that to "babysit" you say? Then you're going to get bombed and strafed, Period. I don't see how you think the entire game should be so skewed to provide you with the exact type of game play you want. I have never had a problem upping a wirb or asking a squadie or countryman to up a wirb and help provide cover from enemy A/C when I GV. Eliminating/severely restricting combat in a combat game is tantamount to playing Monopoly with out the money because people get their feelings hurt when they go Bankrupt.
Yes, that is correct. However, what you guys keep ignoring is that it would just be in the VBase circles, so that normal style of play would still occur everywhere else. There is no way to fix the problem without changing behavior, since the behavior is the problem (yes I know you think it isn't a problem, but you are mistaken). Note that it is inherent to any game that the *rules of the game* are designed to control the behavior of the players. Thus, our game is already full of mechanisms designed to control behavior, such as the strat system, perk points, killshooter, etc., etc.
MH
Did you stamp your foot and cross your arms when you thought/typed this? :lol Because you think that other people's behavior is the problem and if someone disagrees they must be wrong right? Because as we know, you are THE expert on what is wrong (if you truly believe something is wrong) with the GV/AC relationship.
Look I am all for improving the game and bringing in new players, but if you can't see how much this would restrict players options then it is because your thinking is clouded either by the fact that it is your idea or by the fact that you just don't want A/C to be able to kill GVs, which I am sure would have thrilled actual tankers throughout history as well.
-
The best way to increase a flight simulation's subscribers is to focus on tank gameplay.
-
The nice thing about AH LWA is no matter what terrain is up, there is always something to do. Pt Boats, Fighters, Bombers, tankers, even the guys that just man the guns on the CV. It is a Wishlist forum nothing more. Anyone can make a suggestion. It does not hurt anything.
I'm glad you have heavy battle armor on TDeacon ! :D
<S>
-
there is always something to do
:huh
-
What I find annoying about aircraft vs tanks is how easy it is for the aircraft to kill the tank. Unlike real ww2 the tanks in AH can't hide in trees. Just as soon as you get a good GV battle going, someone calls for air support and then it's over. There is no GV strategy then. It's all who has aircraft in the air.
I think the GV only idea has been tried but without any success. As long as AH is adding tank buster aircraft, the situation is clear. AH is aircraft orientated and GV's are a side show.
-
The top twenty in total kills for the last tour:
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/gv.jpg~original) (http://s343.photobucket.com/user/caldera_08/media/gv.jpg.html)
GVs are #1, 2 and 3, as well as 4 out of 5 and 6 out of 10.
How much more "GV friendly" can it be made, without grounding all the aircraft?
-
I agree that sometimes spawn camping is too unbalanced and not good for the game. While Luche's idea might help lessen the impact of being spawn camped by a horde, there may be better ways. One of them is to consider ways to "spread out" the spawn. There could be a set of multiple available locatons (like 10 to 20), 1K out from the the spawn point in different directions, choosable by the spawing player (so you can pick one out of LOF and don't have to reorient yourself each time). The former is a game-mechanics change, and wouldn't require map changes, btw. There are other ideas as well, which have been floated previously in the Wishlist Forum. I think the problem is that the devs haven't yet focused on the spawn point problem. Maybe they don't yet think it's a problem, and we should lobby them with some more "fix the spawn point" threads.
MH
I also like part of Lusche's suggestion for less perk loss when killed by a bomb. I think it has merit but you know it can't be a free ride, otherwise every airbase would be swarmed with perked GVs killing the FHs.
You asked for adding 10 to 20 choosable spawns points but that would require a massive change to the game engine and user interface. Why not limit your request to things that can already be done?
The current default GV spawn circle is 1500 feet in radius with a maximum available radius of 26400 feet. That's 5 miles from the designated spawn point, and also potentially 10 miles from the target base or right inside the base itself. You could probably get htc to widened the spawn circle out to 1/2 or a one mile radius to make it harder to locate the incoming GVs and that change could happen this afternoon if they agree with you. btw The default distance between a spawn point and the center of a base is 5 miles.
Now then, if you want a relatively unmolested tank battle today, you might check out the setups in the AvA that are running over the next two weeks. They are designed to support many of the requests from GV guys and both weeks are running on brand new terrains with custom ground textures. Plus, the staff will accommodate requests that include disabling ALL bombs if enough tankers show up.
-
Sounds good, but doesn't work, because people don't like to fly CAP. We see this everywhere in the game (strats, CVs, etc.) and not just over GVs. Calling for help after the A20 shows up is futile; even if someone ups to help you, you are dead way before they get there. In the Wirble case, sometimes people show up in a Wirble. However, having it follow you around is impractical without ruining the GV “furball” experience. It’s like requiring a fighter escort for a plane-versus-plane fight; not practical. Believe me, I’ve tried these types of solutions, and about 20 other ones, and none of them work very well. The sad fact is, we have a fundamental imbalance in AH with respect to the GV-AC tactical interactions. If HTC really wants to take advantage of this additional game play (and subscriber) opportunity, which they themselves have introduced into their game, they IMHO need to provide a portion of the map where this imbalance is corrected.
I really encourage you to try GVing yourself (outside of a horde, and to make it really educational, use an expensive perk tank). You will see how it goes, and understand the motivation for these threads better. If you want, I can up with you and give you pointers. I’m not the best GVer in the game, but I am certainly competent. Shoot me a PM.
Remember, this isn’t the OzKansas TT thread. Also, FYI, I enjoy game fighter-to-fighter combat as well as GV combat; I started out with the former over 20 years ago. However, the former can be found anywhere on the AH map, while worthwhile GV combat areas are hard to find.
MH
While this wasn't directed at me, I'd like to touch upon this briefly having very recently had the exact experience you suggest.
I've played the game on and off for ages, but never really did the GV thing. Tried it a few times, insta-died in camped spawns and figured it wasn't for me.
I recently joined a squad which has a fairly significant GV component, and having some experience, I am finding it quite enjoyable. I have GV'd outside of a horde (I love rolling a single tank into a town or a base and seeing if I get a response). I have flattened towns with a single M4. I do use perk tanks when the situation is well suited to the capabilities of a particular perk tank. I've even used Tiger 2's off concrete in hostile territory *GASP!* (pretty sure I'm net negative on perks doing that, but it's fun :D) I can now say that I drive tanks. I've killed lots of planes with wirbles and ostis. I've been bombed countless times by planes. I've been bombed in Tiger 2s. I've bombed expensive perk tanks. But I still find that GVs are very, very useful in the right situation; even under enemy air superiority. I find myself driving tanks into bases with no air support, and often causing some real headaches. I am killed by aircraft about as often as I kill them.
So ultimately, I have done exactly what you suggest, and I find the current mechanics to be quite balanced. GVs have their uses, in the right situations and with some skill; but yet they are not invulnerable insta-win buttons either. This, in my opinion, is exactly how it should be.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354934.0.html
-
GVs clearly need at least one place in the MA where they can "furball" unmolested, because of their massive inferiority to planes WRT speed, position (i.e. they fly), and firepower.
you clearly need your head examined :headscratch: