Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BnZs on July 02, 2014, 08:27:00 PM
-
The purpose of the these much-maligned maneuvers is to cut out RTB, thus allowing sorties to be flown approximately twice as often.
Dive-bombers can also release their bombs lower, thus greatly reducing the skill needed to hit the target, if they are making no bid to pull out of their dive and survive.
I propose that ords be made unavailable to player for 15 minutes after a sortie in which that player bails/ditches/discos/dies with ordnance on board. This would remove the time motivation for the bomb'n'bail/suicide jabo, and encourage more realistic flight profiles for jabos.
Do it for the thousands of shiny new P-38Ls that are steered into the ground every tour! :aok
-
-10000000....so I am omw to a base to pork ords......I get jumped by another player,,,I am heavy, he's light and I die. I don't get ords for 15 minutes :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I propose that ords be made unavailable to player for 15 minutes after a sortie in which that player bails/ditches/discos/dies with ordnance on board.
That doesn't make much sense to me at all. The bomb n bailer usually bails after dropping his ords... :headscratch:
-
. . .
Do it for the thousands of shiny new P-38Ls that are steered into the ground every tour! :aok
I don't think most of the P38L folks are bail'ers just poor dive bombing technique.
-
Another daft thread, good grief, when will it end?
-
That doesn't make much sense to me at all. The bomb n bailer usually bails after dropping his ords... :headscratch:
Yes, but he does it in order to make another run without having to take the time rtb. With a 15 minute delay on re-upping with ords there would be less time advantage over attempting to RTB.
-
I don't think most of the P38L folks are bail'ers just poor dive bombing technique.
The effect remains the same. They get to make another run much more quickly than if they had attempted to RTB.
-
Another daft thread, good grief, when will it end?
Please tell me what is daft or illogical about my idea as a way to discourage bomb'n'bail and suicide jabo'ing.
-
Yes, but he does it in order to make another run without having to take the time rtb. With a 15 minute delay on re-upping with ords there would be less time advantage over attempting to RTB.
You wrote : 15 delay for someone bailing with ords still on board.
So this does not apply to bomb and bailers. They would not get a delay at all.
-
Interesting idea but as Lusche said, they bail after dropping bombs. Your wish also has some criteria that I don't agree with.
Bail- only if the aircraft has little sustained damage (not leaking and not missing parts).
Disco- Big no. It's rarely the players fault (unless they are pulling out there internet cable, which I would consider cheating of sorts) that they get discoed. The should not be punished if they get discoed with ord or without them.
Ditches- Only if the aircraft is undamaged/ lightly damaged. If it takes a few minor hits from the auto ack and they ditch then maybe.
Dies- Only if they hit the ground within x amount of time of dropping, and following the same criteria from the Ditches category. If they are killed by another player then this shouldn't apply (excluding proxies).
Again, interesting idea but I'm not entirely convinced this is the best way to solve the problem.
-
The only way is to make sticking to the mission, th err flight of the aircraft, be t life or death, higher in value than bailing out.
Until then there will be no value and no shame in bailing.
-
The purpose of the these much-maligned maneuvers is to cut out RTB, thus allowing sorties to be flown approximately twice as often.
Dive-bombers can also release their bombs lower, thus greatly reducing the skill needed to hit the target, if they are making no bid to pull out of their dive and survive.
I propose that ords be made unavailable to player for 15 minutes after a sortie in which that player bails/ditches/discos/dies with ordnance on board. This would remove the time motivation for the bomb'n'bail/suicide jabo, and encourage more realistic flight profiles for jabos.
Do it for the thousands of shiny new P-38Ls that are steered into the ground every tour! :aok
you are contradicting yourself. how will not not allowing for 15 min those who die with ords on board stop those who actually drop bombs and bail?
semp
edit: and before you correct yourself, this about this situation. your base is under gv attack you up with ords and an unseen werbie nails you before you realease. now you cant bomb gv's for 15 min.
another situation. you up bombers and hit a tree at the end of the runway cause your cat jumped on the keyboard. now you are stuck watching your squadies fly away as you wait for 15 min for bombs.
-
Mommy, why won't the funny smelling man stop crying?
-
THere's a new one, BnZs. Now you smell funny.
As for the request, this is "coad", right? Can't we "coad" to discorage bails below significant damage levels? IE, if you drop, then bail undamaged/below some damage threshold, you're put in ord jail for some period? If you did it that way, you could make it a much longer period without penalizing the dude who bailed after he lost a wing. I LIKE that guy and want him back in the air ASAP, so that he can be nicely shtupped again and again and again, as if he were tied down inside a barracks (enjoy the twisted imagery conjured, aaaah).
-
In general, does everybody get that the numbers are way down and that changing nothing carries a high probability of nothing changing?
-
You wrote : 15 delay for someone bailing with ords still on board.
So this does not apply to bomb and bailers. They would not get a delay at all.
Ah. Good catch my pedantic Teutonic friend.
I meant a sortie in which ords were taken. Me culpa.
-
So my proposal should read "If a player bails, ditches, dies, or discos on a sortie in which they selected ord, they will be disabled from re-upping with ord for 15 minutes."
-
edit: and before you correct yourself, this about this situation. your base is under gv attack you up with ords and an unseen werbie nails you before you realease. now you cant bomb gv's for 15 min.
another situation. you up bombers and hit a tree at the end of the runway cause your cat jumped on the keyboard. now you are stuck watching your squadies fly away as you wait for 15 min for bombs.
#3-You up a 262 costing hundreds of perkies. Your wife's cat jumps on the keyboard. You sell the cat to a Chinese restaurant.
HTC can't guarantee that one will always have a good sortie...they MIGHT be able to do something about the "no one fighting in a combat game anymore problem" though.
-
So my proposal should read "If a player bails, ditches, dies, or discos on a sortie in which they selected ord, they will be disabled from re-upping with ord for 15 minutes."
This would certainly encourage the use of only P-51s and Typhoons for attack sorties, who would then run like heck after dropping their ordnance.
-
This would certainly encourage the use of only P-51s and Typhoons for attack sorties, who would then run like heck after dropping their ordnance.
This is a more realistic mission profile than flying it into the hangar, yes? Come now man, I've heard you outline certain problematic aspects of suicidal jabo'ing yourself.
EDIT: It might also encourage them to skin their ords and run like heck whenever it looked like an interceptor might catch them, instead of diving at high speed on their target to drop and ignoring the fact they are subjecting themselves to being caught. A problem currently in MA is that while bombers and jabos can have a great effect on the strategic aspects of the war, catching and killing them AFTER they have dropped has no such effect, in fact strategically shooting them down currently just allows them to re-up on another mission faster.
-
This is a more realistic mission profile than flying it into the hangar, yes? Come now man, I've heard you outline certain problematic aspects of suicidal jabo'ing yourself.
The problem is that your change doesn't just target the kamikazes. It targets anybody who used to bomb and then fight. It actively punishes them for dying after carrying bombs. My concern isn't the kamikazes, it is the guys who used to fight and would be pushed to being runners.
-
The problem is not as large as some believe me thinks. From Vox evidence I have only heard someone say, "I will bail and go get troops." I have never heard vox traffic describing a bomb'n'bail/suicide run.
From heavy fighter stand point, I contend a large number of those suicide dive bombs are either lost plane control or getting blown up by your own bombs. I have heard vox traffic describing lost control and getting blown up by their own bombs.
On 38s and 47s you have so much ords you can do a lot of damage with more than one pass.
I have had one fighter and couple of bombers bail when I caught up with them a good ways from the base they were attacking. I would not describe that as a bomb and bail run just sour apples.
-
Yet another BnZ thread focusing on nerfing bombers. I'm beginning to see a pattern here... :lol
Let's say that this rule is implemented. Now the guy who makes suicide run doesn't bail because he'll get a 15 min penalty, he simply keeps diving and crashes, so in the end it's the same.
-
Ah. Good catch my pedantic Teutonic friend.
I meant a sortie in which ords were taken. Me culpa.
I would stop short of pedantic. His display of knowledge is never ostentatious.
-
In general, does everybody get that the numbers are way down and that changing nothing carries a high probability of nothing changing?
Probably most people sense this. The concern is that kicking out people who like to bomb and bail, or who think they're helping their country to win the war by bombing fighter hangers, may not improve the overall numbers.
- oldman
-
#3-You up a 262 costing hundreds of perkies. Your wife's cat jumps on the keyboard. You sell the cat to a Chinese restaurant.
HTC can't guarantee that one will always have a good sortie...they MIGHT be able to do something about the "no one fighting in a combat game anymore problem" though.
no one really fights in this game. We just pretend.
semp
-
Probably most people sense this. The concern is that kicking out people who like to bomb and bail, or who think they're helping their country to win the war by bombing fighter hangers, may not improve the overall numbers.
- oldman
I suspect the VERY players who are most likely to bomb'n'bail are the very same demographic who are most enticed by flashy, less accurate sims. As much as I hate the way these dweebs "fight", I certainly don't want to drive them to another game. I need their $15.
-
Mommy, why won't the funny smelling man stop crying?
My new sig :lol
-
Bomb n Bail / Suicide jabos have been going on in here since the beginning. It was common in Air Warrior before that.
Try to look at it as cheap entertainment.
It would be a bummer to box players in so much they wouldn't want to play.
Then you'd have even fewer players to battle.
-
How about this, sit on the runway in a storch and watch all the bish 38s miss their targets and auger :rofl
-
Please tell me what is daft or illogical about my idea as a way to discourage bomb'n'bail and suicide jabo'ing.
It doesn't differentiate intentional jabocide from incompetence. You're penalizing anybody who dies on an attack sortie by not allowing them to reup and try again for 15 minutes. Most people learn best through immediate repetition, and your solution slows down that process.
Wiley.
-
You wrote : 15 delay for someone bailing with ords still on board.
So this does not apply to bomb and bailers. They would not get a delay at all
Seems like that would only discourage the pilot trying to get ords on target by getting jumped by fighters.... I like flying bombers, but I also enjoy the gunnery part as much if not more than putting ords on target. (learned that from 999's :cheers: )
Now, if there was a way to have a limited number of this type of attempt, like say, after a bailout with no damage, player X cannot up an identical sortie type. A message of the sort: "Due to Limited Airframes and Crew, Bomber/Attack Sortie type are unavailable for X minutes... Simulating that the aircraft inventory is gone for Y minutes because of the wasted air frames...
This may cut down on re-upping identical load out and heading back, yeah he/she could up something else, but at least there is a deterrent without such a harsh penalty. Not sure on this one, as OP seems to be more interested in affecting other's gameplay than to enrich the game overall... (just my opinion, no flaming so don't :cry )
- a sideways 8
-
The problem is that your change doesn't just target the kamikazes. It targets anybody who used to bomb and then fight. It actively punishes them for dying after carrying bombs. My concern isn't the kamikazes, it is the guys who used to fight and would be pushed to being runners.
Ah. A perfectly good objection, pointing out a way in which this could reduce combat rather than promote it. It only took two pages of ad hominem for someone to get there. :cheers:
I could respond that the current bomb'n'bailers/kamikaze jabos don't seem to be interested in fighter combat anyway, and that forcing to them to rtb at a dead run would at least slow don their antics...but I must admit YOUR objection, out of all I've heard, holds some merit. So how then to encourage actually trying to RTB on attack runs without adding to the no-fighting problem? Perhaps a certain perk cost for ordnance, repayable upon RTB, as is the case with perk planes?
-
Perhaps a certain perk cost for ordnance, repayable upon RTB, as is the case with perk planes?
Y'know, you could really just cut down on the pages and pages of text that you write by just saying, "I would like HTC to remove bombs from the game, as they don't promote combat."
Wiley.
-
Another daft thread, good grief, when will it end?
At the "Great Wall of PNG".
-
Y'know, you could really just cut down on the pages and pages of text that you write by just saying, "I would like HTC to remove bombs from the game, as they don't promote combat."
Wiley.
But having things with bombs strapped on them to shoot at adds variety to the combat. So the trick is to leave them useful in the game without letting them be a factor that detracts from the some total of player versus player shootings going on.
-
But having things with bombs strapped on them to shoot at adds variety to the combat. So the trick is to leave them useful in the game without letting them be a factor that detracts from the some total of player versus player shootings going on.
And your idea does that how exactly? They either jabocide and wait their 15 minutes before they can up again, or they're running home on the deck. How is either sitting in the tower or running home on the deck an improvement?
Wiley.
-
Please tell me what is daft or illogical about my idea as a way to discourage bomb'n'bail and suicide jabo'ing.
Perhaps it's because it's also a penalty that will discourage play. IMHO the faster he reups, the sooner I can shoot him down.
If you don't like suicide JABO's, interdict them before they can get to their target and shoot them down. :aok
-
Perhaps it's because it's also a penalty that will discourage play. IMHO the faster he reups, the sooner I can shoot him down.
If you don't like suicide JABO's, interdict them before they can get to their target and shoot them down. :aok
But when he's upped and headed for the nearest red aircraft and begun fighting them, the jabocider or bomber comes over him at alt and continues on to the base. They are therefore impossible to stop.
-
But when he's upped and headed for the nearest red aircraft and begun fighting them, the jabocider or bomber comes over him at alt and continues on to the base. They are therefore impossible to stop.
Not if you are waiting for them at alt :devil
-
Not if you are waiting for them at alt :devil
That concept is considered cheating by BnZ.
-
And your idea does that how exactly? They either jabocide and wait their 15 minutes before they can up again, or they're running home on the deck. How is either sitting in the tower or running home on the deck an improvement?
Wiley.
1. If they are running in a jabo, then they are still a bird in the air and can be run down and shot. And bombers aren't going to run from much over an extended period of time.
2. I doubt they would simply sit in the the tower. They might do something crazy up a light fighter for a little revenge.
-
That concept is considered cheating by BnZ.
Not cheating. Merely a mind-numbing exercise in score-padding. What these people are saying is "You should totally bypass engaging with other fighters (if they will let you) to climb to 20K to wait for bombers that may or may not come in. If you don't do this then toolshedding is YOUR fault." Like that pic I posted, wherein I got in a fighter, got in a fight, got shot down, and when I landed, every base and CV near the contested area could not be upped from. I suck for not intercepting bombers I never knew existed, for engaging other players in fighters? :rolleyes: I thought most people on this board considered players refusing to engage in dogfights a problem and general bad thing.
-
How could you differentiate between someone who bombed & bailed for no reason vs someone who bailed out after dropping his ord due to a flak hit?
Further, IF you made an exception for someone hit by flak who bails, then the bomb l& bailers just have to level out over the field and take a flak hit before they ditch.
No help at all.
-
How could you differentiate between someone who bombed & bailed for no reason vs someone who bailed out after dropping his ord due to a flak hit?
No help at all.
The differentiation is unimportant. Whether intended or not, the guy who gets shot down on a bomb run actually get to make a second, third, fourth bomb run faster than the guy who manages to survive and RTB. Thus in reality he is more effective for his side than a guy actually attempting to survive, which I think is an odd distortion to have in game that deserves to be addressed. Karnak's objection remains the only valid objection.
-
1. If they are running in a jabo, then they are still a bird in the air and can be run down and shot. And bombers aren't going to run from much over an extended period of time.
2. I doubt they would simply sit in the the tower. They might do something crazy up a light fighter for a little revenge.
1. P51D, P47, P38, Mossie and a few others are going to run from plenty.
2. Because everybody in the game wants to fly fighters. Do I need to type this slower or in caps so it may sink in?
I will try typing it slowly... There are people who play this game who like to blow stuff up, not engage in dogfighting. I know it may be hard to believe for you, but it is true. Discouraging them from doing their thing is not going to populate the skies with more people who want to dogfight. It will result in them not playing.
Wiley.
-
The differentiation is unimportant. Whether intended or not, the guy who gets shot down on a bomb run actually get to make a second, third, fourth bomb run faster than the guy who manages to survive and RTB. Thus in reality he is more effective for his side than a guy actually attempting to survive, which I think is an odd distortion to have in game that deserves to be addressed. Karnak's objection remains the only valid objection.
ahhh so logically your saying fighter guys should have to sit in the tower for 15 minutes too as if they are shot down they can return to the fight quicker. :rolleyes:
1. P51D, P47, P38, Mossie and a few others are going to run from plenty.
2. Because everybody in the game wants to fly fighters. Do I need to type this slower or in caps so it may sink in?
I will try typing it slowly... There are people who play this game who like to blow stuff up, not engage in dogfighting. I know it may be hard to believe for you, but it is true. Discouraging them from doing their thing is not going to populate the skies with more people who want to dogfight. It will result in them not playing.
Wiley.
There is only one way to play this game, that's BnZ's way where everyone only fights in fighters, buildings and hangars never get bombed, GVer's never get in a tank.
Get with the program Wiley
-
The differentiation is unimportant. Whether intended or not, the guy who gets shot down on a bomb run actually get to make a second, third, fourth bomb run faster than the guy who manages to survive and RTB. Thus in reality he is more effective for his side than a guy actually attempting to survive, which I think is an odd distortion to have in game that deserves to be addressed. Karnak's objection remains the only valid objection.
Valid objection to bad wish: what if I like making jabo runs better than dogfighting, and don't care about who wins the war? Under your idea, I'd be penalized (which = less fun) for getting shot down by ack or planes while De-acking.
No thanks. You should change your wish. Wish for more guys in the DA. Maybe perks awarded in the DA would attract more flyers in there.
your current wish is just another "play the game my way" wish.
-
BnZ's next wish: perk all bombs. Mark my words! :old:
-
ahhh so logically your saying fighter guys should have to sit in the tower for 15 minutes too as if they are shot down they can return to the fight quicker. :rolleyes:
No, the widely lamented problem on these boards is that people flying fighters are engaging TOO timidly, so making fighter pilots more reluctant to die would only make that particular problem worse.
Whereas actually flying your jabo into the hangar your bombing is many things, but "timid" probably isn't the right word, thus it is a problem requiring a different and probably opposite solution.
-
There is only one way to play this game, that's BnZ's way where everyone only fights in fighters, buildings and hangars never get bombed, GVer's never get in a tank.
Get with the program Wiley
Entirely inaccurate on all points. I am FINE with Snaphook and Widewing fighting in their A20s if they wish, for instance. :devil Bombing of town buildings is an important part of the base-taking dynamic, so I am perfectly fine with that. And GV fighting isn't my thing, but it is *still fighting*, which is the whole point of having a freaking MMO *combat* game.
You're bad at this logic thing Fugi. You're also the #1 NO ONE FIGHTS ANYMORE!!! complainer in the game. You complain about no fights and also the manner in which people engage you in fighters, but when I propose measures to sustain more fights and perhaps nudge players who aren't even trying to engage other players in combat at all into doing so, you lambaste my proposals, yet provide none of your own.
-
BnZ's next wish: perk all bombs. Mark my words! :old:
So how then to encourage actually trying to RTB on attack runs without adding to the no-fighting problem? Perhaps a certain perk cost for ordnance, repayable upon RTB, as is the case with perk planes?
Too late.
Wiley.
-
Too late.
Wiley.
Okay Wiley, since you're such a smart guy, why don't you chew on this problem: Killing a bomber or jabo anytime after they drop their bombs does nothing to help your side's war effort, in fact it simply helps them get back to make another bomb run quicker. What measures do we take to alleviate this distorting effect? Come on, I want to hear what you come up with.
-
Okay Wiley, since you're such a smart guy, why don't you chew on this problem: Killing a bomber or jabo anytime after they drop their bombs does nothing to help your side's war effort, in fact it simply helps them get back to make another bomb run quicker. What measures do we take to alleviate this distorting effect? Come on, I want to hear what you come up with.
The same measures we take for fighters that get killed over enemy territory and don't have to take the time to RTB because they were shot down. None.
Wiley.
-
1. P51D, P47, P38, Mossie and a few others are going to run from plenty.
And they will all be caught by a higher P-51D, P-47M, Fw-190D9, or La7. It is not a guarantee, but at least it is a chance.
2. Because everybody in the game wants to fly fighters. Do I need to type this slower or in caps so it may sink in?
I will try typing it slowly... There are people who play this game who like to blow stuff up, not engage in dogfighting. I know it may be hard to believe for you, but it is true. Discouraging them from doing their thing is not going to populate the skies with more people who want to dogfight. It will result in them not playing.
Wiley.
People who merely want to blow up inanimate objects, if such exist, are quite silly for paying $15 a month to do it online instead of dong it offline for free. And tinkering with some of the anti-fighting dynamics (and the temporal rule whose name must not be spoken) might make this game less boring and help close off the hemorrhage of players leaving it because it has become so boring. As would some measures to gently nudge the MA back towards being a dogfighting culture and less of a "let's smash buildings and run a goon! Yay everything is awesome!" culture.
-
Honestly, all I see is a wish that would end up hurting the game instead of helping it.
ack-ack
-
Probably most people sense this. The concern is that kicking out people who like to bomb and bail, or who think they're helping their country to win the war by bombing fighter hangers, may not improve the overall numbers.
- oldman
Adjusting conditions doesn't amount to kicking someone out. And do you really think we aren't losing more players because of lack of action and bad anti-fighting dynamics than we are keeping due said dynamics? Think about why YOU first signed up for a game called "Aces High"...to bomb hangars? If the game panders to the sort one catches bombing for hours on end in the empty MW at the expense of those who fight, then it imperils its own future.
-
And they will all be caught by a higher P-51D, P-47M, Fw-190D9, or La7. It is not a guarantee, but at least it is a chance.
Yup. And they might get killed on the way in too by a plane higher than them. It's not a guarantee, but at least it's a chance.
People who merely want to blow up inanimate objects, if such exist, are quite silly for paying $15 a month to do it online instead of dong it offline for free. And tinkering with some of the anti-fighting dynamics (and the temporal rule whose name must not be spoken) might make this game less boring and help close off the hemorrhage of players leaving it because it has become so boring. As would some measures to gently nudge the MA back towards being a dogfighting culture and less of a "let's smash buildings and run a goon! Yay everything is awesome!" culture.
So... to be clear, your solution to stop the hemorrhage of players leaving is to encourage the people who are here to bomb inanimate objects with their friends to leave.
There is a flaw with your cunning plan.
Horde up and smash has been with these games since they were created.
Wiley.
-
I recall climbing out in a Mossie and seeing a P-51D tear by me, making an attack run on the base I had just taken off of. I turned and dove after him. Now given I started at ~180mph when he was already probably well over 400mph there was no way I could catch him even leaving aside that his fighter was about 10mph faster than mine, but I went in pursuit. He tore it and blew up our radar, but did not suicide. He leveled off, rapidly pulling away from me, then pulled up and came around for a second attack. I moved to position myself to intercept after his attack. He bombed or rocketed something and took off running. I dove and was able to close to about 500 yards whereupon I was able to keep gaining my making him squirm to avoid bursts of .303 rounds. Then we came to a ridge that he had to climb over and my Mossie's superior climb rate gave me the upper hand. I closed to about 300 yards when he decided he wasn't going to be able to out run me so he tried to fight. It was a short fight, but he tried.
That is the difference between a kamikaze and a bomb and run player.
-
What if we didn't score damage on sorties where the player failed to RTB?
-
What if we didn't score damage on sorties where the player failed to RTB?
Bomb and bail is primarily to accomplish a goal, not to score well, so score's not a motivator. Or do you mean the stuff he bombed would come back up if he's shot down? If it's the latter, just no.
Wiley.
-
Didn't you guys get the memo?
NO FUN ALLOWED
Ban bombs! :old:
Ban bombers! :old:
Ban rockets! :old:
If you crash after a jabo run, no more playing for you! :old:
Climbing above 14K is forbidden! :old:
Play my way or don't play at all! :old:
I'm sure BnZ's business plan would get the players flowing right in. I'm thankful this is just a wishlist :rofl
PS: still waiting for the "it was all sarcasm, I fooled you guys again".
-
Entirely inaccurate on all points. I am FINE with Snaphook and Widewing fighting in their A20s if they wish, for instance. :devil Bombing of town buildings is an important part of the base-taking dynamic, so I am perfectly fine with that. And GV fighting isn't my thing, but it is *still fighting*, which is the whole point of having a freaking MMO *combat* game.
You're bad at this logic thing Fugi. You're also the #1 NO ONE FIGHTS ANYMORE!!! complainer in the game. You complain about no fights and also the manner in which people engage you in fighters, but when I propose measures to sustain more fights and perhaps nudge players who aren't even trying to engage other players in combat at all into doing so, you lambaste my proposals, yet provide none of your own.
No, I lambaste the way you go about it. You seem to be a bit dense. The only reason I pointed out that your saying the fighters should be stuck in the tower for 15 is to point out how stupid the theory is for your suggestions. Your ok with stopping what OTHER people have fun at just because it may hinder your fun, but it doesn't make sense to you when someone points out taking away what YOU think is fun.
Yes I would LOVE to see more fights, I would LOVE to have less hordes, but I do not, nor have I ever wanted to do away with anyone else style or type of play. I would like to see bonuses given to players who defend against a horde NOT restrict the horde. I would like to see bonuses given to groups/squads for capturing bases in smaller groups, NOT restrict hordes. I would like to see bonuses given to missions player where buffs, GVs, fighters both heavy and light are used to capture or pork bases, but again NOT restrict hordes. See the different you want to take something away, I would rather they GIVE something to encourage doing things a different way. You can still horde if thats what you want, but you get more stuff/points/perks/what ever doing it a different way, and you may have fun doing something else instead of the same old same old.
Your all about restricting things in the game I'm more about using more of it.
-
Not that this wish is good or anything, but if you don't do something to take AWAY from the horde, you'll enjoy the sames arena numbers or thereabouts (or even worse) that you're seeing now.
Just saying (like I did years ago)...
-
I bailed out a JABO after hitting my target today and I thought about BnZ... I felt so disgusted with myself I did it again! :devil
I could almost swear those guys 4k out were ready to cancel their account and never come back when I did this, either that or they didn't care....
Did anyone else suddenly taste the color purple?
-
So, ignoring the gross distortions, try this, since I suggested it before:
Does anyone have a problem with the imposition of a penalty for a bail from an undamaged aircraft; if a bomber, an ord time penalty; if a fighter, a fighter reup time penalty?
THe only "legit" reason i can see for an undamaged bail is, for example, I'm sitting in the cockpit and my wife calls me out for some kind of an emergency. If that happens, the time penalty is probably going to be moot anyway (since I'll be dealing with some reall emergency, because my wife would nevr call me away from something I love to, for example, chit-chat about floorplans for a house or something one of her friends did or something unnecessary like that - and that if she did, I'd be nodding and placating for at least fifteen minutes anyway).
-
Adjusting conditions doesn't amount to kicking someone out. And do you really think we aren't losing more players because of lack of action and bad anti-fighting dynamics than we are keeping due said dynamics? Think about why YOU first signed up for a game called "Aces High"...to bomb hangars? If the game panders to the sort one catches bombing for hours on end in the empty MW at the expense of those who fight, then it imperils its own future.
No, I don't think we're losing more players because of lack of action. I think we're losing them because this is a hard game to play well, and there are fewer people who are interested in mastering it.
Since you asked, I first signed up because WWII aviation had been my main hobby and interest since I was a child. People like me - and like you, if I guess correctly - were what made the first and second generation air combat MMP games successful. I think the people who are now in their 20s and 30s and probably even 40s grew up on computer games which did not pit player against player, but which focused on cooperative ventures against AI. They have no interest at all in weathering the beatings which are a necessary aspect of learning a new sport or game or other skill. If they don't have a chance to do well at the beginning of their experience, they'll move to a place where they can (you know...."Head-on Attacks!"). I can't understand their perspective, and probably they don't understand mine.
Somewhere in the onion patch there are a few petunias. I would like to pick them and keep them. If they still reek of onions - if they want to bomb and bail, or hit the fighter hangers, or shoot me in the face - I'm willing to put up with that if they stick around. They will be assimilated in due time.
- oldman
-
Does anyone have a problem with the imposition of a penalty for a bail from an undamaged aircraft; if a bomber, an ord time penalty; if a fighter, a fighter reup time penalty?
A lot of times I'm climbing in bombers when I hear an alert. "X base is under attack, town WF! We need defenders!". Of course, what I do most of the time is bail and go defend that base. I don't think that should be penalized, but that's just my opinion.
-
No, I don't think we're losing more players because of lack of action. I think we're losing them because this is a hard game to play well, and there are fewer people who are interested in mastering it.
- oldman
So you think that, in a wrold of 6 billion there are only a few hundred interested in flying WWI air combat simulation, mano a mano with others?
Let's try this for a substitute hypothesis: there are thousand of people who share your passion WHO ARE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF AH.
Which is the more believable? Do you really think that WT is only a draw for arcade style players who care nothing/little about WWII aircraft and air combat?
My own thinking: AH is relatively unknown to most in the world and thus fails the first promotional hurdle; awareness.
-
My own thinking: AH is relatively unknown to most in the world and thus fails the first promotional hurdle; awareness.
I agree with that. But that wasn't the question I answered.
- oldman
-
So you think that, in a wrold of 6 billion there are only a few hundred interested in flying WWI air combat simulation, mano a mano with others?
Let's try this for a substitute hypothesis: there are thousand of people who share your passion WHO ARE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF AH.
Which is the more believable? Do you really think that WT is only a draw for arcade style players who care nothing/little about WWII aircraft and air combat?
My own thinking: AH is relatively unknown to most in the world and thus fails the first promotional hurdle; awareness.
I bet 1/2 the population 3 billion live on less than 15 bucks a month.
semp
-
Semp, you're likely correct -but we don't target that half. In fact, all we need is a few thousand who pee away more than that on impulse buys every time they're in a line.
As for you, 442, yes, I see your point. There will inevitably be "the discouraged". This only underscores the need for new meat eager to prove or disprove their abilities. We'll never have static equilibrium. Even avid players go away for periods short or long. Dynamic equilibrium or even growth is the only way to sustain the thing; attracting at least as many as those that leave over any given period.
-
Another daft thread, good grief, when will it end?
Instant cure: take wishlist privileges away for 15 days following a post bombing. Ironic fix actually.
-
They have no interest at all in weathering the beatings which are a necessary aspect of learning a new sport or game or other skill.
This is false. Ever play a console fighting game online? Those kids spends HOURS mastering those multi-button combos. Same with the popular FPS games. PJ_Godzilla has the right of it I think, main problem with AHII numbers is that most people have hardly ever heard of it.
-
Aces High presented the right way, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3HPaXGUDrM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3HPaXGUDrM)
-
bnz's:
how is forcing people to RTB encouraging combat? if they are rtb'ing they are not fighting.
I agree with you avoiding combat is silly in a combat game.. but I think suicide lawn darting ord porkers and radar heroes aren't the main problem
-
bnz's:
how is forcing people to RTB encouraging combat? if they are rtb'ing they are not fighting.
A guy attempting to survive his jabo or bombing sortie is available as a target.
I agree with you avoiding combat is silly in a combat game.. but I think suicide lawn darting ord porkers and radar heroes aren't the main problem
They are a clear example of people not participating in combat in the LW MA, not even fighting to survive.
-
A guy attempting to survive his jabo or bombing sortie is available as a target.
they are also available when they are coming back in a new plane :)
and they're coming to you, don't need to chase!
-
Havent read through all 6 pages but perhaps this has been suggested.
to a certain extent perk ordinance.
Small ord should always remain free. But assess perks to the heavier stuff.
Then have it so crashing would mean you only get 1/3 of what it would cost for more heavy stuff, not landing your mission (getting shot down) be half of what it would cost to get more heavy stuff, ditching within range of a friendly base would get you the full amount. and landing your mission be twice what it would cost.
In this way it would take 3 augered flights or ditches in enemy territory to get 1 more load heavy ord.
2 flights where you got shot down to get 1 more load.
1 flight where you managed to ditch in friendly territory to get another load of ord
But actually surviving and landing the big reward of getting enough ord for two flights
To offset any problems in field defence you can make it where anything you drop within the dar ring of a friendly base be free and a net gain/loss of zero regardless of how your flight ended.
This would allow for taking bombs up by mistake and just wanting to loose them. Or in bombing attacking GVs
-
:aok :aok :aok
Havent read through all 6 pages but perhaps this has been suggested.
to a certain extent perk ordinance.
Small ord should always remain free. But assess perks to the heavier stuff.
Then have it so crashing would mean you only get 1/3 of what it would cost for more heavy stuff, not landing your mission (getting shot down) be half of what it would cost to get more heavy stuff, ditching within range of a friendly base would get you the full amount. and landing your mission be twice what it would cost.
In this way it would take 3 augered flights or ditches in enemy territory to get 1 more load heavy ord.
2 flights where you got shot down to get 1 more load.
1 flight where you managed to ditch in friendly territory to get another load of ord
But actually surviving and landing the big reward of getting enough ord for two flights
To offset any problems in field defence you can make it where anything you drop within the dar ring of a friendly base be free and a net gain/loss of zero regardless of how your flight ended.
This would allow for taking bombs up by mistake and just wanting to loose them. Or in bombing attacking GVs
-
Not a bad idea to perk the heavy ord a bit - I'd +1 that.
I still think the ammo bunkers are ridiculously soft - the hardened concrete bunker full of ordnance is easily destroyed with a load of .50 caliber slugs, and destruction by 20mm cannon isn't even a question.
I really would like to see it take a least a 500 lb bomb hit to take one out, and have small ordnance be as ineffective against them as they are against tanks. Strafe it all you like since the ammo is UNDERGROUND all you should do is pockmark the concrete.
-
Not a bad idea to perk the heavy ord a bit - I'd +1 that.
I still think the ammo bunkers are ridiculously soft - the hardened concrete bunker full of ordnance is easily destroyed with a load of .50 caliber slugs, and destruction by 20mm cannon isn't even a question.
I really would like to see it take a least a 500 lb bomb hit to take one out, and have small ordnance be as ineffective against them as they are against tanks. Strafe it all you like since the ammo is UNDERGROUND all you should do is pockmark the concrete.
there really is no ammo in the ammo bunker. if there was the pixels would show a awesome explosion. that's what I think anyway.
semp