Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: BLKBaron on July 14, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
-
I was thinking that it could be a strategic advantage if we could airdrop tanks and other GVs from a cargo aircraft.
"Which one?" You might say. "We don't have any aircraft in the game that can perform that role."
And right you are, non-existent conversationalist.
I recommend the C-82, C-119, and the Me-323 for the roles. That's just an inclusive list; others are welcome.
Because of the strategic advantage they could provide, they would be large, generally slow, practically unarmed (for the experienced, no guns doesn't mean you can get away without a kill), and probably would cost a few perk points.
Historically, this ability was utilized during WW2 and it would be....interesting, at least....to see it being reflected here in the game.
Are there any supporters for this idea?
-
What tank would the Me-323 be able to carry, and how in the world would it be able to airdrop it?
-
How would the tank be manned? Would the player doing the airdrop have to land the plane near the vehicle, bail from the plane and somehow jump in the tank? Would you need another player already in the tank, along for the ride and then free to drive around once safely on the ground? Would an interceptor get multiple kills for downing the cargo plane before the vehicle is dropped?
I think it would be a massive change in the game code to allow such gameplay, for very little gain.
-
Lusche, the Me-323 could airdrop any GV, as long as it fit within the dimensions on the fuselage and didn't exceed the weight limits. I believe it could be dropped like troops, supplies, or bombs.
ImADot, in my mind, I would imagine you would drop a GV that has a player in it. During the flight, the second player would operate guns until the drop where the player would find him/herself in the GV parachuting towards the ground. This would require at least two people to be involved in this type of airdrop. As far as kills, if an interceptor were to destroy the aircraft, it should register 2 kills. Now, if the GV kill is counted in their score, that would be up to HiTech. It should be the same as if you have a second person gunning in a bomber.
I wouldn't waste your time if I didn't think it could bring an interesting aspect to the game and enrich the experience of the players.
-
Lusche, the Me-323 could airdrop any GV,
Again: How?
(http://api.ning.com/files/b9zafSjxjY*fNP2TT4-XDrIRftmznjve4QMPjeGtc9n41NlSuv-rUZ5DCjdNt*Mb/Me32306.jpg)
-
A Panzer IV.
You may need to land to deploy GVs with that particular plane. I thought they were rear loaded.
Either way, I'm sure there was at least one plane capable of airdropping vehicles in that particular timeframe.
-
A Panzer IV.
You may need to land to deploy GVs with that particular plane. I thought they were rear loaded.
Either way, I'm sure there was at least one plane capable of airdropping vehicles in that particular timeframe.
Me323 could not nearly fit or lift a Panzer IV. Of the GVs we have it could carry a jeep or an M8.
-
Or the C-74, though it came very late in the war.
-
Karnak, you're right. That's a Renault UE. My mistake.
But you named 2 GVs the Me-323 could lift.
-
why not just ask for more gv spawns
-
Or the C-74, though it came very late in the war.
On September 2, 1945, a formal surrender ceremony was performed in Tokyo Bay, Japan, aboard the battleship USS Missouri.
The first flight of the C-74, 42-65402, occurred on 5 September 1945.
The second built, 42-65403, c/n 13914, crashed during flight testing on 5 August 1946.
The "C-74 squadron" was activated along with the "C-74 Project" on 5 September 1946.
Apple must have released an I-Time or something we haven't heard about yet. BLKBaron, how do we get in that alpha testing program.
-
Bustr, I didn't look at the dates. I just knew it was in 1945. It was developed for use in the war. Whether it's considered a war plane is debatable. Since you're pretty good at researching this type of thing, find a few more planes capable of air dropping vehicles that were used during WWII.
-
Name one aircraft capable of air dropping a GV, that saw service in WWII.
-
Ignoring for the moment that the C-74 completely missed the war, looking at photos of it I cannot see any way that it could have carried any vehicle.
-
I was thinking that it could be a strategic advantage if we could airdrop tanks and other GVs from a cargo aircraft.
"Which one?" You might say. "We don't have any aircraft in the game that can perform that role."
And right you are, non-existent conversationalist.
I recommend the C-82, C-119, and the Me-323 for the roles. That's just an inclusive list; others are welcome.
Because of the strategic advantage they could provide, they would be large, generally slow, practically unarmed (for the experienced, no guns doesn't mean you can get away without a kill), and probably would cost a few perk points.
Historically, this ability was utilized during WW2 and it would be....interesting, at least....to see it being reflected here in the game.
Are there any supporters for this idea?
C-82 and C-119 in WW2? Since when?
-
Acc. to WIkipedia the C82 just barely made WWII but it was a failure (and it clearly had no way to air drop vehicles). The C-119 Flying Boxcar, developed from the C-82 Packet, came way after WWII (and also clearly has no way to air drop vehicles).
The C-47 could carry a Jeep, and did so in WWII, but I doubt it air dropped it as it appears unlikely the cargo door could be opened in flight. Of course, of what use could a Jeep delivering C-47 be (except to deliver a Jeep deep into enemy territory so as to make a base flash for no apparent reason just to annoy people).
-
Junkers Ju 252. It's got guns too!
"The Trapoklappe hydraulic rear loading ramp was an important feature, enabling the carriage of light vehicles and the dropping of para-retarded loads in flight."
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Junkers%20Ju%20252.htm (http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Junkers%20Ju%20252.htm)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/254voza.jpg)
-
Acc. to WIkipedia the C82 just barely made WWII but it was a failure (and it clearly had no way to air drop vehicles). The C-119 Flying Boxcar, developed from the C-82 Packet, came way after WWII (and also clearly has no way to air drop vehicles).
The C-47 could carry a Jeep, and did so in WWII, but I doubt it air dropped it as it appears unlikely the cargo door could be opened in flight. Of course, of what use could a Jeep delivering C-47 be (except to deliver a Jeep deep into enemy territory so as to make a base flash for no apparent reason just to annoy people).
Both the C-82 and C-119 could do heavy drops by removing the clam shell doors at rear of fuselage.
C-82:
(http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/C-82-Packet-740x392.jpg)
-
Air-dropping of vehicles was not a technology that was perfected until sometime after WWII. Even on D-Day, the only ground vehicles that were brought in by air were jeeps and perhaps some motorcycles, and those arrived on gliders. Most didn't survive the landings (along with the glider pilots, crushed when the jeeps brook loose and were hurled into the cockpit). However, there are accounts of General Kenny's 5th Air Force in the Pacific modifying the cargo doors of C-47's to allow for jeeps, small bulldozers, and trucks (the trucks were actually cut in half with blow torches to get the inside, and then welded back together after offloading). Kenny's bunch were masters of field modifications. Construction crews would go into a jungle area by boat or on foot, clear just enough jungle by hand to land the Skytrains, then use the vehicles that the C-47's landed to complete the new airbase.
In that vain, how about allowing a C-47some offensive power measure.
-
What if C-47s dropped spawn points? :noid
-
Even if we could drop gv:s, it would be jeeps and maybe M8 as previously stated, it would not be anything really useful in AH. I dont see the point of adding it, besides it would be fun, and that is a valid reason...
+1
-
What if C-47s dropped spawn points? :noid
I posted an idea a while back for temporary bases. Basically, you'd need or coordinate a flight of some number of C-47's with construction battalion pallets, and land them all within a few hundred yards of each other. The selected area would have to be essentially flat, and large enough to accommodate the base. You'd deploy the pallets and construction would begin on a temporary base that would allow for the spawning of a limited plane/gv set (no medium or heavy bombers, for example); essentially, a temporary spawn point. The temp base, heretofore known as a Forward Operating Base (FOB) would not have any spawn points, other than the runway or hanger (a tent hanger, that is). When completed, the base would become operational, but require regular resupply to remain in effect for more than 20 minutes or so. The runway would be represented by a strip of marston matting and some tents would make up the base infrastructure. Only defenses would be some light machine guns. The runway could be targeted and destroyed, with additional supply runs necessary to repair it or any other destroyed structure.
-
Both the C-82 and C-119 could do heavy drops by removing the clam shell doors at rear of fuselage.
I stand corrected. (Didn't think of totally removing the clam shell doors.)
-
Bustr, I didn't look at the dates. I just knew it was in 1945. It was developed for use in the war. Whether it's considered a war plane is debatable. Since you're pretty good at researching this type of thing, find a few more planes capable of air dropping vehicles that were used during WWII.
Gee, I've known people who can only use their chin to be able to type C-74 and hit enter. And then that Hawking guy does pretty good moving his head. Why submit something to a debate that has specific dates limiting inclusion when you know your audience will check them?
-
Bustr, because it's not the goal here to be 100% accurate and correct. I was sharing an idea. Modifications or corrections are welcome.
If that's what's important to you...whatever keeps the wind under your wings. Besides, it's good form to stay on topic.
-
Sabre, I really like that idea. That could prove an interesting and very challenging aspect to the game. :salute
-
I would say that a better and more realistic idea is aircraft supps, fly in C-47:s to the location of choice. Land and unload the sups and then fighters can land and rearm. So u will have something similar to a rearm pad.
I posted an idea a while back for temporary bases. Basically, you'd need or coordinate a flight of some number of C-47's with construction battalion pallets, and land them all within a few hundred yards of each other. The selected area would have to be essentially flat, and large enough to accommodate the base. You'd deploy the pallets and construction would begin on a temporary base that would allow for the spawning of a limited plane/gv set (no medium or heavy bombers, for example); essentially, a temporary spawn point. The temp base, heretofore known as a Forward Operating Base (FOB) would not have any spawn points, other than the runway or hanger (a tent hanger, that is). When completed, the base would become operational, but require regular resupply to remain in effect for more than 20 minutes or so. The runway would be represented by a strip of marston matting and some tents would make up the base infrastructure. Only defenses would be some light machine guns. The runway could be targeted and destroyed, with additional supply runs necessary to repair it or any other destroyed structure.
-
Bustr, because it's not the goal here to be 100% accurate and correct. I was sharing an idea. Modifications or corrections are welcome.
If that's what's important to you...whatever keeps the wind under your wings. Besides, it's good form to stay on topic.
The goal was to sling it and see what stuck. You got caught as it blew back on you and are trying poorly now to walk it back. This is an old wish that comes and goes with the same results. In the past the caliber of research and presentation was worth reading for the unique attempts by countries to accomplish this feat. This time around is like watching a millennial getting caught on television not knowing the location of Europe.
-
The British had the Hamilcar glider that could deploy a light tank and was used operationally to support para drops on several occasions. However the Locust or Tetrarch tanks it could carry only weighed 7.5 tons, had a 37 mm or 40mm gun and about 1/2 an inch of armour. Hamilcars were also used to carry a 17 pdr gun, which might be more useful in AH terms. The Me-321 or 323 might have carried a PAK gun but in RL were only used as rear-area transports.
For a single player could use this in the game would be difficult to implement. Lets say he starts off piloting the tow plane, probably a Halifax in RL but a Lanc could sub. Once he deployed the glider he'd switch to that cockpit and the tow plane would presumably self destruct after a few seconds. Once the tow plane landed and deployed the tank or gun the player's POV would switch to that and the glider would vanish.
All-in-all this is a bit clunky as a procedure, plus the glider would be incredibly vulnerable with a not very useful payload and so is not likely to see much use after the novelty wears off. It would also be a lot of work to implement with a new plane and tank to develop as well as the towing/POV switching code.
-
Bustr, if you continue in the same vein, this will be the last post I direct to you. Stay on topic. Your criticism fall flat on these ears; I don't care about your opinion or your cheesy, far-fetched metaphors. Everyone else here has contributed to the topic appropriately. If you have something useful to add, please, you have my attention. Otherwise, go somewhere else.
Zimme, Greebo, good ideas. I think the tow plane idea may be a bit clunky. A Lancaster won't get high enough fast enough to make a glider any useful. However, a cargo glider could be a good idea. Say you launched a glider from 35k. The tow plane could exit and leave the glider to its own devices. It won't be heard and from that alt, it could possibly be decently stealthy. It could make the drop and then the pilot could either end flight or land or bail above the supply drop. Once the supply drop hits the ground, it could spring up into a FOB. Since this was a friendly field, the pilot wouldn't be counted as captured if it's in enemy territory.
These FOBs would be weak and not heavily defended. This will leave defense up to the ones that utilize and created it. It would be strategic, tacticle, and challenging to maintain. It could provide a new element to the fight and help mix things up a little. Essentially, it would work as a temporary respawn, rearm, and observational site but it would be very limited. It would have its own radar ring and could advance the eyes of friendly forces.
In practicality, the ones who would use it have to defend it. The ones that see it will want to destroy it. If you agree or if you want to add to the idea, let's hear it. HiTech won't be inclined to consider unless there is a considerable agreement on the topic.
Second idea: dated and cheesy though it may be, how about zeppelins? Stationary with radar capabilities. Not as large a radar ring as a base but it would help extend the eyes of defensive forces. They could be temporary, lasting only 5-10 minutes but they provide insight into what is going on in the airspace. They could be deployed to reach 10k, no higher. Because they bring a good bit of heightened SA, they would need to be vulnerable, as is their nature. Pilots that stumble across one could shoot them down, earning attack damage points for that sortie. Like I said, it's not likely to be a good idea but it was used greatly in WWI.
I really do have an incredible passion for this game and I would love to see the next evolution of it. I want to bring in new people and keep the people we have already. These are just my contributions.
-
The gliders were released at, if I recall correctly, something like 2000 or 5000ft. Certainly they would never have been above 10000ft.
A few years ago I suggested adding the Me323 and giving it these ability to deploy a forward field that would not be displayed on the enemy map until spotted by a enemy of that nation. After a deployment period, say 5 to 15 minutes, the forward field would have the ability to launch fighters and GVs. All the structures on a forward field would not rebuild when destroyed and it could not be captured. Thinking 1 or 2 FHs, 1 VH, 2 each of munitions, fuel and barracks and light AA defenses.
-
I like that idea Karnak. What became of the idea?
-
I like that idea Karnak. What became of the idea?
Well, like the vast majority of player suggested ideas, nothing. It is very understandable and I can think of a number of programming challenges to do such a thing.
Honestly, players are not usually very good game designers. Some of us like to try to think of things in terms of game play and what good and negative outcomes an idea might have. Most players who make suggestions never go beyond "This would be cool! I want to use it!" to consider how it could cause problems, or perverse incentives.
This idea of mine is very rough and I did not spend much time on it, trying to think of the negatives it might bring. Mostly it was a "How can the Me323 be made to be useful in the context of AH?" idea.
-
A few years ago I suggested adding the Me323 and giving it these ability to deploy a forward field that would not be displayed on the enemy map until spotted by a enemy of that nation. After a deployment period, say 5 to 15 minutes, the forward field would have the ability to launch fighters and GVs. All the structures on a forward field would not rebuild when destroyed and it could not be captured. Thinking 1 or 2 FHs, 1 VH, 2 each of munitions, fuel and barracks and light AA defenses.
I know a few places on CraterMA where that could be some good fun...
-
Karnak's deployable field idea wouldn't work on the current terrain as in AH groups of objects like airfields have to be placed on dead level terrain. I don't know but would guess the same limitation will apply to the new version.
What might work is to have a forward base that could be built into new terrains by the terrain designer. These fields would start off dormant but could be be activated once players brought in in X loads of supplies. The base would go dormant again unless the supplies were topped up every now and then and would change hands if the required X loads of supplies were dropped by the opposition.
-
I think the tow plane idea may be a bit clunky. A Lancaster won't get high enough fast enough to make a glider any useful. However, a cargo glider could be a good idea. Say you launched a glider from 35k.
Sir, with respect -1 or No. Please, your original post was to use planes that were not used during WW2, now you want to come in at 35k? Nothing even close to this happened in WW2. i appreciate that you want to contribute but your idea is so far off base that it is silly sir.
how about zeppelins? -1, no, I disagree that we should have these
I really do have an incredible passion for this game and I would love to see the next evolution of it. I want to bring in new people and keep the people we have already. These are just my contributions.
I'm glad you are here. I'm happy you want to contribute and you are contributing sir. just by playing the game with what we have with the rest of us
If I may ask sir, what is your handle (the name you fly in the game as, and how long have we had the pleasure of your company? Thank you.
-
Karnak, that makes me sad. I have a ton of respect for members of the team coming out and meeting with the players, answering the myriad questions, reading the suggestions on here, and tearing down the veil that hides most decision-makers in a business but that's why we have this exact forum. I'm a programmer and I take that into consideration but they have shown their abilities. I wouldn't believe this is above them and I know it would take a long time for it to get worked out perfectly (modeling, developing, troubleshooting, and testing) but this seems to be something that a number of people have brought up before.
With AHIII coming out within the next few years, this is the perfect time to implement additional functionality. Skuzzy mentioned (in the MA) that AHIII was mainly an upgrade to a new graphics engine. Why not add in new planes, new abilities, new achievements, new anything that will give the users something to mix things up and, probably more importantly, could bring in more people.
I've noticed, in the very short time that I've been playing AH, is that we have been losing people over the years. Some come back, yes, but the rest don't. I don't want this game to go the way of the other combat simulators in the past.
Upon initial examination, I don't see how this ability (standing up FOBs/spawn points/GV airdrops could be abused or reduce or dampen the experience of the users. I want AH to continue and I want people to stick around. A shake-up may help.
-
Zoney, maybe 35k is a little high but what I say here isn't law nor will it be a restriction in the game. As far as accuracy and fidelity to what occurred in WW2, that's the wrong stance to take here. WW2 never once had a single Spitfire deack a field, had the pilot bail, disappear, and come back in a C-47 with 10 people and capture that base. Nor did it have any battle between Rooks, Bishops, and Knights. There's gonna be some superficial elements that are embellished; it adds appeal.
Zeppelins could be used by everyone else but you. It's not a requirement. Just a suggestion.
What does my handle and length of time playing have to do with anything? What's your middle name? Ill tell you if you tell me how many jars of peanut butter are currently in your cabinets?
-
What does my handle and length of time playing have to do with anything? What's your middle name? Ill tell you if you tell me how many jars of peanut butter are currently in your cabinets?
It was simply my attempt to get to know you better. I like to make friends here. By knowing your name I would make it a point of saying hi to you if we were on the same side and I was flying near you, or if I encountered you as an adversary I would have done the same thing with a PM.
I asked how long you have been playing because I like to help new guys that want help.
My middle name is Earl and I have 1/2 a jar of peanut butter but it is the refrigerator because my wife insists on buying that "all natural" stuff that has to be refrigerated. She also yells at me if I scoop the peanut butter out with my celery stick instead of using a knife to spread it on them. That I have never understood. I am the only one eating it so it's my germs and no one else's.
-
Why not add in new planes, new abilities, new achievements, new anything that will give the users something to mix things up and, probably more importantly, could bring in more people.
Why not? Probably because the three people working on that update have all their hands full with coding the new engine and creating the new artwork ;)
-
I'm a programmer
Upon initial examination, I don't see how this ability (standing up FOBs/spawn points/GV airdrops could be abused or reduce or dampen the experience of the users.
Please, tell me you're not involved with the QA end of the process.
Off the top of my head, FOB/GV spawning aircraft NOE to the rear bases/strats either for a quick smash and grab on a real base, or a quick NOE HQ/strat smash from a few miles away. Virtually indefensible. Current HQ problem on steroids. Fronts cease to have meaning.
Base is under attack, multiple FOB/GV spawning aircraft keep an essentially unlimited number of spawnpoints going to keep upping M3s to resupply and vehicles to defend. Effectively making it nearly impossible to stop GVs from spawning in at a field under attack.
Infinite spawnable radar may as well be permanent all seeing radar.
And the biggest one- People flying cargo planes and spawning radar blimps and whatever else are not flying combat aircraft. Why do people insist on more non combat oriented side stuff to do in a combat game?
As far as accuracy and fidelity to what occurred in WW2, that's the wrong stance to take here. There's gonna be some superficial elements that are embellished; it adds appeal.
The parameters they chose for the game was stuff that actually got used at squadron strength in WWII. That's a fairly popular idea around here. You're essentially saying you want Aces High: 1946 and Beyond. A lot of people don't want the freak flyers and prototypes and later stuff around. 262s are unpopular enough as is.
Why do you want to turn it into arcade mode instead of improving on the core of what the game already is?
Wiley.
-
You're essentially saying you want Aces High: 1946 and Beyond.
I'm thinking more of a 'Crimson Skies' on steroids :D
-
I'm thinking more of a 'Crimson Skies' on steroids :D
Truth be told, I'd love to see them model the Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe type stuff. I'd just prefer it to be its own game, and for this to continue to improve. Not every game needs to be everything to everyone like a lot of people seem to want to make them.
Wiley.
-
Wiley,
When AH3 goes live, get ready for the WT lookyloos trying out the 2week trial, to hop in here and inundate the Wish List with this. The OP almost sounds like the first trickle. Lord forbid if he is on staff and this is just an early teaser to test the waters of Hitech's intentions. You ever seen some of the custom personalized skins in WT?
-
Wiley,
When AH3 goes live, get ready for the WT lookyloos trying out the 2week trial, to hop in here and inundate the Wish List with this. The OP almost sounds like the first trickle. Lord forbid if he is on staff and this is just an early teaser to test the waters of Hitech's intentions. You ever seen some of the custom personalized skins in WT?
Yep.
It'll be wall to wall personalized skins, ability to trade perk points, we need some kind of visible way to show we have put in more time than other people, we need objectives, ingame visible stats, remove 12 hour rule, this game should be F2P, this game needs ingame tutorial, the B29 needs the nuke, where is the 4x20mm version of this plane wikipedia says existed, here is an obscure plane that never saw combat that I want, put it in tomorrow please, etc etc.
Can hardly wait.
Wiley.
-
Wiley,
You can go to school to learn how to be a "marketing troll" so that the people you talk to think you are harmlessly innocuous. Then they are willing to spill bits and pieces of info because you give them a warm and fuzzy feeling by being unassuming, earnest and safe. Just takes key words and phrases. No different than the questions created to sway opinion or elicit responses over the phone by a pollster.
For these kinds of games, this OP would fit the bill.
-
I don't get a definitive shill vibe off this guy. Just very excited to be here and wants to help.
Wiley.
-
With AHIII coming out within the next few years, this is the perfect time to implement additional functionality. Skuzzy mentioned (in the MA) that AHIII was mainly an upgrade to a new graphics engine. Why not add in new planes, new abilities, new achievements, new anything that will give the users something to mix things up and, probably more importantly, could bring in more people.
The upcoming version of AH isn't just a graphical upgrade to the game, there are going to new arenas with new game play modes (Capture the Flag, etc.) that will come with the new version.
-
I don't get a definitive shill vibe off this guy. Just very excited to be here and wants to help.
Wiley.
He probably isn't but, your personal reaction is what you are trained to achieve as one. Everyone feels sorry for him and continues to offer information to help him. And he continues to throw it out there innocently in the name of "NEW". Everyone likes new for the sake of new. You missed that he is not innocent nor uneducated to critical thinking early in these posts. He got caught being sloppy.
-
He probably isn't but, your personal reaction is what you are trained to achieve as one. Everyone feels sorry for him and continues to offer information to help him. And he continues to throw it out there innocently in the name of "NEW". Everyone likes new for the sake of new. You missed that he is not innocent nor uneducated to critical thinking early in these posts. He got caught being sloppy.
Oh I understand what you mean. I could be wrong, but I think new guys deserve the benefit of the doubt. His first few posts do not ooze critical thinking to me, but you might happen to be right. Doesn't matter enough to me to think about it any more though. Ideas in here stand or fall on their own merit. Other than the idea itself, anything players post in here is essentially noise.
Wiley.
-
The game needs more players. A new player posting about things that may be silly is far, far better than no new players. You're being too jaded and not giving the benefit of the doubt.
The community needs to be more open and welcoming, not looking for reasons to drive people off. Who cares if they ask for the nuke or never used aircraft? HiTech has been successfully ignoring such stuff for as long as he's been in the business. Let new players be silly.
-
The game needs more players. A new player posting about things that may be silly is far, far better than no new players. You're being too jaded and not giving the benefit of the doubt.
The community needs to be more open and welcoming, not looking for reasons to drive people off. Who cares if they ask for the nuke or never used aircraft? HiTech has been successfully ignoring such stuff for as long as he's been in the business. Let new players be silly.
"This is why it's a bad idea" or "This is why it likely won't happen" should not be seen as driving people off. Trying to get people to look at their idea from the aspect of "how would this be abused?" shouldn't either.
Discussion of a game change idea shouldn't be limited to how great it is and how soon they should implement it.
Wiley.
-
"This is why it's a bad idea" or "This is why it likely won't happen" should not be seen as driving people off. Trying to get people to look at their idea from the aspect of "how would this be abused?" shouldn't either.
Discussion of a game change idea shouldn't be limited to how great it is and how soon they should implement it.
Wiley.
No, it isn't wrong to say an idea is a bad idea. However the following bit you posted goes far beyond that and into the realm of disparagement, and disparagement of potential incoming newbies.
Yep.
It'll be wall to wall personalized skins, ability to trade perk points, we need some kind of visible way to show we have put in more time than other people, we need objectives, ingame visible stats, remove 12 hour rule, this game should be F2P, this game needs ingame tutorial, the B29 needs the nuke, where is the 4x20mm version of this plane wikipedia says existed, here is an obscure plane that never saw combat that I want, put it in tomorrow please, etc etc.
Can hardly wait.
Wiley.
This is the kind of thing that isn't needed and drives people off. If people are basing requests on inaccurate information, well, we all started somewhere. I can certainly look back at posts of mine from 15 years ago and see nonsense that I said. I strongly encourage all of us long timers to be more welcoming and forgiving of silliness. If we respond in good faith many of the newbies will be interested in learning more accurate information, but if we are derisive and scathing, well, they will just go away.
-
the thing about wishes is that while wishes should be posted either for accuracy, correction or perhaps in the fun category.
It would be fun to have planes that can drop gv's. while not totally accurate, think of the claw that was available for some people a few years ago.
I think this wish falls under the category of it would be fun if a c47 could drop gv's. it might be abused as some might take a bunch of c47's to the strats and level it. but it could be limited to within a sector to rush a base. imagine c47's cannot bail or drop gv's unless within xxx miles of an enemy base and they call goes out to bunch of c47's at xxx base.
would be just like stopping an noe raid except the c47's wont shoot back. while not realistic I see the fun of it. it has a 100% chance of not being implemented unless hitech looks at it and says, you know what, I am up for a few laughs. let's have a "fun day" where the knights and bishops can up any plane and fly to 60k in a couple of minutes so we are at the same altitude as the rooks.
in other words a day or 2 a month that could be just for laughs. when I was in the 327th back in the aw days once we had a "tank day". was a lot of fun till somebody brought in a c47 and "drove" it on the ground plunking at tanks, we started getting gunners and driving them around tanks and trying to see who would kill what. then it was driving bombers against bombers. sounds stupid but it was a lot of fun.
semp
-
The game needs more players. A new player posting about things that may be silly is far, far better than no new players. You're being too jaded and not giving the benefit of the doubt.
The community needs to be more open and welcoming, not looking for reasons to drive people off. Who cares if they ask for the nuke or never used aircraft? HiTech has been successfully ignoring such stuff for as long as he's been in the business. Let new players be silly.
Well said.
This 'community' truly tends to be its own worst enemy. Still remember 10-7 years ago when it was very very "trendy" here to call young people squeakers and how during the summer every conceivable game play problem was due to the kids' summer break from school and how they were the root of all evil. How the hell can a grown man with a straight face crucify kids for playing a game "only" during the summer months while at the same time happily admit that he obviously has more free time than a kid so that he can play all year around? And what makes it even more pathetic was that as the few "frequent posters" started it, the other lemmings followed suit.
There's still plenty of these guys around on this BBS who were doing it all the time few years back. You know who you are. What a bunch of morons.
-
This is the kind of thing that isn't needed and drives people off. If people are basing requests on inaccurate information, well, we all started somewhere. I can certainly look back at posts of mine from 15 years ago and see nonsense that I said. I strongly encourage all of us long timers to be more welcoming and forgiving of silliness. If we respond in good faith many of the newbies will be interested in learning more accurate information, but if we are derisive and scathing, well, they will just go away.
Other than the 'Can hardly wait' at the end of that, that's a statement of fact. 2 weeks after AH3 releases, that bingo card will be blacked out.
But I do take your point. The last while, I have endeavoured to be more warm and fuzzy on the boards, I apparently still have a ways to go.
Wiley.
-
Why do people insist on more non combat oriented side stuff to do in a combat game?
the actual answer is, they're no good at combat..
or at least aren't as good as they think they are.