Post by: RedAgony on August 06, 2015, 06:46:01 PM
I've spent quite some time in the army, and whenever we needed heavy ordinance (read: most explosives) we had to make an appointment with the local ammo depot. which looked like this:
(http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013%5C05%5C130503-F-NG544-056.JPG)
being able to use an LA-7 or worse any plane with only .50cals able to destroy these is a bit silly. Can't we just make it so ammo bunkers require bombs? Makes too much sense, I know but I'm just asking. Or, is there a reason why one person in a single fighter can cripple a base?
Post by: guncrasher on August 06, 2015, 06:59:42 PM
semp
Post by: Waffle on August 06, 2015, 07:41:29 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Post by: Changeup on August 06, 2015, 08:04:02 PM
I wonder if there is any gun cam footage of a pilot strafing a row of 500 lb bombs during ww2. Or did the film go down with the plane? Just a curious thought. I don't think it would be a good idea to strafe an open bomb depot in real life. :)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOM!
Post by: Volron on August 06, 2015, 08:06:27 PM
Either way, they may or may not have done something in the Alpha that would make sense in terms of hitting ords. Some of ye be dabbling in Alpha, what do ords look like there? :headscratch:
Post by: SPKmes on August 06, 2015, 08:14:25 PM
I wonder if there is any gun cam footage of a pilot strafing a row of 500 lb bombs during ww2. Or did the film go down with the plane? Just a curious thought. I don't think it would be a good idea to strafe an open bomb depot in real life. :)(https://media4.giphy.com/media/cDrB2ugyOTo1W/200.gif)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Hang about !?!?
Post by: Guppy35 on August 06, 2015, 10:23:57 PM
I wonder if there is any gun cam footage of a pilot strafing a row of 500 lb bombs during ww2. Or did the film go down with the plane? Just a curious thought. I don't think it would be a good idea to strafe an open bomb depot in real life. :)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
There is a fairly well known piece of gun cam footage taken where an ammo train explodes and you can see what happens to the plane closest. Needless to say it was gun cam from the trailing plane not the one that disappears in the explosion
Post by: cobia38 on August 06, 2015, 10:28:11 PM
or do we need bunkers for laws ? :uhoh
Post by: FLS on August 06, 2015, 10:38:02 PM
... is there a reason why one person in a single fighter can cripple a base?
Airfield capture, in the game, is not meant to be a realistic portrayal. The ammo bunkers are basically game pieces. The damage requirements for hangers, houses, radio towers, etc. are set for arena game play rather than strict historical accuracy.
Post by: Changeup on August 06, 2015, 10:46:48 PM
Airfield capture, in the game, is not meant to be a realistic portrayal. The ammo bunkers are basically game pieces. The damage requirements for hangers, houses, radio towers, etc. are set for arena game play rather than strict historical accuracy.
No offense but this is ALWAYS the answer for most ideas/changes that involve more realism. Why put in any of the other details at all then? Just game it.
Post by: Wizz on August 06, 2015, 10:57:29 PM
Post by: Wizz on August 06, 2015, 10:58:41 PM
Porking doesnt need changed. The game needs more players and it will be fine. When strats are 100% hit the strats. When the strats are hit pork, capture, and resupply. Your heads need fixinand I am so damn good at all of that you can take that to the bank.
Post by: Wiley on August 06, 2015, 11:10:23 PM
No offense but this is ALWAYS the answer for most ideas/changes that involve more realism. Why put in any of the other details at all then? Just game it.
Because they've made many, many decisions on what to include and what not to. It's resulted in a mixture that's pretty much unique compared to the competition. It's the same as the engine management argument. They chose specifically not to model that.
Everybody's 'realism' wishlist looks different. I don't particularly want engine management, but if it were included as long as the rest of the gameplay was still fun, I'd adjust.
I'd like to see the air act more like a fluid than the perfect stillness you get now, wind shears, updrafts over warm areas, wind hitting a hill and providing an updraft, turbulence, all that good stuff. A lot of people would dislike that for a lot of similar reasons to why I am not fond of engine management.
They made their choices on how to set it up. I don't think the ammos being strafable is that awful, but I can appreciate why it would bug other people. I think it's an upside that they can be taken down by a light aircraft because honestly not that many people carry ords when they attack a base, and it allows the light fighters to help. The harder you make bombing, it will only slow people down even more and make the hordes bigger.
Wiley.
Post by: Wizz on August 06, 2015, 11:22:36 PM
Because they've made many, many decisions on what to include and what not to. It's resulted in a mixture that's pretty much unique compared to the competition. It's the same as the engine management argument. They chose specifically not to model that.3000 new players over the next 5 years coming and going would fix what you point out whiley. In this day and age how hard is it to snag 3000 knuckleheads away from their current distraction and get them hooked?
Everybody's 'realism' wishlist looks different. I don't particularly want engine management, but if it were included as long as the rest of the gameplay was still fun, I'd adjust.
I'd like to see the air act more like a fluid than the perfect stillness you get now, wind shears, updrafts over warm areas, wind hitting a hill and providing an updraft, turbulence, all that good stuff. A lot of people would dislike that for a lot of similar reasons to why I am not fond of engine management.
They made their choices on how to set it up. I don't think the ammos being strafable is that awful, but I can appreciate why it would bug other people. I think it's an upside that they can be taken down by a light aircraft because honestly not that many people carry ords when they attack a base, and it allows the light fighters to help. The harder you make bombing, it will only slow people down even more and make the hordes bigger.
Wiley.
Post by: FLS on August 06, 2015, 11:28:41 PM
No offense but this is ALWAYS the answer for most ideas/changes that involve more realism. Why put in any of the other details at all then? Just game it.
Consistent answers to questions may seem novel but there is a sense to it.
Post by: guncrasher on August 06, 2015, 11:54:18 PM
and I am so damn good at all of that you can take that to the bank.
except your bank cannot pay for your subscription.
semp
Post by: guncrasher on August 06, 2015, 11:55:37 PM
I wonder if there is any gun cam footage of a pilot strafing a row of 500 lb bombs during ww2. Or did the film go down with the plane? Just a curious thought. I don't think it would be a good idea to strafe an open bomb depot in real life. :)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
sorry waffle, but do you see any cam footage of a pilot getting shot down and up again withing 5 seconds :uhoh.
semp
Post by: Oddball-CAF on August 07, 2015, 12:15:35 AM
Airfield capture, in the game, is not meant to be a realistic portrayal. The ammo bunkers are basically game pieces. The damage requirements for hangers, houses, radio towers, etc. are set for arena game play rather than strict historical accuracy.
I buy into this only to a point; that point being that they're currently -not- properly tweaked.
I don't think anyone on the HTC staff actually plays AH to the extent necessary to develop a good
"feel" for what works and what doesn't. That's not their fault. They've got actual jobs to do at HTC.
I think that there's a small cadre of people that have their ear/give 'em feedback and
those guys are feeding 'em bad scoop. :)
Post by: Lazerr on August 07, 2015, 12:18:41 AM
Post by: save on August 07, 2015, 07:28:08 AM
Post by: Randy1 on August 07, 2015, 07:43:25 AM
Something as an example of 4-5 American rockets for each would help.
Post by: Thor on August 07, 2015, 10:38:29 AM
Just a thought.
Post by: Changeup on August 07, 2015, 04:20:57 PM
Consistent answers to questions may seem novel but there is a sense to it.
Just because answers are consistent doesn't make them right. That IS novel.
Post by: FLS on August 07, 2015, 04:24:28 PM
Just because answers are consistent doesn't make them right. That IS novel.
In this case it likely means the whines passing for arguments aren't persuasive.
Post by: Changeup on August 07, 2015, 04:26:28 PM
Because they've made many, many decisions on what to include and what not to. It's resulted in a mixture that's pretty much unique compared to the competition. It's the same as the engine management argument. They chose specifically not to model that.
Everybody's 'realism' wishlist looks different. I don't particularly want engine management, but if it were included as long as the rest of the gameplay was still fun, I'd adjust.
I'd like to see the air act more like a fluid than the perfect stillness you get now, wind shears, updrafts over warm areas, wind hitting a hill and providing an updraft, turbulence, all that good stuff. A lot of people would dislike that for a lot of similar reasons to why I am not fond of engine management.
They made their choices on how to set it up. I don't think the ammos being strafable is that awful, but I can appreciate why it would bug other people. I think it's an upside that they can be taken down by a light aircraft because honestly not that many people carry ords when they attack a base, and it allows the light fighters to help. The harder you make bombing, it will only slow people down even more and make the hordes bigger.
Wiley.
It's funny you chose engine management. That's not necessarily part of the game of base capture and would offer zero to the player regarding damaging an ammo dump. Engine management could be toggled on/off just like combat trim or stall limiter. I bet it would be a squeak to code though. Realistic ground target hardness prolly would not be hard to change but WOULD offer a little step closer to realism.
Post by: Changeup on August 07, 2015, 04:27:34 PM
Post by: flatiron1 on August 07, 2015, 04:28:39 PM
Post by: Guppy35 on August 07, 2015, 05:21:07 PM
and I am so damn good at all of that you can take that to the bank.
What scares me Wizz is that if you are an example of the future of Aces High, it doesn't have one...
Post by: FLS on August 07, 2015, 05:31:36 PM
Or the responder is a simpleton sheep who chooses to follow others answers. That's not particularly persuasive either.
You are free to dream.
When you have a game play issue you want to make a game play argument. When you can only make a historical argument it implies that you lack a good game play reason to change a game play decision.
Post by: Changeup on August 07, 2015, 06:18:55 PM
Post by: FLS on August 07, 2015, 06:29:46 PM
Rule #4
Post by: icepac on August 07, 2015, 07:34:55 PM
Post by: Changeup on August 07, 2015, 08:14:54 PM
The OP didn't make an argument for improved game play. He just expressed a preference and asked a question. I answered the question and you had your usual fit.
Thank you for making my point which, I illustrated in the post you quoted, absolutely escaped you. The obviousness of the OPs suggestion didn't warrant an argument at all. In fact, the simplicity of the idea along with his pictorial should have made it clear. From some of the other posters in this thread, it's pretty clear they got it.
Ever just wanna get away?
Post by: Changeup on August 07, 2015, 08:15:28 PM
If I attacked a field and only destroyed the ammo bunkers, I would be ashamed.
You can...with machine guns...cool eh?
Post by: FLS on August 07, 2015, 11:03:33 PM
Thank you for making my point which, I illustrated in the post you quoted, absolutely escaped you. The obviousness of the OPs suggestion didn't warrant an argument at all. In fact, the simplicity of the idea along with his pictorial should have made it clear. From some of the other posters in this thread, it's pretty clear they got it.
Ever just wanna get away?
You can't explain how the game play would be improved either.
Post by: guncrasher on August 08, 2015, 01:28:59 AM
You can...with machine guns...cool eh?
changeup we arent fighting ww2. we are playing a game. during ww2, not many pilots became aces in a matter of minutes. heck the highest german ace had what 300 400 kills? when I played full time, I shot down more than that in a month. heck we have guys here with 10's of thousands of kills. think a few guys had a couple hundred thousand kills.
in ah in a normal month, there's as many airplanes shot down as there were made during ww2.
semp
Post by: RedAgony on August 08, 2015, 07:26:13 AM
Right now there is no niche for multi-role aircraft other than bombing GVs. Making targets harder means you'd have to bring bombs just to get the job done. If people whine because they can't shut down a field/town/port with ONLY cannons what kind of game is this?
Bring back the tactical decision making, make it a real question of what loadout to bring to a fight. Make bombing accuracy relative to altitude, right now I don't see much risk/reward driving gameplay, it's LA-7 pork or Ki-67 30K pinpoint bombing. Doin this may make a comeback for dive-bombers.
Guess I'll stop my rant here, maybe I'll join the masses and ram D-9s into airfields
Post by: Changeup on August 08, 2015, 08:33:49 AM
You can't explain how the game play would be improved either.
As I've said twice now, its obvious to me and other posters how and why it would add to gameplay. Stop being obtuse because you were called out for shouting out a simpleton answer. Now, if you're going to badger people into giving you the obvious answers because you are incapable of seeing them yourself, we should try to badger you into giving reasons as to why it detracts from gameplay but you don't see us doing that. Why? Because watching you be Capt Obvious-answer is much more fun.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 08, 2015, 09:49:27 AM
As to the gameplay, yes I think making ord bunkers harder targets would add to the gameplay by making it more diverse. As it stands now, you just take a cannon fighter in attack mode and there is no reason to take bombs.
Right now there is no niche for multi-role aircraft other than bombing GVs. Making targets harder means you'd have to bring bombs just to get the job done. If people whine because they can't shut down a field/town/port with ONLY cannons what kind of game is this?
Bring back the tactical decision making, make it a real question of what loadout to bring to a fight. Make bombing accuracy relative to altitude, right now I don't see much risk/reward driving gameplay, it's LA-7 pork or Ki-67 30K pinpoint bombing. Doin this may make a comeback for dive-bombers.
Guess I'll stop my rant here, maybe I'll join the masses and ram D-9s into airfields
As many people say there are many ways to play this game. You, it seems, would like to see the game played like me. More tactical, more planning, more strategy, more .... call it class/honor. B17's were not meant to be used as dive bombers, fighters were not meant to gun down half a field, dropping HQ and killing all strategic command by a single player wasn't something that should happen. All these things players CAN do, but I wish they wouldn't do it.
Like golf there is a certain honor in playing the game. Could you drop a stroke off your score here or there? Sure, who would know. The same goes for here. There are short cuts you can use instead of practicing to get better and doing it the "right" way. But the "right" way isn't something that is important to that many any more.
So we look to HTC to tweak the game to curb that kind of behavior. I hope the HQ issue gets fixed and with the new versions field/town layout for a while it will be tougher for many to gun down all the bunkers and such until the find them all. I think it would be a better game if the tools were used more as they were meant to be used, I think it is one of the things that is pushing away customers. Take away the substance of the game.... all those little things people just rush past these days and all your going to end up with it children dropping targets only to tick people off, and and endless joust or chase game. How long until most players are bored with that?
Post by: FLS on August 08, 2015, 12:07:21 PM
As I've said twice now, its obvious to me and other posters how and why it would add to gameplay. Stop being obtuse because you were called out for shouting out a simpleton answer. Now, if you're going to badger people into giving you the obvious answers because you are incapable of seeing them yourself, we should try to badger you into giving reasons as to why it detracts from gameplay but you don't see us doing that. Why? Because watching you be Capt Obvious-answer is much more fun.
Who are you kidding?
Post by: earl1937 on August 08, 2015, 01:14:57 PM
So, just browsing the forums and seeing a complaint come up that I find very valid.:airplane: I agree, most of the "ammo" dumps I have seen pictures of, during WW2, were shaped like the type of buildings which are singled out as fighter hangars in our game. I to, think it should take at least a 500 pound bomb to destroy a ammo building. Shooting them down with 50 cals, or cannon fire ought to be instant death for the attacker!
I've spent quite some time in the army, and whenever we needed heavy ordinance (read: most explosives) we had to make an appointment with the local ammo depot. which looked like this:
(http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013%5C05%5C130503-F-NG544-056.JPG)
being able to use an LA-7 or worse any plane with only .50cals able to destroy these is a bit silly. Can't we just make it so ammo bunkers require bombs? Makes too much sense, I know but I'm just asking. Or, is there a reason why one person in a single fighter can cripple a base?
Post by: FLS on August 08, 2015, 02:54:03 PM
:airplane: I agree, most of the "ammo" dumps I have seen pictures of, during WW2, were shaped like the type of buildings which are singled out as fighter hangars in our game. I to, think it should take at least a 500 pound bomb to destroy a ammo building. Shooting them down with 50 cals, or cannon fire ought to be instant death for the attacker!
How long should it take to rebuild and restock them? :D
Post by: Changeup on August 08, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Who are you kidding?
Is that your final answer? Lmao.
Post by: ebfd11 on August 08, 2015, 03:20:01 PM
well just look at pictures of ammo dumps during ww2. I can guarantee you they were out in the open.
semp
Well this is one time I hve to disagree with you Semp...
(http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Pn-7VeOAMKnuanNH_2Z9aA/o.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gbGECz5wL1s/Tt5rpDcLJHI/AAAAAAAADqQ/HFKWWOg1syM/s640/P1040337.JPG)
Post by: FLS on August 08, 2015, 10:09:52 PM
As to the gameplay, yes I think making ord bunkers harder targets would add to the gameplay by making it more diverse. As it stands now, you just take a cannon fighter in attack mode and there is no reason to take bombs.
Right now there is no niche for multi-role aircraft other than bombing GVs. Making targets harder means you'd have to bring bombs just to get the job done. If people whine because they can't shut down a field/town/port with ONLY cannons what kind of game is this?
Bring back the tactical decision making, make it a real question of what loadout to bring to a fight. Make bombing accuracy relative to altitude, right now I don't see much risk/reward driving gameplay, it's LA-7 pork or Ki-67 30K pinpoint bombing. Doin this may make a comeback for dive-bombers.
Guess I'll stop my rant here, maybe I'll join the masses and ram D-9s into airfields
Removing the option of strafing ords would be less diversity than the choice of strafing or bombing. The purpose of the wish seems to be to force some people to play differently than they choose to play. Some players would be happier if other players were less happy. Sound like a winner?
Nobody wants to talk about realistic rebuild times for more authentic realism? :D
One of the strengths of the game is that different people can play together with different goals, different playing styles, different abilities, etc and everybody can still have a good time. Or they can complain if that suits them better. The good old days weren't better because the ords were harder to put down. Play the way you want to play and don't worry about the choices other players make.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 08, 2015, 10:19:15 PM
Removing the option of strafing ords would be less diversity than the choice of strafing or bombing. The purpose of the wish seems to be to force some people to play differently than they choose to play. Some players would be happier if other players were less happy. Sound like a winner?
Nobody wants to talk about realistic rebuild times for more authentic realism? :D
One of the strengths of the game is that different people can play together with different goals, different playing styles, different abilities, etc and everybody can still have a good time. Or they can complain if that suits them better. The good old days weren't better because the ords were harder to put down. Play the way you want to play and don't worry about the choices other players make.
Of course, lets stand by and watch the game degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Lets all just play the game the way we want and we can watch as players continue to leave.
Suggesting a change to bring about a different type of game play isn't a bad thing. Ignoring little problems until they become big problems is. Curbing one type of play isn't a bad thing. Remember the days of only a few ack on a field? A single guy had no trouble taking it down, now it is pretty tough to do. A change was made then, maybe its time for a new change?
Post by: kvuo75 on August 08, 2015, 11:09:53 PM
the complaint is always the ammo (bombs) are too easy to disable.
Post by: FLS on August 09, 2015, 12:09:49 AM
Of course, lets stand by and watch the game degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Lets all just play the game the way we want and we can watch as players continue to leave.
Suggesting a change to bring about a different type of game play isn't a bad thing. Ignoring little problems until they become big problems is. Curbing one type of play isn't a bad thing. Remember the days of only a few ack on a field? A single guy had no trouble taking it down, now it is pretty tough to do. A change was made then, maybe its time for a new change?
I just answered a player's question. I didn't say it shouldn't change. I said nobody has stated a good reason to change it. If you guys are all smarter than Hitech that's great but you probably still have to convince him with something more than your desire to try it and see what happens.
Post by: bozon on August 09, 2015, 04:32:36 AM
nobody ever complains that the barracks are too tough.. why not?Because nobody cares about barracks. That one only affects the guy trying to bring a goon/m3. The ammo bunkers affect many more players that want to carry bombs. I suspect that most of those who want to be able to suicide-strafe ammo bunkers are those that want to attack airfields with GVs.
the complaint is always the ammo (bombs) are too easy to disable.
Tough objects on airfields are good for buff players. Soft objects porkable by a single La7 are bad for buffs and good for GVs.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 09, 2015, 09:58:22 AM
I just answered a player's question. I didn't say it shouldn't change. I said nobody has stated a good reason to change it. If you guys are all smarter than Hitech that's great but you probably still have to convince him with something more than your desire to try it and see what happens.
Personally I don't think anyone from HTC plays the game regularly any more. Long hours working on the update, and in Hitechs case a budding family isn't going to leave much time or energy to play games. I know at that time in my life my playing time fell off heavily.
The game was designed and built when he and Pyro were young wild fighter jocks. As they matured the game evolved adding bombers and strategy bringing in its "heyday". Now, with HTC concentrating on the new graphics engine and the player base changing/evolving away from the deep "chess game" of old to a more run and gun grinding it out type of play to stack up a pile of achievements/objectives it needs to be tweaked again. Back then HTC seemed to be much more aware of what was going on in the game and how players were playing it because they were playing it too. Many a night you would see one or another of them in there chit-chatting with the players base. Now they seem to avoid it as they are hammered with questions. Questions do to them believing there are issues in the game maybe?
I don't think any one is saying they are smarter than Hitech, but they are trying to help by pointing out what they see as issues because maybe they don't think Hitech is playing and seeing what is going on. What was good before isn't good now because of the way the game is now played. You can tell that by how the numbers have dropped away. I saw one guy, typing on the "help" channel last night saying he was done because all they do here is spawn camp as well as the crappy graphics. So another "new" player comes in checks it out and is gone. Increase the size of the spawn area making it harder to camp and maybe he stays. But was Hitech on last night? Did he see this players complaints? Is he considering an adjustment to help retain tankers from another game that are more into the "hunt" than the "kill"? I doubt it, so some of us are here to help. Hopefully he reads this thread, and checks it out.
Post by: RedAgony on August 09, 2015, 10:22:49 AM
Of course, lets stand by and watch the game degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Lets all just play the game the way we want and we can watch as players continue to leave.
Suggesting a change to bring about a different type of game play isn't a bad thing. Ignoring little problems until they become big problems is. Curbing one type of play isn't a bad thing. Remember the days of only a few ack on a field? A single guy had no trouble taking it down, now it is pretty tough to do. A change was made then, maybe its time for a new change?
I'm going to have to agree with Fugitive, I'd hate to say that it is a trend though. The generations that play games today show en masse, that less effort - instant gratification is what is profitable. Take a look at games like War Thunder, and world of tanks/warplanes. Anyone who was REALLY interested in WW2 aircraft/technology would see these games as a farce. But what do the subscription numbers show? A company can make the most money by catering to the 16 year old who has a mouse and wants to see an explosion 5 minutes into starting a game. The "realistic" modes of those games have exponentially less paying customers, and as a duty to your investors, majority rules and the wants of the realism community get ignored.
I would see Aces High as the last bastion of hope for the people that appreciate the nuances of WW2 tactics and tech. But if you make it too "realistic" you don't get that cash from the guy who's going to leave anyway for the next hot release.
Yes I could play the way I want to play and not care what other people do. But why then, is the game multiplayer? Cooperation should be involved I think. It's not about "forcing other people to play the way I want them to," it's about creating an arena where realism can be appreciated just a bit more. Scenarios are great but again, if every flight made in this game lasted for 3+ hours, nobody that had a (happy) family life would be able to play in any meaningful way.
Post by: Lusche on August 09, 2015, 10:27:25 AM
Anyone who was REALLY interested in WW2 aircraft/technology would see these games as a farce.
This has also been said about Aces High, and not only by a few.
Post by: JVboob on August 09, 2015, 11:08:49 AM
I'm going to have to agree with Fugitive, I'd hate to say that it is a trend though. The generations that play games today show en masse, that less effort - instant gratification is what is profitable. Take a look at games like War Thunder, and world of tanks/warplanes. Anyone who was REALLY interested in WW2 aircraft/technology would see these games as a farce. But what do the subscription numbers show? A company can make the most money by catering to the 16 year old who has a mouse and wants to see an explosion 5 minutes into starting a game. The "realistic" modes of those games have exponentially less paying customers, and as a duty to your investors, majority rules and the wants of the realism community get ignored.
I would see Aces High as the last bastion of hope for the people that appreciate the nuances of WW2 tactics and tech. But if you make it too "realistic" you don't get that cash from the guy who's going to leave anyway for the next hot release.
Yes I could play the way I want to play and not care what other people do. But why then, is the game multiplayer? Cooperation should be involved I think. It's not about "forcing other people to play the way I want them to," it's about creating an arena where realism can be appreciated just a bit more. Scenarios are great but again, if every flight made in this game lasted for 3+ hours, nobody that had a (happy) family life would be able to play in any meaningful way.
Well said! I just wish I had friday night off every now and then ive had 1 friday off since May 2014
Post by: captain1ma on August 09, 2015, 11:12:42 AM
I don't want to play a game where I have to worry about trim, or propeller pitch, or attitude.... I want to hit the E key, fly around in a relatively realistic looking airplane and shoot at people shooting at me! I want to get together with a bunch of guys, and try to capture a base, or try to blow up a HQ. that's my draw to the game.
you want realism try flying dcs.... its crap! yeah it looks great, but I cant fly it. I CAN however fly Aces high.
long and short, enjoy aces high for what it is, yes it has its flaws, but it has lots of fun factor. for those that cant fly a real plane. stop your whining and try to kill each other in cartoon planes. its a game!
Post by: Tilt on August 09, 2015, 11:28:45 AM
unless
occasionally the bunker door is opened and the attacker came in at the right angle and the right time....... right over the appropriate gguns.
Thus adding a little skill and timing to the action.
Graphics would change the brown door to a black hole at the appropriate time.
Post by: FLS on August 09, 2015, 12:28:00 PM
Personally I don't think anyone from HTC plays the game regularly any more. Long hours working on the update, and in Hitechs case a budding family isn't going to leave much time or energy to play games. I know at that time in my life my playing time fell off heavily.
The game was designed and built when he and Pyro were young wild fighter jocks. As they matured the game evolved adding bombers and strategy bringing in its "heyday". Now, with HTC concentrating on the new graphics engine and the player base changing/evolving away from the deep "chess game" of old to a more run and gun grinding it out type of play to stack up a pile of achievements/objectives it needs to be tweaked again. Back then HTC seemed to be much more aware of what was going on in the game and how players were playing it because they were playing it too. Many a night you would see one or another of them in there chit-chatting with the players base. Now they seem to avoid it as they are hammered with questions. Questions do to them believing there are issues in the game maybe?
I don't think any one is saying they are smarter than Hitech, but they are trying to help by pointing out what they see as issues because maybe they don't think Hitech is playing and seeing what is going on. What was good before isn't good now because of the way the game is now played. You can tell that by how the numbers have dropped away. I saw one guy, typing on the "help" channel last night saying he was done because all they do here is spawn camp as well as the crappy graphics. So another "new" player comes in checks it out and is gone. Increase the size of the spawn area making it harder to camp and maybe he stays. But was Hitech on last night? Did he see this players complaints? Is he considering an adjustment to help retain tankers from another game that are more into the "hunt" than the "kill"? I doubt it, so some of us are here to help. Hopefully he reads this thread, and checks it out.
We all want AH to continue to be successful. You will notice that there is still not a single reason proposed why changing bunker hardness would improve game play. It would simply align with some player preferences. I understand it's not historically accurate but neither is the basic MA game play.
As far as what hurts the game and why the numbers are lower, you're all just guessing. Let's be honest about that.
Post by: RedAgony on August 09, 2015, 12:49:53 PM
Games are changed all the time, those changes aren't always bug fixes. Making some objects harder is a change to balance. Strafing without bombs shouldn't be just as effective (altitude aside) as strafing WITH bombs.
Post by: FLS on August 09, 2015, 01:27:25 PM
You keep pointing at "gameplay", this isn't an issue where there is a bug that needs to be fixed.
Games are changed all the time, those changes aren't always bug fixes. Making some objects harder is a change to balance. Strafing without bombs shouldn't be just as effective (altitude aside) as strafing WITH bombs.
You're using the term game play differently than I am. Balance is part of game play. The biggest issue in game play is actually player attitude. Because you are in charge of your attitude and you choose how to play the game your game enjoyment is in your hands.
Post by: Changeup on August 09, 2015, 04:00:32 PM
You're using the term game play differently than I am. Balance is part of game play. The biggest issue in game play is actually player attitude. Because you are in charge of your attitude and you choose how to play the game your game enjoyment is in your hands.
Hmmm, FLS, there seems to be quite a few arguments for gameplay based on the OPs suggestion and his pictorial. You've turned gameplay into player attitude from no argument at all.
You say you aren't saying it shouldnt be changed but all of your posts are vehemently against it and your stated reason is: it won't add to gameplay.
These folks disagree with you and have given reasons why along with realism being more attractive than "In WWII you didn't get 10,000 kills per month."
Of course I could still be wrong huh? Well, someone is being autisticly rigid toward change Mr FLS and it's not any of us.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 09, 2015, 04:57:38 PM
We all want AH to continue to be successful. You will notice that there is still not a single reason proposed why changing bunker hardness would improve game play. It would simply align with some player preferences. I understand it's not historically accurate but neither is the basic MA game play.
As far as what hurts the game and why the numbers are lower, you're all just guessing. Let's be honest about that.
Now your telling the OP its his fault due to his attitude :rolleyes: Are you being obtuse or evasive?
It would help game play in that it would be more of a challenge. It would also encourage players to not only fly heavy it would encourage players to learn to fight heavy as well as to dive bomb to accomplish their task. Is that spelled out well enough for you? I'm sure HTC got the drift a number of post ago.
The point of a game is to become proficient enough at as many different things as one can to do well in the game...... what ever those thing you are trying to do well at are. Cutting corners by gaming the game in one way or another does nothing but lead to boredom making players face a choice. Learn to do things better, breaking old habits they have learned already, or quit. In our nation of "I want it now, and you owe me" people which do you think most will choose?
As for why people are leaving the game, just listen to players in the arenas. They are vocal and have no qualms about voicing their dissatisfaction.
Post by: FLS on August 09, 2015, 05:47:14 PM
Post by: Volron on August 09, 2015, 06:35:14 PM
Well this is one time I hve to disagree with you Semp...
(http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/Pn-7VeOAMKnuanNH_2Z9aA/o.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gbGECz5wL1s/Tt5rpDcLJHI/AAAAAAAADqQ/HFKWWOg1syM/s640/P1040337.JPG)
Would be sweet to get these. Only way guns will work is if you come in on it's open side. Just line the open side with more guns or have them facing towards the middle of the field. Otherwise, bombs/rockets required. :)
Post by: Lusche on August 09, 2015, 06:35:51 PM
As for why people are leaving the game, just listen to players in the arenas. They are vocal and have no qualms about voicing their dissatisfaction.
And if you do that, you will learn from it there's nothing but hackers around, almost everybody is cheating all the time, every plane but theirs is overmodeled, and only the other two chesspieces resort to lame tactics all the time.
That's the vocal population of AH. Yay. :rolleyes:
Post by: Naughty on August 09, 2015, 08:07:25 PM
The only thing wrong with porking is MORE PLAYERS NEED TO DO IT ! The best defense is a good offense. Base being horded ? sneak out or up from a close base and PORK the crap outta their base. They cant take your field without ords or troops. Some of my best sorties started off as pork runs, and ended up with me landing 5-6 kills.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 09, 2015, 08:29:48 PM
Players voicing their dissatisfaction in game make the game less fun. It makes my point about attitude. The players that promote the attitude problem blame HTC for not catering to them.
ahhh yes, twisting words and changing subjects, your MO. It is ok to agree with someone, or admit you made a mistake , or didn't understand the discussion. It really won't kill you you know.
And if you do that, you will learn from it there's nothing but hackers around, almost everybody is cheating all the time, every plane but theirs is overmodeled, and only the other two chesspieces resort to lame tactics all the time.
That's the vocal population of AH. Yay. :rolleyes:
Agreed, but you can weed out the garbage it's still a sampling. I KNOW of a number of people who have quit and I KNOW why they quit because they have told me.
Post by: FLS on August 09, 2015, 08:52:25 PM
ahhh yes, twisting words and changing subjects, your MO. It is ok to agree with someone, or admit you made a mistake , or didn't understand the discussion. It really won't kill you you know.
I didn't change the subject but it seems you just did. :rofl
Post by: glzsqd on August 09, 2015, 10:47:01 PM
I didn't change the subject but it seems you just did. :rofl
Its only a matter of time before stomps off trying to hide the tears while hurling school yard insults.
Post by: Lucifer on August 10, 2015, 10:45:51 AM
One guy in a la7 can ruin fun for 200 players atm : best way to make players unlog after the old HQ system.... :mad:
So, just browsing the forums and seeing a complaint come up that I find very valid.
I've spent quite some time in the army, and whenever we needed heavy ordinance (read: most explosives) we had to make an appointment with the local ammo depot. which looked like this:
(http://www.shaw.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013%5C05%5C130503-F-NG544-056.JPG)
being able to use an LA-7 or worse any plane with only .50cals able to destroy these is a bit silly. Can't we just make it so ammo bunkers require bombs? Makes too much sense, I know but I'm just asking. Or, is there a reason why one person in a single fighter can cripple a base?
Post by: FLS on August 10, 2015, 06:47:56 PM
Post by: doright on August 10, 2015, 08:05:00 PM
If, as originally suggested, a bomb is required then there is a greater possibility of intercept and and achieving a mission kill by making the attacker jettison ords either before reaching the target or after the first drop. It would also require the pilot display a little bit of skill at dive bombing. This isn't a huge change in game balance, the same effects are achievable but more skill and determination required. This would just make it harder for a single individual to negatively effect the game play of many.
Post by: icepac on August 10, 2015, 09:09:41 PM
Post by: FLS on August 10, 2015, 09:42:19 PM
The game play issue with porking ords is that there is realistically very little defense against it in the game. One, maybe two, passes in a cannon bird and a small field is porked and the bird is exiting at high speed to pork the next field.
If, as originally suggested, a bomb is required then there is a greater possibility of intercept and and achieving a mission kill by making the attacker jettison ords either before reaching the target or after the first drop. It would also require the pilot display a little bit of skill at dive bombing. This isn't a huge change in game balance, the same effects are achievable but more skill and determination required. This would just make it harder for a single individual to negatively effect the game play of many.
Instead of the game changing how about you just shoot the strafers down? Does that require too much skill and determination? :D
Post by: doright on August 10, 2015, 10:31:36 PM
Instead of the game changing how about you just shoot the strafers down? Does that require too much skill and determination? :D
d'oh, why didn't I think of that? Must be because I have a smidgen of intelligence.
Have you actually played this game in the late war main arena? What would you suggest is the proper tool for shooting down a 500mph strafer diving at the field from the dar ring? Must be one of those special planes trainers get that allow you to warp to an intercept point, turn on a dime without losing any energy, go supersonic to close, and then phaser them before they can complete their attack. All necessary components to shoot them down from a plane.
Ah ha, you never said a plane. Maybe you meant the 88 that might maybe just get a round or two off beforehand if it happened to be bearing somewhere near the correct direction when spawned into. Maybe the trusty 37mm field gun. They pivot fast, unfortunately, the con is already firing on the first bunker when they come into its range then flies between your rounds as it downs the second bunker.
But at least you recognize that we should be given a fair chance to stop ords porkers. Baby steps, one thought at a time.
Post by: FLS on August 10, 2015, 11:12:34 PM
Post by: bozon on August 10, 2015, 11:33:37 PM
Instead of the game changing how about you just shoot the strafers down? Does that require too much skill and determination? :DBecause it is totally possible to stop a 450 mph suicidal La7 from reaching the field and strafe the bunkers with the 3 cannons that it should not have (different topic).
And when they bomb and auger what will the snarky one say? :DIf the carry bombs than they are slower and cannot kill multiple bunkers in one dive. They are more likely to miss and must come at a steeper angle which makes it easier to intercept them.
FLS, what you fail to understand is that no one is saying that ords should not get porked. The complaint is that similar to the HQ situation, a single player can do it and that unless you keep a constant defensive CAP and wait for him, there is little chance to defend against it. Unlike the HQ, this is not a game breaker though.
Post by: FLS on August 11, 2015, 12:04:24 AM
I'm guessing Hitech is aware of the complaints and disagrees. Just guessing though. :D
Post by: Zimme83 on August 11, 2015, 07:50:11 AM
Not exactly harder to take them down w rockets.
Post by: Randy1 on August 11, 2015, 12:20:32 PM
Ord bunkers will not live longer if rockets or bomb were needed to take them down...
Not exactly harder to take them down w rockets.
Ya-but it might stop the single pass that takes both ords out on a single pass on a small field. Kind of set up like grouping your planes on the ground in case of an attack.
I can do a twofer as well like the VH and the radar on one pass.
Of course the other side of the coin is you leave damage level alone but shorten the down time to fifteen minutes.
Post by: Scca on August 11, 2015, 12:48:30 PM
Ya-but it might stop the single pass that takes both ords out on a single pass on a small field. Kind of set up like grouping your planes on the ground in case of an attack.I disagree... My preferred method is to take a Tiffy with 2, 1K bombs and drop the Ords on one pass with the bombs. If it's a Medium field, I do the same, cannoning down the remaining two.
I can do a twofer as well like the VH and the radar on one pass.
Of course the other side of the coin is you leave damage level alone but shorten the down time to fifteen minutes.
Hardening the Ords bunker will only change how they are killed, not the frequency with which they ARE killed. As this isn't the "wishlist" forum, my opinion is the ord situation is just fine, and falls into the "perk the LA" bucket of requests, not necessary.
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on August 11, 2015, 01:00:12 PM
There is a fairly well known piece of gun cam footage taken where an ammo train explodes and you can see what happens to the plane closest. Needless to say it was gun cam from the trailing plane not the one that disappears in the explosion
I think I've seen that. It was, IIRC, a group of Jugs doing a bit of a shoot and scoot. The alt of the flying debris is truly impressive.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 11, 2015, 01:48:30 PM
I disagree... My preferred method is to take a Tiffy with 2, 1K bombs and drop the Ords on one pass with the bombs. If it's a Medium field, I do the same, cannoning down the remaining two.
Hardening the Ords bunker will only change how they are killed, not the frequency with which they ARE killed. As this isn't the "wishlist" forum, my opinion is the ord situation is just fine, and falls into the "perk the LA" bucket of requests, not necessary.
That's is what the OP is asking, he would like to see a change in HOW the ords are dropped. In your case for a medium field you would need a wingman to help finsh the ord. Make sense as a bigger field should take more guys.
More guys, or maybe a couple passes, or less speed to aim with bombs all add up to more of a chance to defend against the attack. If people don't bother to defend because the attack is not defendable you will have less people willing to defend and so less fights. Funny how it all kinda fits together.
Post by: Scca on August 11, 2015, 02:32:46 PM
That's is what the OP is asking, he would like to see a change in HOW the ords are dropped. In your case for a medium field you would need a wingman to help finsh the ord. Make sense as a bigger field should take more guys.Fair enough, but on a small field, two 1K bombs takes out ords in one pass, which is what his complaint was (one pass ords down)
More guys, or maybe a couple passes, or less speed to aim with bombs all add up to more of a chance to defend against the attack. If people don't bother to defend because the attack is not defendable you will have less people willing to defend and so less fights. Funny how it all kinda fits together.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 11, 2015, 03:18:22 PM
Fair enough, but on a small field, two 1K bombs takes out ords in one pass, which is what his complaint was (one pass ords down)
Not for everyone.
Post by: Mato on August 11, 2015, 04:08:55 PM
I believe the OP's complaint was being able to take down a bunker with bullets.
If I'm wrong, just ignore this post.
Post by: doright on August 11, 2015, 04:51:14 PM
Allows a form of defense but still allows strafing down bunkers that aren't hardened.
Post by: Waffle on August 11, 2015, 07:09:36 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Post by: doright on August 11, 2015, 07:13:51 PM
Probably throwing fuel on the fire here...but what about a secondary blast / blast radius that when the ord. bunker is destroyed it would be the equvielant of about 50,000 lbs of HE going off at once?
Nice! Aversion therapy for strafers.
Post by: Tilt on August 12, 2015, 04:27:32 AM
Probably throwing fuel on the fire here...but what about a secondary blast / blast radius that when the ord. bunker is destroyed it would be the equvielant of about 50,000 lbs of HE going off at once?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Only 50,000lbs ? :evil:
Post by: Changeup on August 12, 2015, 05:51:53 AM
Probably throwing fuel on the fire here...but what about a secondary blast / blast radius that when the ord. bunker is destroyed it would be the equvielant of about 50,000 lbs of HE going off at once?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Gig em'👍
Post by: Randy1 on August 12, 2015, 07:45:11 AM
Probably throwing fuel on the fire here...but what about a secondary blast / blast radius that when the ord. bunker is destroyed it would be the equvielant of about 50,000 lbs of HE going off at once?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Now that would be cool. Make too low of pass and your caught in a huge explosion. And maybe the green chasing down the red. Ouch on that.
Post by: Meatwad on August 12, 2015, 02:07:59 PM
Probably throwing fuel on the fire here...but what about a secondary blast / blast radius that when the ord. bunker is destroyed it would be the equvielant of about 50,000 lbs of HE going off at once?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
How about 10 Kt
Post by: FLS on August 12, 2015, 03:06:01 PM
First blast is reportedly equivalent to 7 tons TNT, second is 21 tons.
Post by: JunkyII on August 12, 2015, 07:30:07 PM
I agree it should be more difficult and agree with doright where you can resupply it to make it harder. The more a base is resupplied and improved the harder it becomes.
Built an new Combat Outpost while I was in Afghanistan, our explosive supply point which had a few hundred pounds of c4, TOW, Javelins, and APOPs was simply a shipping container when we first established. 2 months later we had a layer of sandbags...3 months later we had 6 foot hesco and 8 foot t walls.
Make it so a base becomes stronger if you keep up resupply after it's full up, of course have a cap off so you don't need a set of B29s to kill a hangar.
Post by: FLS on August 12, 2015, 07:34:08 PM
FLS, do you really believe you can stop every person coming into a field to pork? I would fly a LA7...kill you twice then kill ords at a small airfield just to rub your nose in it...your being an ass.
The ___ would be the person pretending I said something I didn't say.
Post by: Changeup on August 12, 2015, 08:25:50 PM
FLS, do you really believe you can stop every person coming into a field to pork? I would fly a LA7...kill you twice then kill ords at a small airfield just to rub your nose in it...your being an ass.
I agree it should be more difficult and agree with doright where you can resupply it to make it harder. The more a base is resupplied and improved the harder it becomes.
Built an new Combat Outpost while I was in Afghanistan, our explosive supply point which had a few hundred pounds of c4, TOW, Javelins, and APOPs was simply a shipping container when we first established. 2 months later we had a layer of sandbags...3 months later we had 6 foot hesco and 8 foot t walls.
Make it so a base becomes stronger if you keep up resupply after it's full up, of course have a cap off so you don't need a set of B29s to kill a hangar.
Oh hi Junky! Lol
Post by: JunkyII on August 13, 2015, 01:27:50 AM
Instead of the game changing how about you just shoot the strafers down? Does that require too much skill and determination? :DSo your just trolling a thread here? FLS...stop being an ass.
Post by: FLS on August 13, 2015, 02:55:58 AM
You're taking that out of context, The OP suggested the strafers needed more challenge. In other words it should be harder for them, easier for him.
I never said anyone should be able to stop everyone, that's just you making stuff up so can pretend to have a complaint.
Post by: JunkyII on August 13, 2015, 04:04:03 AM
You're taking that out of context, The OP suggested the strafers needed more challenge. In other words it should be harder for them, easier for him.Even with defenders...it's easy to do...anyone who has played the pork portion of the game knows that...just like it's easy to hide buffs in a furball darbar and drop FH without being really contested. Like others have mentioned already your just saying it's fine how it is blah blah blah instead of actually making a valid argument. So that is why...your being an ass
I never said anyone should be able to stop everyone, that's just you making stuff up so can pretend to have a complaint.
Post by: doright on August 13, 2015, 05:54:48 PM
You don't want to confuse good intentions with game play arguments. Players who strafe bunkers choose to do so. Removing that choice is a negative game play outcome. Hoping those same players will now choose something harder than bomb and auger is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not a compelling argument.
And when they bomb and auger what will the snarky one say? :D
No realistic means of defending a small fields ords bunkers is a negative game play outcome. It's not wishful thinking, it is currently an in-game negative experience.
I neither stated nor held any hope that ammo bunkers wouldn't be bombed and bailed, augered... That is beside the point. The point was that there is a chance of intercepting an inbound bomb laden aircraft, a chance of them missing the drop, a chance of them being stop before they can drop on the second hanger. All those chances add up to a more balanced positive game play experience.
Post by: FLS on August 13, 2015, 09:56:35 PM
Even with defenders...it's easy to do...anyone who has played the pork portion of the game knows that...just like it's easy to hide buffs in a furball darbar and drop FH without being really contested. Like others have mentioned already your just saying it's fine how it is blah blah blah instead of actually making a valid argument. So that is why...your being an ass
I never said it's fine the way it is. I said nobody has given Hitech a good reason to change it. You want Hitech to give you a good reason not to change it so you don't call him an ___ for thinking it's fine the way it is? Good luck with that.
Post by: FLS on August 13, 2015, 10:05:47 PM
No realistic means of defending a small fields ords bunkers is a negative game play outcome. It's not wishful thinking, it is currently an in-game negative experience.
I'm pretty sure the people strafing the bunkers disagree.
Look at it from Hitech's perspective. You have a group of players enjoying strafing bunkers in his game. Call them group A. Another group, group B, feels that bunkers should be harder to kill. The game should be changed to make it harder for group A to destroy bunkers and and easier for group B to defend them.
What is the reason Hitech should favor group B, who basically calls him a clueless idiot, over group A?
Post by: doright on August 14, 2015, 12:15:38 AM
What is the reason Hitech should favor group B,..., over group A?
I like shooting down planes. I'm in group A therefore all group B enemy planes, especially trainers, should have the autopilot take over and immediately start flying slow level circles when I come into icon range. I would enjoy that a lot. Why should group B be so favored by Hitech?
Like all online games, AH attracts some players that enjoy trolling and griefing other players, especially when they can do so with impunity. Hitech need not favor the enjoyment of the few players that enjoy easily strafing down ammo bunkers over the many players that would enjoy not having to pointlessly fly many more sectors.
Nobody is claiming the group A types shouldn't be able to get their jollies dropping ammo bunkers. To balance enjoyment for the many group B people, however, those ammo bunkers need to be defensible. Since there is no defense against cannon and missile uber planes, bombs should be required.
I can't think of any other game play element as strategically and tactically important as small field ammo bunkers that can likewise be destroyed with impunity.
Post by: bustr on August 14, 2015, 12:28:38 AM
Post by: Masherbrum on August 14, 2015, 11:38:22 AM
If this discussion gets any deeper, someone is going to poke himself in the kester with his own shovel. Then the A's and B's will really have something to yell at Hitech about.
:rofl
Post by: GhostCDB on August 14, 2015, 03:04:31 PM
:rolleyes:
- - edit - -
Ammo Bunkers do die quite easily; but if you change it then those who don't like change won't get their way. So then it comes down to the needs of the many and the few.
:salute
Post by: Scca on August 14, 2015, 03:28:51 PM
The first page of this thread was pretty interesting but I can't bring myself to read anymore.I too think it's much ado about nothing. They can be resupplied if it's really that important, and unless the strats are porked, it's 30 minutes down time. Make them harder will only change the method with which determined people will use to take them out.
:rolleyes:
- - edit - -
Ammo Bunkers do die quite easily; but if you change it then those who don't like change won't get their way. So then it comes down to the needs of the many and the few.
:salute
It's not like there isn't another base, usually 25 miles away, you can bring ords from :salute
Post by: The Fugitive on August 14, 2015, 03:38:06 PM
I too think it's much ado about nothing. They can be resupplied if it's really that important, and unless the strats are porked, it's 30 minutes down time. Make them harder will only change the method with which determined people will use to take them out. :salute
Again, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. Nobody is saying to make dropping the ords impossible, they just want it so it can be defended against. As it is now a single player in a fast cannon birds can do it with ease very quickly, much like the dropping of HQ. Instead if it was toughened up a bit it would take a couple guys with bombs to do it making it more defensible. Two guys under pressure from defense, one guy may miss, one guy may drop then try to cover the second guy by fighting with defenders and so on.
I see it as all good, more of a challenge, less running from fights. Now if you want to say those players who don't want to fight are getting left out here as "player A" or what ever, why are they paying to play a game they can easily play for free off line and accomplish the same thing? The whole point of a MMO is to interact with other players, NOT avoid them. Tweak the game to bring this interaction back into the game.
Post by: Scca on August 14, 2015, 04:09:12 PM
Again, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. Nobody is saying to make dropping the ords impossible, they just want it so it can be defended against. As it is now a single player in a fast cannon birds can do it with ease very quickly, much like the dropping of HQ. Instead if it was toughened up a bit it would take a couple guys with bombs to do it making it more defensible. Two guys under pressure from defense, one guy may miss, one guy may drop then try to cover the second guy by fighting with defenders and so on.This is not like HQ at all. One person can't drop ords for an entire country with 1 cannon bird. One base, yes, all of them no. Bad comparison.
I see it as all good, more of a challenge, less running from fights. Now if you want to say those players who don't want to fight are getting left out here as "player A" or what ever, why are they paying to play a game they can easily play for free off line and accomplish the same thing? The whole point of a MMO is to interact with other players, NOT avoid them. Tweak the game to bring this interaction back into the game.
It's one guy, one base, and, again, it often can be resupplied before the porker lands.
Post by: JunkyII on August 14, 2015, 06:08:25 PM
This is not like HQ at all. One person can't drop ords for an entire country with 1 cannon bird. One base, yes, all of them no. Bad comparison.One man can pork an entire front and not be contested on a few maps...base takers do create situations for furballs to be made...but if the base capture attempt is never made because ords are down on a front...that's when we see no action on that front....which if anyone doesn't agree, you only need to go look in the MA...it happens all the time.
It's one guy, one base, and, again, it often can be resupplied before the porker lands.
So comparison is one pilot can make an entire front a stale fight...which DOES compare to the HQ drops. (Definitely not to the same extent)
I never said it's fine the way it is. I said nobody has given Hitech a good reason to change it. You want Hitech to give you a good reason not to change it so you don't call him an ___ for thinking it's fine the way it is? Good luck with that.There are 8 pages of people bringing valid arguments to the table...in fact there are more for why it should be changed then it shouldn't...but we acknowledge it's HTC choice and my hope is that it is something they change with AH3.
Post by: Lusche on August 14, 2015, 06:29:27 PM
One man can pork an entire front and not be contested on a few maps...base takers do create situations for furballs to be made...but if the base capture attempt is never made because ords are down on a front...that's when we see no action on that front....which if anyone doesn't agree, you only need to go look in the MA...it happens all the time.
One pilot alone porking an entire front is very rare. It also takes some time, so the time the entire front is devoid of ords is also more limited. On top of that, it's also more easily undone by running supps than the HQ (10 vs 4 minutes per drop). It's much more frequent to see ords at that one, critical enemy base not being porked at all, despite having some friendlies over it ;)
What I'm really missing in this thread so far (unless I overlooked it) is a thorough examination how making porking ords more difficult is really changing the game and who's really going to benefit from it.
I'm afraid it might not the be the side gettin horded...
I'm not really taking any sides in this topic, but after many years of AH experience I#m rather cautious (and almost pessimistic) when it comes to such proposals.
Remember how the increased base dar ranges in the LW ("Yayy! They can't hide anymore!") actually massively helped the hordes?? ;)
Post by: bustr on August 14, 2015, 06:36:37 PM
Alpha70 was just released and a bunch of eyes on it with feed back will get us to alpha71 sooner than Hitech will ever change anything in AH2. He's just introduced the ability to turn off some very specific lighting enhancements that gave me back a few FPS without killing the over all visual effect of AH3.
Here:
Dear Hitech,
At some point convenient to you in the near future, please give us a brief functionality over view of the differences that will exist between AH2 default MA play and AH3.
Thank you.
Beyond this point, you guys just like surprising yourselves when your shovel bites your kester in those deep holes you like to dig together.
Post by: FLS on August 14, 2015, 07:56:54 PM
What I'm really missing in this thread so far (unless I overlooked it) is a thorough examination how making porking ords more difficult is really changing the game and who's really going to benefit from it.
[/quote]
:aok
Post by: JunkyII on August 14, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
[quote author=Lusche link=topic=374094.msg4985465#msg4985465 date=1439594967Ords are more defendable because A, isn't just point and shoot, B heavy planes don't perform like cannon planes without ord.
What I'm really missing in this thread so far (unless I overlooked it) is a thorough examination how making porking ords more difficult is really changing the game and who's really going to benefit from it.
:aok
From my personal experience in Aces High, when a front is porked...everyone leaves it which ends up being one side getting jumped by 2 hordes...stale gameplay which I've already stated...so have others.
Bustr,
Not going to spend my free time....which is very little these days playing an alpha and finding bugs. I'm sure the problems(I have) in Aces High 2 are either going to be the same in Aces High 3 or they won't matter at all...so playing the alpha really doesn't matter to me.
Post by: Changeup on August 14, 2015, 09:31:20 PM
Ords are more defendable because A, isn't just point and shoot, B heavy planes don't perform like cannon planes without ord.
From my personal experience in Aces High, when a front is porked...everyone leaves it which ends up being one side getting jumped by 2 hordes...stale gameplay which I've already stated...so have others.
Bustr,
Not going to spend my free time....which is very little these days playing an alpha and finding bugs. I'm sure the problems(I have) in Aces High 2 are either going to be the same in Aces High 3 or they won't matter at all...so playing the alpha really doesn't matter to me.
And this is why Junky is and always will be one of my favorite folks in AH (I'm sure unbeknownst to him). Direct, truthful, knowledgable, respectful opponent, and most of all, as most certainly demonstrated in this response, will never suffer a fool.
If Squat were only here...
Post by: bustr on August 14, 2015, 09:40:29 PM
Pretty much both of you are admitting you are here to "dig holes" to see who flinches first when the shovel tip makes it's grand stage entrance. Even for Junky that's kind of thread bare Vanscrewish at this late date.
Post by: Randy1 on August 15, 2015, 06:41:21 AM
[quote author=Lusche link=topic=374094.msg4985465#msg4985465 date=1439594967Because rods are down for such a long time stopping "Attack" game play. Add to that the ease porking ords and the ability to several bases in one run you make heavy fighter a two sector flight.
What I'm really missing in this thread so far (unless I overlooked it) is a thorough examination how making porking ords more difficult is really changing the game and who's really going to benefit from it.
:aok
Waffle idea post of increasing blast radius is interesting but changing ords down to fifteen minutes would work as well.
Post by: BaldEagl on August 15, 2015, 02:43:58 PM
People on the BBs whined so loudly that HT doubled or tripled the number of troop barracks at a field making it nearly impossible to take out troops so the focus shifted to ord bunkers.
I agree that ords are too easy to take out. A single pass in a cannon bird and they're gone and if that planes coming in hot from alt there's no way to stop it.
So how about this; make ord bunkers harder to take down while making troop barracks easier. In fact, make them about the same difficulty adding a bit of strategy back into the game. I don't care if you need ords or not but neither should be able to be taken out in a single pass with cannons.
Post by: The Fugitive on August 15, 2015, 10:26:16 PM
It used to be that troop barracks were primary field targets. You used to be able to swoop in and take all the barracks down in a pass or two, stopping the horde from using that base to take another. Troops were always down at critical bases along a front causing the fights to move to other areas.
People on the BBs whined so loudly that HT doubled or tripled the number of troop barracks at a field making it nearly impossible to take out troops so the focus shifted to ord bunkers.
I agree that ords are too easy to take out. A single pass in a cannon bird and they're gone and if that planes coming in hot from alt there's no way to stop it.
So how about this; make ord bunkers harder to take down while making troop barracks easier. In fact, make them about the same difficulty adding a bit of strategy back into the game. I don't care if you need ords or not but neither should be able to be taken out in a single pass with cannons.
Whats wrong with players bringing bombs and dropping the targets with them? It's a skill anyone can learn, and it makes the fight just that bit more active.
Post by: Patches1 on August 15, 2015, 10:30:11 PM
Quote
What I'm really missing in this thread so far (unless I overlooked it) is a thorough examination how making porking ords more difficult is really changing the game and who's really going to benefit from it.
I agree, Lushe, and here are the reasons why.
When I first began playing AH about 10 years ago, I could take a heavy F4U-1D Corsair loaded with 2x1ks and 8 rockets and sink a CV in a single pass because a CV had a hardness of about 3k and didn't have the 8k hardness it has today. I used to sink CVs regularly, and then look for an air to air fight. But, folks complained about CVs being too easy to sink and that soon changed and I soon quit trying to sink CVs, and began playing the Air to Ground game where I could take out the ords and barracks on small and medium airfields with the ords I carried on my Corsair. Again, people complained, and, again, new field layouts and increased ack-ack took my game to a level where I was only successful 20% of the time air to ground, and so I took my fight up to the Bombers where I substituted ordnance for fuel, and flew to 25-30 thousand feet hunting bombers. Again, people complained about Bombers being too difficult to shoot down, but I don't recall that HT hardened Bombers at all, and they became my favorite prey, at the time, in my Corsair. People complained that the Bombers guns were too strong and should be neutered, but I didn't find that to be true, and I shot them down, or was shot down by them.
Did I like the hardening of the CVs?
No! But I adjusted my individual game play to support others and still sank some.
Did I like the addition of more ack on airfields and the re-arrangement of the targets on the airfields?
No! But I adjusted my game play to support others and still managed to survive some solo runs.
Did I like any of the changes over the 10 years that consequently affected me, personally, whilst flying my favorite aircraft?
No! I simply adjusted my game play to make the game fun for me again.
BUT! There comes a time of diminishing returns, and by this I mean that the more difficult you make it for a single player to enjoy him/herself, the fewer are going to play. And the harder you make targets to drop, the few who do play will rely upon others to help accomplish what they themselves cannot accomplish individually and soon, there will be fewer to help the few.
I remember when the skies were full of furballs, and CVs were ripe to sink! Bombers filled the skies and Squads of pilots flew together to challenge other Squads!
If you take the fun out of the game for the individual pilot, you will soon have no pilots left. I am at that point now.
Post by: BaldEagl on August 15, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
Whats wrong with players bringing bombs and dropping the targets with them? It's a skill anyone can learn, and it makes the fight just that bit more active.
I didn't say anything was wrong with it. I said I don't care either way.
Post by: Lusche on August 16, 2015, 04:16:01 AM
I agree, Lushe, and here are the reasons why.
When I first began playing AH about 10 years ago, I could take a heavy F4U-1D Corsair loaded with 2x1ks and 8 rockets and sink a CV in a single pass because a CV had a hardness of about 3k and didn't have the 8k hardness it has today. I used to sink CVs regularly, and then look for an air to air fight. But, folks complained about CVs being too easy to sink and that soon changed
I'm sorry, but the CV hardness has not changed at all. All the time you (and I) had been here, the CV had been at 8k. You always had only been able to sink the CV in a heavy fighter if it had been previously damaged.
:old:
Post by: Changeup on August 16, 2015, 11:33:56 AM
Junky has an excuse related to his current deployment, you don't. And when did you start riding on Junky's skirt tails. Have you downloaded and tested the alpha yet? Everyone's PC is unique and feedback is equally valuable.
Pretty much both of you are admitting you are here to "dig holes" to see who flinches first when the shovel tip makes it's grand stage entrance. Even for Junky that's kind of thread bare Vanscrewish at this late date.
I'm not riding his skirt at all. I liked Junky when I was a POTW and I appreciate his candor, probably more now than I did then because he's grown up. Not that he was juvy then. Squat is a good kid too but them together was great fun to watch.
Bustr, you should stop trying so hard. We could ask you when you started riding AH's skirt which you do a lot.
(I've downloaded the alpha and I've played with the alpha)
Post by: Golden Dragon on August 17, 2015, 08:23:56 AM
Post by: Randy1 on August 17, 2015, 12:21:01 PM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the current modeling of ordinance bunker destruction. If you horde types want to stop us from taking away your toys then diminish your ranks a bit and cap your airfields. I love porking the Bish horde front in my Pony and taking the wind out of your sails.
Even with a fighter cap a small field can easily be porked. The porker might not escape but the two ords and radar can knocked down by a single fighter before he or she is caught. A medium field is not so easy.
Post by: FLS on August 17, 2015, 04:21:33 PM
Even with a fighter cap a small field can easily be porked.
You seem to think that's a bad thing. That's a debatable point.
It appears to be intentional design.
Post by: bustr on August 18, 2015, 03:53:13 PM
Seems to me Hitech decided porking is a good idea if it has not changed much since 1999. While admittedly it's suckky on nights when numbers and the tactical situation places your country in the two hole barrel. But, I'm always surprised when I hear some knight not a POTW heading out alone declaring he's gonna pork some ord.
POTW will pull in over a big stalled fight and look at the troops\ord at all enemy fields with a spawn into the one under attack. It's almost always the same situation, all are up and healthy, attack stalled, everyone pointing fingers about the town ack that keeps coming back up every 5 minutes. No one is really hunting M3s or heading off to eliminate the supply source for the M3s.
I think M3's being able to resupply the town are more of a problem than getting your field porked. Just watch the knights when they try to take fields. They always think the first wave will be in, drop everything, and the troops will be running before anyone is the wiser. 10 minuets later, usually something small has gone wrong, and the M3's have enough time to make their first delivery.
No one goes and porks anything at the M3's origin fields, instead, the knights up GV's to stop the M3s and rush the town to clean it up at the pace of a frisky glacier. The fastest way to stop a mass AH2 GV assault, is to up a single T34 and hit one enemy tank. Not even kill it. And the GV hoard all ducks and covers to a grinding halt. And then if you jabo that single GV, and recon to make sure there are no more GV, the majority of the GV assault group won't resume the rush on the town. They all hang back to long range cover the few willing to keep up the momentum. You know how precious those GV perks are.
Porking used to be a prelude to an NOE hoard passing near the porked field. Watching radar rings turn red and ord become 0% was a reasonable way to guess at the destination or the new front some squad was starting. Ord porking on a coastal field was a good indicator of a near shore CV. But, back then we had enough players to make up for the inconvenience by weight of numbers who would respond to the challenge.
Since our numbers have tapered off, there seems to be an ongoing feeling that players want Hitech to sanitize the game a bit or introduce complex conditional properties to reduce their increased frustrations. Sanitizing the game will force players to face each other, and what kind of following do the WW1 and DA arenas have? Complex conditional properties, looks good when you think them up with the other guy getting screwed. Most people forget they will get just as screwed in turn.
Post by: kvuo75 on August 18, 2015, 04:37:36 PM
How many who have been here over 3 years, have ever seen an A5, A8, F8, dora not get through to the field in a dive unless there were about 12 or more defenders 200 off his tail? And some make upwards of 5 passes trailing Love Lorne defenders trying to reach out and touch him...... :O
yeah they're usually successful in multiple passes i think because most people chase a strafer/divebomber wrongly.. instead of staying at alt and waiting for him to come back uphill, they follow down and back up and never catch him.
couple years ago i got called a cheater for just staying at an dora's original alt and catching him as he came back up to flip around for his second pass in a nik(maybe a ki84). something like: "bs nice cheat how does a niki catch a d9 in a dive!!" -- because i didnt follow you, genius. i essentially made a shortcut to where i guessed you would show up.
Post by: JunkyII on August 31, 2015, 04:34:24 AM
yeah they're usually successful in multiple passes i think because most people chase a strafer/divebomber wrongly.. instead of staying at alt and waiting for him to come back uphill, they follow down and back up and never catch him.If a decent pilot is in a dora killing ord...he won't need to flip over at all......point is invalid
couple years ago i got called a cheater for just staying at an dora's original alt and catching him as he came back up to flip around for his second pass in a nik(maybe a ki84). something like: "bs nice cheat how does a niki catch a d9 in a dive!!" -- because i didnt follow you, genius. i essentially made a shortcut to where i guessed you would show up.