Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Preon1 on April 06, 2002, 08:37:54 AM
-
I realize there are a lot out there that disagree with me (saying that people who use the mission editor are gangbangers who ruin the game by using fluff tactics), but I think the mission editor is a great thing that rallies countries to a common cause, resulting in more success, better scores, and more fun had by all.
I propose missions flown from the editor should have a perk value.
What I envision is very simple. Every mission with 10 pilots or more warrants extra perk points. The host keeps track of the running total of points earned by planes in that mission. Should a pilot in this mission get shot down/ditch/captured, he earns and extra number of perkies equal to 5% of the total perks earned thus far. If a pilot lands, he earns 10% of the total perks earned thus far.
I realize this is a very selfishly centered idea because I live and die by the mission editor, but I honestly think that this would greatly increase the use of missions in the MA.
-
It would be nice if perks could be pooled for missions.
-
Would be cool to pay people perks to do things... Like fly goons, or simply to just shut up. ;)
-
I'd pay 100 perks to be able to burn out a newbies caps lock key, and an extra 50 if I could have the help file auto load on his system after the 10th message in 5 minutes with the words "how do I"
-
Perks for missions is a good thing
-
A simple way to do this would be to just make the perk multiplier something like 5x if you were in a mission and you land the plane.
Although there are ways to game this, I'm sure that with some brainstorming an easy way to make this idea work and be worthwhile could be reached.
I'm for anything that promotes teamwork. And that, in turn, helps build the community.
/offtopic mode on
And before anyone from warbirds comes over and takes a potshot about 'what community', piss off.
We have one. It's just maturing. Come back in 5 years (when it's about the same age as WB is now) and it'll be just as good as yours. Just with a better game though ;-)
-
the less perk planes in the game the better the game is so.. the less perk points floating around the better. Your idea seems to increase the amount of perk points and.... gives em to the most anal to boot... so... it is a bad idea.
lazs
-
LMAO! LOL! Oh Lazs please dont do this to me... :D This is by far the most funny joke I have heard today :)
btw
whats wrong with perkpoints and perkplane flying? I fly Tempest on regular basis and I really enjoy diving into furball picking few SA ignorant dweebs down there and pulling back up like a rocket... These sorties give me the most adrenaline and I enjoy them a lot since when in a perkplane you actually HAVE something to lose! And you would not believe how differently one flyes... But the more adrenaline you have in your bloodstream while flying a perkride the more satisfaction you feel when you are landing your 20 kills and 9 perkpoints (well Temepst is not very pp rewarding ride but its pure fun and joy to fly) :D So lazs stay low enjoy the furball at your own liking... Il stay high and will pick on you because its the way I like to fight... And YES im a dweeb and Im proud of it :p
-
Lazs, I hate trying to respond to you because I keep drafting up stuff that makes me sound like a dickhead.
Why are perk planes bad? I mean, I know you personally prefer early war jousting experiences and you're really good at lone wolf tactics, but why try and limit the planeset for everyone? I mean, can't you just show off your skills by shooting me down while I fly a tempest and you fly a 202?
Why throw names around? Believe it or not, I carefully read everything you say on topics that I weigh in on. I think this is mainly because HT really weighed heavily on your opinion on the last strat-realism session that I was in on. I'm not trying to be anal, I'm trying to have fun.
I think missions are fun and adding incentive to fly them (like adding incentive to fly early war planes) could do much for the overall enjoyment for everyone in the game. I posted this so I could get not only varied opinions on the topic, but reasons why.
But thanks for weighing in anyway. I'm sure your name will draw more people into the thread.
-
no thanx..
SKurj
-
Lazer does not = Lazs =)
-
I saw a squad that hit an undefended field with about 4 planes. They quickly took down the ack and the VH and proceded to vulch the field. They didn't destroy a single other structure and no attempt was made to capture the base in any way shape or form.
Are you saying they should get 5x the perk points for this if they decide to do it by creating a mission first?
The reward for teamwork is success. The better the teamwork, the more likely the base capture... the more capable the defense... the more likely you are to accomplish your goal.
Adding a way to boost your perk points only serves to give those who like racking up perk points a better way to do it.
BTW... how many missions do you actually see teamwork in? How many missions are simply a large group of people that descend onto a base in a giant free for all? How does this promote smarter and better teamwork? It doesn't... it promotes joining missions to increase perks... not to be a part of a team.
AKDejaVu
-
The tricky part is to determine is:
"When is a mission succesfull?"
First rule of gaming features: Everything is bound to be abused.
Taking a base is easily to determine but capping an airfield when almost no-one shows up to defend or defending your base when hardly anyone attacks is damm hard and thus bound to be abused one way or another unless there is a brainreading USB device :) I would love this feature but i think it wild be a pain in the bellybutton to code :(
Broesy
-
And btw rewarding people for flying missions is something I would personally apreciate. Well I fly in missions even today because missions are prolly the best part of MA when you can actually see people cooperating which is quite cool and its great fun as well... :)
-
ok here's an idea +) i doubt it could be coded though....
Perks granted to DEFENSIVE missions only. CAPping a friendly field for X amount of time, popping X amount of enemy planes within an assigned (friendly)area.
Missions are purely offense at the moment, and i couldn't care less for them. BUT if there was some setup which permits a player to select a defensive mission at anytime and launch to play a defensive roll i'd be all for it
SKurj
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I saw a squad that hit an undefended field with about 4 planes. They quickly took down the ack and the VH and proceded to vulch the field. They didn't destroy a single other structure and no attempt was made to capture the base in any way shape or form.
Are you saying they should get 5x the perk points for this if they decide to do it by creating a mission first?
I completely agree. Originally I was thinking that just a 5% overall bonus would work (.05x not 5x). However, it would probably be better if the percentage went up based on accomplishments instead of kills. I mean, the purpose of war is not to kill the enemy, but to put him in a position where he can't kill you and is more likely to negotiate right?
So what if the bonus went up a certain (very small) percentage for total structural damage, more for strategic targets than tactical, and also went up a little more for every base captured. It would all still work essentially the same way. The perk bonus would be a percentage of total perks earned by the mission when a pilot lands.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
ok here's an idea +) i doubt it could be coded though....
Perks granted to DEFENSIVE missions only. CAPping a friendly field for X amount of time, popping X amount of enemy planes within an assigned (friendly)area.
I'm by no means advanced when it comes to computer programming, but maybe it could be done if the kill (where the pilot bails, crashes, explodes) occurs within, say, 25 miles of a friendly base or strategic target.
Maybe that's easy, maybe it's not, but it does add the concept of defensive missions into the perked mission idea.
-
So what if the bonus went up a certain (very small) percentage for total structural damage, more for strategic targets than tactical, and also went up a little more for every base captured. It would all still work essentially the same way. The perk bonus would be a percentage of total perks earned by the mission when a pilot lands.
You do more structural damage when you attack with an organized attack. That is one of the reasons to organize. The important thing is, people are getting credit solely for the damage that they do.
Now, take a group of people... the more the merrier... because now... everyone gets credit for the damage done. It simply promotes larger numbers... not better cooperation.
The one thing that seems to be missing in this thread is answering this simple question: "Why do people choose not to fly missions?" Does it have anything to do with perks? I don't think it does.
AKDejaVu
-
I don't fly mishuns... why?? i login to fly... and not sit in the tower waitin for people to join. I just ignore them.
When your mission fits MY schedule (i just happen to be upping at the same time otw to the same target) i might tag along, otherwise shaddup +)
SKurj
-
Originally posted by SKurj
I don't fly mishuns... why?? i login to fly... and not sit in the tower waitin for people to join. I just ignore them.
When your mission fits MY schedule (i just happen to be upping at the same time otw to the same target) i might tag along, otherwise shaddup +)
I suppose alot of people feel this same way. I know I do.
So the question is... would more perk points affect your choice?
AKDejaVu
-
giving more perks for a mission would encourage vulch missions, but I could be mistaken.
the idea I liked was sharing perkpoints. collecting the perks earned to a common pool and dividing amoung all pilots in the mission. that way guys who do boring work like driving goons and dying 30 sec from the drop zone, or guys providing hi cap will earn something.
this is not a must, but it would be nice.
Bozon
-
Deja,
One of the things I'm going to try to start doing is organizing my missions into actual 4 ship flights by splitting up the roster. If that starts working would you be more interested in flying missions?
-
I can honestly say.... not at all preon.
The main drawback to missions is the delay in starting... the fact that you could end up with someone asking how to start their engine as a wingman and all sorts of stuff I'd just rather avoid.
I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've watched missions to hit a base turn into some kind of vulch competition while nobody even takes the time to get the vh. All the fighters eventually die to an Ostwind or two that spawn.
Combine that with the simple fact that 75% of all missions I see are based on the milkrun philosophy and I'll stick with my own style. You want to start a trend... make meaningful missions that do something other than send 1/3 of your forces against 3 people. Diversions... planned attacks... whatever.
THE KEY TO MAKING MISSIONS BETTER FOR EVERYONE IS MAKING THEM RELEVANT, CHALLENGING AND EFFECTIVE.
Perks aint got nothing to do with them. All increasing the incentive to go on missions in their current form will do is to promote more missions in their current form.
btw... Not saying your missions are/aren't anything preon... just a general observation there.
Anyways... off the current status (actually status quo) of missions rant.
AKDejaVu
-
CO designates a target for each flight within the mission
example:
8xP-51D's-Mission Objective, Escort B17's to target and destroy Town Ack and Town.
8xB17's-Mission Objective, Destroy All FH's, VH, and destroy town.
If all 8 B17's return to base sucessfully, a multiplier would adjust points. If Town ack is destroyed another multiplier would adjust points. and so on and so on.
So what it boils down to is selectable targets in the Mission builder to recognize and the ability for the mission builder to adjust the multipliers. Sounds like hard work.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
So what it boils down to is selectable targets in the Mission builder to recognize and the ability for the mission builder to adjust the multipliers. Sounds like hard work.
The problem with that is that battle is a highly fluid situation and flight leads need to have the flexibility to change orders in the middle of combat. You can't script a battle.
-
Then the Mission planner would assign Primary, Secondary, and tertiary targets. If the primary was hit and then Secondary, then two multipliers would come into play, If only the tertiary target was hit then the lowest multiplier would take effect.
If the mission planner doesnt give a secondary target or even a tertiary target then its not a very good mission anyway.
-
Originally posted by bozon
giving more perks for a mission would encourage vulch missions
ehm... you mean Fighter-sweeps ? :D ;)
-
Now... if a fit of extreme dweebishness hit me I'd do this:
1. Create a mission with 8 of each of the uber planes. For example... Spit9, La-7, N1K2, F4U-1C.
2. Set the start time at 0600 and the end time of 1200 for the mission.
3. Set no waypoints. Enable no goons. Enable no bombers.
4. Announce to the country channel, that the perk multiplyer is open and invite anyone/everyone to join.
RESULT
Bonus points for flying as part of a mission with no real mission at all.
END RESULT
Me262 and Tempests all over the place as dweebs bankroll pantloads of perk points.
-
preon.. deja hit it. There will be a lot more perk planes around. The same mentality that would allow someone to fly a perk plane will cause him to milkrun at 3 in the AM.... The CT is proof.
madbird loves to fly with a huge advantage. That is fine. people who want to have a huge advantage over other players seem a little odd to me in a GAME but... the perk system is working. madbird has never shot me down in a tempest but... more importantly.... he hasn't ruined most (if any) of the fights that I was in. As it is, I can watch his cowardly bellybutton way up there and avoid him... he is barely annoying. If there were more perk rides in the game then there would be more of the wussies up there perched and waiting for us poor "SA less" dweebs who can't keep track of B&Zing heroes once we are engagedd with 3 or four enemies. They would ruin more fights....
So when do you not deserve to fly the way you like? Duh... when you are given a huge advantage over the other players. When your plane choice makes it way more difficult for the others to have fun.
madbird... how much "SA" does flying a tempest in the MA require?
lazs
-
Lazs2! :eek: :D LMAO :D
Originally posted by lazs2
madbird... how much "SA" does flying a tempest in the MA require?
lazs
Since you are in general against all perkrides and do not fly them and you do not climb higher than 500ft AGL you dont have to care much for SA right? Anyway to answer your question quoted above: You would know how much it takes if you would fly them... Try flying Tempest in MA and mix it up against JG54 guys in their 262s :D And since in perkplane you are tagged with a 'gang-bang icon' your SA has to be apropriate to it.... If you happen to be lower you can be sure that every Pony, La7 or NIK will break its wings off just to dive on you and zoom you.... And high in tempest is (for me) up to 20k. Its about E management but this kind of discussion is not supposed to be in this thread.... Start a new toppic and lets talk... ;)
:p
-
Perks for OFFENSIVE missions would not change the way I play.
Perks for defensive missions where I fly when I want, I would likely take those missions 100% of the time.
SKurj
-
"Deja,
One of the things I'm going to try to start doing is organizing my missions into actual 4 ship flights by splitting up the roster. If that starts working would you be more interested in flying missions?"
I would be.
There's rarely a formal briefing for missions, and very often no way points and such.
It's my opinion that unless every plane type/flight has a clued up designated leader it's not a mission, just a gang bang.
As far as perks go, the only way perks should figure into a mission is if some way is found to redistribute them amongst the members.
So some one with a huge bank can bank roll a four ship of 262's, for example.
I'd like to see a lot more multi role missions, such as train busters and their top cover, for example, rather than the usual horde warrior over a base.
I also (going out on a side note) would like to see a lot more cheap perks. It's a kick for a newbie to fly one, and it's something for them to aim for, like their first kill.
-
When your plane choice makes it way more difficult for the others to have fun.
So when you fly your favorite plane and shoot me down everytime your making it difficult for me to have fun. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to fly that plane?
Just askin is all
-
pedrhaps award perks for mission only if field capture is successful.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
THE KEY TO MAKING MISSIONS BETTER FOR EVERYONE IS MAKING THEM RELEVANT, CHALLENGING AND EFFECTIVE.
a.k.a. "fun"
-
vipermann said "So when you fly your favorite plane and shoot me down everytime your making it difficult for me to have fun. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to fly that plane?
Just askin is all"
Well.... my favorite plane is a -1a. It is about as mediocre as it gets and if a couple of pretty good sticks didn't fly it it would have an even worse K/D than it does which is pretty pitifull as it is.. No... me flying a mediocre plane doesn't affect you in near the same way as a far superior one would. Look at the K/D of the Tempest for instance.. simply choosing it gives you a huge advantage. If everyone has fairly equal plane choices then things are inherently more fair.
madbird... perhaps i am not the only person who can't see how flying an untouchable tempest at 20k all alone waiting for someone assleep at the switch or afk to kill...... takes more SA than entering a large furball at "500 feet" with a -1a?
lazs
-
Look at the K/D of the Tempest for instance.. simply choosing it gives you a huge advantage.
I think you'll agree that it's K/D would drop quite a bit if it wasn't a perk plane
If everyone has fairly equal plane choices then things are inherently more fair.
I agree totally with this. Everyone has the choice to fly any plane they want that is offered. You have the choice to fly a perk plane if you so desired. The choice is yours to fly a lesser plane. The choice is theres to fly a perk plane.
The only way I can see making it totally fair all the time is to give everyone the same plane, I'm sure HTC wouldn't be around much longer if that happened.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Look at the K/D of the Tempest for instance.. simply choosing it gives you a huge advantage.
Why? Because it has quite high K/D ? I dont se any advantage in it... :confused:
Originally posted by Vipermann
I think you'll agree that it's K/D would drop quite a bit if it wasn't a perk plane
It would.... Drastically... Tempest would become No. 1 pick for all those low level furballers... It would become prolly even more poplular than a N1KI or La7 are today ;) IMO Fast plane, 4 Hizookas insta killing weapons... All should be glad its perked as it is...
Originally posted by lazs2
If everyone has fairly equal plane choices then things are inherently more fair.
You are 100% right on this one. But for this to happen you would need either RPS in MA or you should go to CT instead of MA. But since MA is what it is, its all depends on what ppl like to fly for their money. And I have to say that its perfectly OK with me...
And if you think that over 15k interesting adrenaline pumping fights are nonexistant... Let me asure you that there are same or maybe even better fights up there than down there :) You should try to climb that high one day its refreshing...
But anyway Im devoting this tour to LW metal... Im flying 109E and G6/10 or 190A8 / D9 plus an F6F when Im gonna be forced to operate from CV... Of course I may roll out the Tempest for a ride time to time if too frustrated by those low knifefights... ;)
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I can honestly say.... not at all preon.
The main drawback to missions is the delay in starting... the fact that you could end up with someone asking how to start their engine as a wingman and all sorts of stuff I'd just rather avoid.
Combine that with the simple fact that 75% of all missions I see are based on the milkrun philosophy and I'll stick with my own style. You want to start a trend... make meaningful missions that do something other than send 1/3 of your forces against 3 people. Diversions... planned attacks... whatever.
THE KEY TO MAKING MISSIONS BETTER FOR EVERYONE IS MAKING THEM RELEVANT, CHALLENGING AND EFFECTIVE.
Perks aint got nothing to do with them. All increasing the incentive to go on missions in their current form will do is to promote more missions in their current form.
I'm sorry I haven't replied to this in a while. The sad part about missions is that there isn't enough skill and training involved in executing missions.
However, I disagree that all missions are based on gangbanging philosophy. I have flown in several missions to date that will arrive over the target field to find it capped and awaiting goons. Generally speaking, when I'm in command, I'll send one flight (4 planes) to ensure that the town is down and send a couple goons while the rest of the group is redirected elsewhere.
This illustrates two things:
1. People who fly missions are becoming more objective oriented.
2. People who fly missions are willing to take commands from their leaders in the mission.
I agree that perking missions may offer bonus points to newbies, but then again, I don't think that would be such a bad thing. I don't see people flying a 262 or a Tempest into combat as much as a threat because they're MUCH more afraid of getting shot down than I am. They don't become a threat until they are piloted by somebody who is competent behind the stick and then you know that that person would have the points anyway.
What I see as the bonus will be exactly what DejaVu alluded to: more numbers. The (dare I use the word) community of mission goers has come to the point where we can offer a lot to the new player. They get the added comfort level of flying with larger numbers and seeing one side of combat as it can be carried out from more experienced players, and the rest of us get another set of bombs guns and rockets.
I agree that in the end, waiting for 5-10 minutes in the tower or the maproom kills the idea of missions for many people. However, if perking missions gives newbies a chance to give missions a second look, then we might be able to see a lot more cooperation in the MA.
-
If you guys think that the tempest is not a far superior plane to the others then you are delusional. It would have an even higher K/D if it were used more. It is perked because it is superior. Why do you suppose it is perked?
Point is... the more perk planes in the arena the more lopsided it is and the less chance anyone not flying a perk plane has. The less real variety we have... Perk planes shift the plane choices to later and later war with more and more mid war planes falling into dissuse.
preons idea is fine except that it adds perk points to the pool.. in effect, it increases the amount of perk planes I will see and...... they will be flown by just the kind of "live on line" anal types that would contribute to an unbalanced and unfun arena.
lazs
-
lazs2,
So, you can fly your "Uberbird" but that is the top end that is acceptable?
You're criteria seems to be "If its better than my F4U-1D, its shouldn't be in the game."
Well, your F4U-1D isn't fair to my Spitfire Mk Ia, so I think it needs to be perked out of existance too. :rolleyes: (actually, I fly Mosquito Mk VIs mostly)
I love how people like to say their ride is so hard to use or is mediocre at best. Every time I've flown the F4U-1D I have found it extremely easy to be successful with. It accelerates and climbs like a dog and doesn't turn great, but for some reason it just works. It isn't a mediocre ride, it just isn't as good as a Tempest, Ta152H-1, F4U-4, Spitfire Mk XIV or Me262.
MadBirdZ,
Try the Ta152H-1. It is highly under rated.
-
actually... I fly the -1a.
lazs