Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: MANDOBLE on April 15, 2002, 08:51:02 AM
-
I rarelly came back alive from jabo missions, and this is rewarding me with a hi K/T ratio saving a precious RTB time. IMO, if we are unable to land or ditch in friendly territory, a time penalty should be applied.
-
It is a trade-off Mandoble. If you ditch, bail, or crash, you get a higher K/T. If you manage to return to base and land, you get more points. Both categories are counted when calculating your rank.
It really depends on what everyone else is doing. If a lot of people are RTB'ing, you are better off getting a couple more kills and crashing (because there will be less competition there)- if everyone is crashing you are better off RTB'ing. Or, you could do like me and try to RTB every sortie and don't worry about it.
-
Mandoble.. if you are unable to reach friendly territory, you are penalized in K/D and Score. You feel there should be more of a penalty?
I disagree.
AKDejaVu
-
Yes, there should be NO POINTS awarded if you dont land or bail or ditch in friendly territory OR if you die.
I find it ridiculous to REWARD quake flying. As i've said before, you can get more perkies in a n1k/spit per hour than with a higher eny plane just because the n1k/spit can kill 3X easier in a furball, and even if he dies the n1k/spit still gives the player nice perks.
-
Urchin, usually that trade-off beneficts keeping in the combat zone til your fuel is gone.
1 - You will get more kills, so, similar points than landing your plane.
2 - You will have a much better kill per time, 2/3 of your flight time will be in the combat zone and then ditching in the frontier between bases, or even bailing out.
3 - You will have similar kills per sortie.
Suppose next example:
109G6 75% of fuel, using 25% to get to the combat area, 25% fighting and 25% for RTB. In two flights it has 25 + 25% of fuel to fight and get kills, using 50% + 50% traveling to/from the combat zone.
That means that if you dont RTB you will have a combat time equivalent to two flights with a refuel, but 1/3 of the time you will be fighting very light on fuel, so with a much better performer plane and more chances of getting kills and still with good chances of getting a last ditch.
In the other hand, actuallly, long CAP patrols are penalized with a very poor K/T while they should not be.
-
In the other hand, actuallly, long CAP patrols are penalized with a very poor K/T while they should not be.
They are also rewarded with a higher k/d ratio. There is a tradeoff for virtually every action in AH. No one flying style is rewarded more than the other.
If you think K/D is important... fly in a manner that reflects it. If you think K/S is important... fly in a manner that reflects it. If you think K/T is important... fly in a manner that reflects it.
What you are trying to do is stress the importance of one over the other... as if one style should be more condoned than the other. Its called imposing beliefs on others.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
They are also rewarded with a higher k/d ratio.
I dont know whether you are talking about StarTreckV or Cylon Revenge, but in AH long CAP patrols looking for buff raids end usually with 0 kills and probably one death (as soon as you engange a Ki67) after 15 minutes patrolling a large area, while short flights going into the forever furball end with 4, 5, 6 ... 10 kills in few minutes.
The guys doing real CAP missions are not only trying to stop hi cons and buffs (the work noone wants to do), they are also being penalized with a very poor K/T.
-
0 kills and 1 death, and you should get a good score for this?
-
Originally posted by hitech
0 kills and 1 death, and you should get a good score for this?
They will not only get a bad scoring, they will be also penalized for the long time airborne trying to protect their bases instead just getting into the furball.
Basically, If I pickup a P51 full of fuel and take off just to patrol against buffs, If I survive even with only 1 kill, I'll be penalized with a very poor K/T. If I pickup the same P51 with 50% of fuel, I forget about buff existance and I dive into a furball, I will get more kills in less time, I will problably have much more surviving chances than looking for buffs to engange, but, problably, my base will be nuked when I RTB.
I'm not asking to reward these that do long CAPs just for nothing (if they got killed or if they are unable to catch any buff or hi con), but, at least, dont penalize their K/T.
-
Life is full of sacrifices. You choose what to do. There are consequences to most things. You need to decide what is most important to you.
Like Deja said, one thing affects the other. You want a high K/T, then you will probably sacrifice your K/D (which I am a good example of btw... hi K/T, comparatively low K/D). If you value your K/D, you will probably end up sacrificing K/T.
You make it sound as if K/T is the most important aspect of the game and scoring. From what I understand, K/D, K/S, K/T, hit %, and points are all equally weighted. If K/T is important to you, you need to fly in a way that will enable you to get a high K/T. End of story.
-
hitech, here's how I see it.
Now:
If im interested in points, grabbing a low eny plane like a spitIX or a n1k or la7 will give me more points per hour than a med-hi eny plane (205, p51b, p47d11, spit/hurri 1). Find me a furball and get 6 to 8 kills per each sortie or 2 just by quaking. Die every time, but HO'ing and spraying cannon around gets the kills I need.
Compared to the 2 or 3 kills i'd get in a mid-hi eny plane, and taking twice or 3 times as long to get those kills than the guy in the spitix/n1k/la7... in the end, its the low eny quakerides that earn you more perks per time.
If perks were only awarded by ditching/bailing/landing in friendly territory (ditch=50% of perks, bail=20% of perks, landing=110% of perks), and dying or ditching/bailing/landing on enemy territory gave you ZERO perks, then you'd get a fair system.
For as things are now, quake flyers are getting rewarded more than the strat minded players in perk points.
ALTERNATIVELY, why not give a superperk boost for missions?
If you join mission and if mission is successful, those involved receive 200% normal perks for their kills and a fixed number of perks for joining and succeeding in mission.
-
From an already buried thread:
Originally posted by Tac
Not a bad idea. Really.
WW2OL ALMOST *repeat, ALMOST* did something right with their mission system awarding points.
In AH it would be great if the people that join a mission get..say, timesX normal perks per kill and the person that makes the mission must SPEND some perks of his own per mission he makes, BUT if the mission is successful, person that made mission should get perks in return.
How to say a sucessful mission? Separate them into categories. Give each mission a time limit. Once mission takes off, no more people can join.
Fighter Sweep (mission editor instantly removes all bombers and vehicles and boats from the selectable AC list). Time limit: 45 minutes. Mission must either return with half of the AC that took off or kill more enemy AC than they lost at the end of time limit.
Perk modifier for those joining mission: X1.5 perks per kill, +5 perks per person if mission successful
Perk cost to make mission: 5 perks
Perks gained by mission CO if sucessful: 8 perks (added to the ones he got for shooting down stuff)
Bomb (mission editor removes all fighters and vehicles and boats from AC list). Time limit: 2 hours. Mission editor will ask for target to be hit. Mission will be sucessful if said Strat Target is dropped to 40% or lower. If target is an airfield, then all hangars must be destroyed (FH, BH and VH = hangars) by the end of the time limit. Half of the mission bombers must survive.
Perk Modifier for those joining mission: X5 perks per target destroyed/fighter shot down.
Perk cost to make mission: 5 perks
Perks gained by mission CO if successful: 20 perks (added to the perks he got during mission)
Jabo (mission editor removes all bombers and vehicles and boats from AC list). Time limit: 1 hour . Mission editor will ask for target to be hit. Mission will be sucessful if said Strat Target is dropped to 40% or lower. If target is an airfield, then all hangars must be destroyed (FH, BH and VH = hangars) by the end of the time limit. Half of the mission Jabo's must survive.
Perk Modifier for those joining mission: X2 perks per target destroyed/fighter shot down.
Perk cost to make mission: 5 perks
Perks gained by mission CO if successful: 10 perks (added to the perks he got during mission)
Escort (mission editor shows "escortable" missions (aka, bomb, jabo, fighter sweep) in planner and asks to select one; removes all bombers, vehicles and boats from list). Time limit: 1.5 hours. Mission is sucesful if half or more of the other mission's participants survive at the end of the time limit.
Perk Modifier for those joining mission: X2.5 perks
Perk cost to make mission: 3 perks
Perks gained by mission CO if successful: 12 perks (added to the perks he got during mission)
For ground units:
Defense (mission editor removes all 'except for gv's from selectable list). Mission planner will ask for what asset is to be defended (field, strat target). Mission sucessful if field is not taken by end of time limit. Time limit: 1 hour.
Perk Modifier for those joining mission: X1.5 perks
Perk cost to make mission: 2 perks
Perks gained by mission CO if successful: 6 perks (added to the perks he got during mission)
Offense:
Same as defense, but mission is sucesful if target is captured by end of time limit (1.5 hours). Perk modifier X2
Naval Units:
Assault: Same as GV offense, but with LVT's and PT's. Time limit:2 hours. Mission sucesful if target taken within time limit. Perk modifier X3
CAP: Mission editor removes all but carrier-based fighters from the selectable AC list. Editor asks for friendly fleet to be CAP'd. Mission must take off from said carrier. Time limit: 1 hour. Mission sucesfful if carrier not sunk by end of time limit.
Perk Modifier for those joining mission: X1.5 perks
Perk cost to make mission: 10 perks
Perks gained by mission CO if successful: 4 perks (added to the perks he got during mission
Note: Doesnt give much perks and costs a more perks to set mission up to prevent people from "farming" perks by cap'ing cv's that are nowhere near the enemy.
It would be nice as well that if the mission CO makes a flight of perk planes, he could have the option of paying for the perk rides of others.. at half perk cost.
In WW2OL It is good to join missions because it gives you access to the heavy tanks 'n stuff, which you wouldnt have access to unless you are in a backfield or uncontested ground. But the result is great, people flock to them. In AH the above system could allow Chairborne Rangers and Desktop Generals to work together for once ;)
-
Seems to me HTC has it pretty well figured out. The operative word in all those computations is KILLS. Doesnt matter if you live, dont live, or how much you fly (read: GET TO PLAY!) you're rewarded for KILLS. Again, its all about choices and decisions and everyone is free to make that call for themselves. WHAT they want to fly, HOW they want to fly(play), where they want to fly(play) and what is most important to them (ie. pts, perks, living, k/d, k/t, k/s, hit%, use buffs long range for Country, Defend against buff for country, and on and on it goes). The ways to enjoy this game sometimes seem almost endless sometimes and that is the beauty of it.
Deliver the Dweeb from surfdom! Power to the people! Humble masses UNITE!! Quake riding, uber plane flying, fuball loving dweebs throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression! Hail to HTC for our MagnaCarta!!! Long live the KING! DOWN with Elitist Fascism!!! :D
-
Tac, it isn't about perks. I think he is talking about points, I.E. rank.
Mandoble, it all really does balance out in the end, as far as I can see. You are not ranked on any particular category, but on the SUM of all of them. So for instance, someone who prefers 'patrol' style missions and is a good shot will probably have a good K/D, a good accuracy rating, decent points (he doesn't manage a ton of kills, but he gets all his points because he lands them- tying in with the K/D) and a low K/T (now known as Kills/Hour).
Someone who really really likes furballing will have a lower K/D, probably a lower accuracy (less time to set up the shot, more snapshots), a good K/T, and decent points (gets a lot of kills, but he dies/bails/gets captured a lot).
Furthermore, it isn't even based on how you stack up against one person overall- it is how you stack up against EVERYONE overall. I'm sure you know this, but I'll rehash my understanding of it. Every category is 'ranked'. To get your overall rank, you take all the categorys and add them together. The person with the lower overall total has a better rank.
For instance, me and you.
I'm ranked 11th overall in fighters.
I have a K/D of 5.6066 (which is outstanding in my opinion :)) I have a better K/D than every one but 27 guys, which is why I'm ranked 28th overall in that category.
I have a K/S of 2.7581, which is also pretty good. I'm ranked 30th in that category.
Those are my high points lol.
My K/T is 7.56 kills per hour. That means it takes me about 8 minutes of flying per kill. That isn't to bad for me, since I do a lot of 'patrolling' as you'd call it. I take off from rear bases to come in with alt, I try to land all my sorties. But once I'm in a fight, I'm in a fight- I usually get the kills pretty fast once I get in there. That averages out to a fairly reasonable 168th place.
My hit % is decent, I've done better and I've done worse. Right now it is 11.53%, good enough to land me 130th place overall.
My 'points total' is 15949.1245, good enough for 145th place. I've got some good time in this month, which is why my points are comparatively high.
My 'Total' (used for my overall fighter rank) is 501. That 'total' is good enough to get me 11th place overall in fighters.
Now take Mathman. He just said he likes to furball and doesn't worry so much about landing, so I'll use him to compare with me.
Before I do this, I'll make some guesses. He probably has a higher K/T than me, but a lower K/D and K/S. This is because he can kill things faster in a furball, but I can usually get more kills because I pick my fights. I can't make any guesses about his hit %, but I'd imagine it is pretty good.
Mathman- Don't take offense to this PLEASE PLEASE! Lol.
Maths K/D is a very respectable 3.2902. This is a very good K/D for someone that doesn't mind fighting when the odds are against him. As you can see, he is ranked 101 in that category.
His K/S is 2.6731, again leading one to believe that he doesn't have many bad sorties :). He is ranked 34th in that category, so my guess on that was wrong.
His K/T is 11.16 kills per hour. That means it takes him just under five and a half minutes to get a kill. He is ranked 25th in that category, so you can see that is an outstanding rating.
His hit % is 12.3%, better than mine. This leads me to believe I am a horrible shot, if he is getting more hits in a furball than I am getting by bouncing stupid people :). He is ranked 103 in that category, so even 12.3% isn't an 'awesome' rating, ( I checked some other guys stats, he was rated like 25th with a 15% hit percentage, so it is a fairly large jump within a fairly small percentage). This would be one excellent way to increase your fighter score if you have a relatively low K/T.
His points are higher than mine as well, at 26827.1506. This is enough to earn him a very respectable 36th place overall in that category.
So, adding up the points totals.
Me: 28+30+169+130+145=502.
Mathman: 101+34+25+103+36= 299.
Therefore, he has a higher overall ranking than me. Furthermore, that means there are 8 people with totals falling somewhere in between me and him. Perhaps this is a bad overall example since he spanked me so bad (:)), but you can see here that the key isn't to do awesome in any particular category (although that helps)- it is to do good in all of them. You can see from my example that me strong points this tour are K/D and K/S, while everything else is pretty average. Math's strong points are K/S, K/T, and points, while his other two categorys are fairly average. If I was a really good shot (say I was ranked 25th in hit %), I could overcome my comparitively low K/T and probably be ranked either 3rd or 4th, right near him.
My advice is just fly the way you've always flown and are comfortable with. You can have one stat that isn't stellar, and if the rest of them are just awesome than you will be ranked very high. Conversely, you can have one superb stat (say K/T), but if you die more than you kill and can't hit the broad side of the proverbial barn, your fighter rank will show that.
-
rank? whazzat?
-
Well, none of you are understanding exactly what I mean.
Some EXCELENT and well known pilots and friends of mine are usually involved in long CAPs looking for buffs or hi cons (the real danger for any country). This is a more than respectable service for rookland but it is really risky bussiness. Fighting buffs usually ends in dissaster or engine damage, so, killing more than two hi buffs in a single sortie and surviving is almost a record. Using a lot of time in the CAPs and then RTB, rearrm and CAP again.
These pilots are awarded with K/Ts as low as 2 kills per hour and, of course, they are well above ranking 100.
While they are doing an excelent service they are getting less perks and much worse score (mainly cause K/T penalty) than any furballing spit.
The fact is that actual rules punish that kind of missions.
-
Probably I'm the least qualified to make a point in this thread, as I don't care at all about score. I do (moderately) on the perk system, for this really affects gameplay, plane usage, and, ultimately, my fun online. With regards to Buff hunting and BARCAP missions, I don't think anything can be done until perk system undergoes some changes.
I could care less, anyway.
Buff hunting is, from my point of view, the least rewarding (*PERK POINT WISE*) job. The reasons are:
- Buffs have the most powerful (both in terms of lethality and stability as gun platform) gun set in the game. This means low probability of returning alive.
- Lone Buffs are scarce and not so easy to find, so LONG flight time. OTOH, Buff formations are *VERY* difficult to attack, and very hard to find these days. once saw a 20+ buff formation over rookland, remember that NDISLES Knit mission?>
- It's really exceptional to find buffs under 15k, being average alt about 20k. Definitely a lot more over 25k (sheesh!) than under 15k. This situation force the buff hunter to use low ENY planes, if he wants to have a slight chance.
- There is not a single weapon useful (not even Hispanos) until well inside Buff guns' range.
Having said that, I'm finding myself spending more and more time on Buff hunting task. Taters are hard to aim, but they do cause a lot of damage :)
Basically, I think current settings cause Buffing to require zero skills and a lot of time/patience. Instead, Buff hunting require a lot of skill, basically the same amount of time/patience, and very limited appreciation for points. Of course these are my personal appreciations from my experience so far.
I'm starting to love the job. :D
On the specific K/T statistic, hehehehe, I don't care. Same with the rest of the score magnitudes. :)
Regards,
-
if (K/T > 10)
for(i=0,100,i++) _fillmessagebufferwith("VULCHER !!!");
;)
-
LOL Pepe, I was thinking you were talking about whale hunting.
But I agree, hunting buffs should be much more profitable in perks for any plane, not only 109E.
-
why not reward getting into the fight? We do not need anymore stats that encourage timid flying in the arena. We do not need 400 people all hiding from each other.
lazs
-
So now anti-buff patrols is "timid flying" ...
-
Yes, I still dont understand why killing buffs gives so low perks.
I shot a B17 in a spit 1 (pilot was in scope thank gawd) and 1 other fighter on a sortie, landed, and only got 8 perks.
I mean..cmon. A b17.. vs a spit 1... that in itself shouldve been like 15 perks. :)
-
Tac,
B17 vs. Spit I, Spit I wins, that's a 262 quarter in my book ;)
Cheers,
Pepe
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
While they are doing an excelent service they are getting less perks and much worse score (mainly cause K/T penalty) than any furballing spit.
So? The real measure of success shouldn't be their rank, but whether or not they're having fun doing what they do. If the answer is yes, then why care about rank? If the answer is no, then why are they wasting time hunting buffs when they could be doing something else?
Rank is overrated in any event. If these guys become known as buff killers extraordinaire in the game, then they've developed positive reputations that outlast any kind of ranking.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Personally I don't think time should figure in anywhere. Who is the better pilot. One who jumps up gets 4 kills in furball near his AF, loses a wingtip and augers in 5 mins or one who flys his plane the way it should be flown gets 3 kills over 45 mins and lands his kills w/o damage? In the long run (ranking) will say the quaker is better.
Landing / living should be VERY important. It would completely change the face of the game too.
Multipliers:
Land = 2.0
Ditch = 0.2
Bail = 0.1
Die = 0.0
Doing it like this would change most peoples outlook. I'd like to see this AND add progression to landings ie:
1st Landing = 2.0
2nd " " = 2.2
3rd " " = 2.4
etc... That way you have even more incentive for flying right and landing your kills.
JMHO and $0.02
-
Originally posted by BNM
Personally I don't think time should figure in anywhere. Who is the better pilot. One who jumps up gets 4 kills in furball near his AF, loses a wingtip and augers in 5 mins or one who flys his plane the way it should be flown gets 3 kills over 45 mins and lands his kills w/o damage? In the long run (ranking) will say the quaker is better.
Your problem is thinking that there is a way that a plane "should be flown" in AH. This is an air combat sim with WWII airplanes. It is not a WWII simulation. The game rewards all different types of flying by making tradeoffs with one score or another. If furballers have a higher K/T, conservative pilots almost certainly posess higher scores.
I challenge you to find me some "furball" players who consistently achieve four kills in five minutes. You're not going to be able to... not in K/T, not in K/D, not in anything.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
This sure looks like another thread based on the premise: "Nobody appreciates what a hot pilot I am so the scoring system should be changed to give me a higher rank."
HTC can you please change the scoring system so that everybody is ranked #1. I think your insensitivity is really harming the self-esteem of some people.
Hooligan
PS the scoring system really needs to weight sarcasm more highly!
-
I don't have a problem Levi. It was just an opinion. No need to be amazinhunk about it. Personally, I don't care much about points I'm just all for better gameplay and extending the life of AH. I thought these boards were here for folks to voice their opinions, I bow to the AH Gods Leviathn and Hooligan.
-
No need to take offense man. They were merely pointing out (albeit bluntly) that the way YOU think people should fly (carefully, and always try to RTB) isn't the way EVERYONE thinks people should fly.
In my opinion, the ranking system is fine the way it is. If you are a successful pilot (and somewhat careful) you WILL be ranked up there with people that care only for furballing and nothing else.
I AM a careful pilot. I'll break off combat to try to make it back to base if I run low on fuel. I'll haul bellybutton if the odds are stacked against me (assuming the plane I am in is fast enough to haul ass). Leviathn flies a really slow plane (SpitV), he CAN'T run away from a fight. Therefore he fights, and he is very very good at it. I think his K/D is lower than mine (didn't check it, so I can't be sure), our K/S is probably pretty similar. His K/T will be much higher than mine. Which way is the 'right' way to fly? He enjoys flying his SpitV just as much as I enjoy flying a 109 or 190- so why penalize him and people like him because their plane is to slow to be able to run away from a fight to RTB?
It all balances out in the end. Leviathns strong points (for rank) will be K/T, K/S, and accuracy. My strong points will be K/D and K/S. If I score better than him in accuracy, we'll be ranked close together. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have as good a K/D as me, nor does it matter that I've got a pitiful K/T compared to him. We are equally strong in our areas of 'expertise'- and that is what matters.
-
I understand what you are saying Urchin. Your numbers show you are an experienced pilot who knows how to fly.
When the God said:"Your problem is thinking that there is a way that a plane "should be flown" in AH."
I took offense. Go figure. :) Of course there are different ways different planes 'should be' flown. Spits, zekes are good turnfighters that could be used to b-n-z. The 190a8, f4u, etc.. are not good for turnfighting but better at b-n-z.
Ok lets say you take off in a Spit9 from AF and hit furball, get 3 kills and auger in 5 mins. You do this 9 times in 45 mins and get a total of 27 kills in 45 mins.
Ok I take off in F4 bounce around awhile and get 3 kills and auger in 45 mins.
Who will be higher ranked? See what I'm saying? The Spit9 was flown like it should be and the F4 was flown like it should be but the Spitty pilot will rank higher. Even though we both got 3 kills in one sortie flying our planes the "right" way.
Let me once again say, this is just my opinion. I don't care about points. Thanks for intelligent post Urchin.
-
Your example is a little flawed, in my opinion.
In your example, the Spitfire would of course be ranked higher. But that is because he fought more often, leading to more kills and pretty much a higher everything (except possibly accuracy). But, for a Spitfire pilot to get 27 kills in 45 minutes, he would have to be extraordinarily skilled. That extraordinary skill is what would give him the high rank, not the fact that he flew the Spitfire as it should be flown.
I think for your example to be a bit more fair for the hapless F4U, you'd have to add some details. For instance, in order for the Spitfire to be able to get 3 kills in 5 minutes on every sortie, there would have to be some intense action going on (and very close to his field). It is very likely that he would have numerous sorties in which he accomplished nothing more than a quick death. And remember, the equation is actually K/D+1- so if a spitfire gets 2 kills and dies, his K/D is 1.
Even in your example, the F4U would have a higher K/D (at 3.00) than the Spitfire. The Spitfire would have a K/D of 2.7. If the Spitfire pilot had ANY sorties in which he failed to score a kill, his K/D would suffer even more- and it is very likely that he would die without scoring on at least some sorties.
Basically, every 'style' of flying has inherent advantages and disadvantages. This balance is included in our scoring system.
-
So in your opinion Urchin you don't think surviving should be worth more 'rank wise' than it is? Do you also think scoring as I outlined where consecutive landings would increase your multiplier would not be a good incentive for better gameplay? Just curious and before I getted jumped on by the HTC knows best crowd just let me say I think HTC is a great company and I have every respect for the way the game is done from every angle and I enjoy it a lot. This is just a 'discussion' board and I'm just throwing out some ideas. I think HTC is great, HT is my hero. :D
-
? Do you also think scoring as I outlined where consecutive landings would increase your multiplier would not be a good incentive for better gameplay?
Better gameplay for whom? The P-51 pilot or the guy chasing him?
AKDejaVu
-
No, I think the scoring system is fine as it is. Increasing the 'weight' of surviving (by making it worth a lot more points than dying) would basically penalize people that fly slow planes.
One thing I *would* like to see as far as points go- I think early war planes should get more points for a kill than a late war plane. Right now getting a kill in a C202 is worth the same as getting a kill in a La7, even though it is much easier to get kills in the La7. Even this isn't critical, just something I'd like to see. And don't get me wrong either, the primary reason I'd like to see it is because I like to fly early war planes, I won't hesistate to admit that.
-
I agree on the La7 thing. I guess I never really looked that close on the 'points' for early vs late war planes but I just figured that was the way it was done.
I didn't mean to come off as anything here is critical. I'm just passing time at work. :D I don't really agree that: "Increasing the 'weight' of surviving (by making it worth a lot more points than dying) would basically penalize people that fly slow planes."
It's your choice to fly a slow plane. When I choose a slow plane I expect to land my kills just like when I choose a fast plane. You may have to save some ammo to rtb and fly defensively to get home but that is all part of "flying a plane the way it should be flown". :)
-
DejaVu: "Better gameplay for whom? The P-51 pilot or the guy chasing him?"
The guy who lands his kills. Doesn't matter what plane or where. Just that you return home.
-
The guy who lands his kills. Doesn't matter what plane or where. Just that you return home.
No... it will matter that you can get a kill then run as fast as you can to get home. Not everyone will have that option in an environment where the person you just killed will definately be back looking for you.
The push should be toward engaging other aircraft... not running from them.
And landing your kills wasn't the all important mission. Actually having a mission that you had to do was. Surving it was the battle. Right now there is no requirement for someone to engage... no need... no mission. Anything to encourage engagements is a good thing. Making surviving the sortie the all important statistic is not encouraging much other than getting the hell out of dodge on a regular basis.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by BNM
I don't have a problem Levi. It was just an opinion.
[/B]
It's an opinion that's been voiced time and again in here, and HiTech himself has refuted it in other threads. If you either greatly increase the rewards for flying to live, or if you greatly penalize not flying to live, you create a game where everyone flies to live, and nobody fights. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the fact is that this does not improve gameplay. Not for most of the people playing AH anyway.
No need to be amazinhunk about it.
[/B]
I wasn't, but I can be if you'd like. When I see the common hyperbole describing furballers (e.g. four kills in five minutes), it raises a roadkill flag for me.
Personally, I don't care much about points I'm just all for better gameplay and extending the life of AH. I thought these boards were here for folks to voice their opinions, I bow to the AH Gods Leviathn and Hooligan.
You still haven't described effectively how the changes you suggest will either improve gameplay or extend the life of AH. At the most basic level, the point of flying fighters in AH is to fight and not just to live. To that end, the game does an awful lot to encourage fighting while neither rewarding nor punishing particular flying styles.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Score??
Someone's keeping score??
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Well, none of you are understanding exactly what I mean.
Some EXCELENT and well known pilots and friends of mine are usually involved in long CAPs looking for buffs or hi cons (the real danger for any country). This is a more than respectable service for rookland but it is really risky bussiness. Fighting buffs usually ends in dissaster or engine damage, so, killing more than two hi buffs in a single sortie and surviving is almost a record. Using a lot of time in the CAPs and then RTB, rearrm and CAP again.
These pilots are awarded with K/Ts as low as 2 kills per hour and, of course, they are well above ranking 100.
While they are doing an excelent service they are getting less perks and much worse score (mainly cause K/T penalty) than any furballing spit.
The fact is that actual rules punish that kind of missions.
The kicker to this whole convesation is that, in another thread, the bomber pilots are campaigning to turn off the "base under attack" alerts and flashing icons so that they can run surprise attacks on undefended bases.
But if I read this thread correctly, the guys that actually patrol to intercept the bombers aren't getting the points that the dogfighters are getting, and want to know where's the reward for intercepting bombers?
Seems to me its a pretty fair balance as it is. Pilots that dogfight down low can't intercept high-flying bombers, and so the bombers can go in unmolested. Likewise, pilots that fly up high to get the bombers have fewer targets to shoot at. Its a trade-off.
And then there's Urchin's arithmetic. I like his example.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
One thing I *would* like to see as far as points go- I think early war planes should get more points for a kill than a late war plane. Right now getting a kill in a C202 is worth the same as getting a kill in a La7, even though it is much easier to get kills in the La7. Even this isn't critical, just something I'd like to see. And don't get me wrong either, the primary reason I'd like to see it is because I like to fly early war planes, I won't hesistate to admit that.
Hear! Hear! And bring in the P-40, too! The AVG flew'em, John Wayne featured'em, and I wanna fly'em! :D