Author Topic: new AVA rules of engagement  (Read 4421 times)

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14388
      • JG54 website
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2008, 10:53:07 AM »
Raptor, there will be objectives. Kill other planes, destroy strats, kill hangers. those are the objectives or some of them anyway.

based on those objectives would you be willing to limit Ho'ing, vulching  to near zero?? is killing planes and a good fight your thing, or do you prefer base capture. they're trying to change the AVA. I want to know if people would be willing to abide by a set of rules of engagement to make it fun for everyone, not just a few!!

Venom, im trying to get these rules back in place and make people aware of it! would you enjoy it better if you didnt expect to get ho'ed or vulched... 99% of the time?

Offline raptor33

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2008, 11:03:10 AM »
Raptor, there will be objectives. Kill other planes, destroy strats, kill hangers. those are the objectives or some of them anyway.

based on those objectives would you be willing to limit Ho'ing, vulching  to near zero?? is killing planes and a good fight your thing, or do you prefer base capture. they're trying to change the AVA. I want to know if people would be willing to abide by a set of rules of engagement to make it fun for everyone, not just a few!!

Venom, im trying to get these rules back in place and make people aware of it! would you enjoy it better if you didnt expect to get ho'ed or vulched... 99% of the time?

I am not sure how to answer without knowing exactly how the set up will be.....maybe it is best put this way.....if my mission requires me to vulch, I will do it. For example, if I have some Stukas on their way in to take out some hangars, and there is opposition rolling the runway...what should I do? Allow them to get alt? Let me give you a scenario.....we are taking out hangars at field A.....we must fly the stukas for 20 minutes from field B....with the escorts. As we approach, the opposition sees us on dar so they roll field A. They could have rolled field C to avoid a vulch, but that would have taken them 15 minutes...so they roll field A...I dont vulch them as it is frowned upon.....they get their alt and take out my stukas who have just wasted 20 minutes flying there without releasing a single egg....and all becuase I was not allowed to vulch them. Like I said, they cou;d have opted to up from field C but did not want to waste the time to fly for 15 minutes....so instead, my squaddies wated THEIR 20 minutes.
Furthermore.....what is the "fine line" of vulching to not vulching. Is gear up the line? 1000 feet altitude? Co-alt?
I trust you see my concern?
I am not trying to be difficult or adversarial....just showing you it is more complicated than it appears...I am open to anyone that can offer a better plan to make all happy.....

Raptor
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 11:06:13 AM by raptor33 »

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14388
      • JG54 website
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2008, 11:11:12 AM »
ok lets change the direction a bit. first im not sure of all the particulars but i do know, there will be NO base taking.

now if a bunch of stuka's were upping for a mission and i came upon them, id nail them too. its not vulching, its a pre-emptive strike. hehehe.

all i want to know is, and this goes out to everyone, would you be willing to play by a set of rules and not break them, unless necessary. yes i know that necessary is a fine line.

assuming that its not necessary and that all you will be involved in is air to air combat, would you be willing to play by rules of engagement. yes or no?
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 11:17:30 AM by captain1ma »

Offline Wedge1126

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2008, 11:16:50 AM »
For that matter, what's a HO? 1, 5, 10, or 30 degrees off nose? Will the enemy stay still while I take out my protractor?
Can I never be shot at if I up a zero and always keep my nose pointed at them?

Remember, YOU chose to point your nose at me. If I shoot you in the face, it's your fault. That said, there are a number of rational reasons to not HO:

1. Enemy is P-47, Mossie, Lightning, Bf 110, or other large aircraft with lots of forward guns.
2. You're a puny little fighter like a zero or 109 and can't afford to take a hit.
3. It's a large gamble. You're very likely to take damage in return.

I think there are enough reasons to not HO without some sort of rule set. In fact, having a set of rules will likely lead to more accusations and more whining. Who will settle the disputes? Will we need a court?
Wedge

Offline raptor33

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2008, 11:17:23 AM »
ok lets change the direction a bit. first im not sure of all the particulars but i do know, there will be NO base taking.

now if a bunch of stuka's were upping for a mission and i came upon them, id nail them too. its not vulching, its a pre-emptive strike. hehehe.

all i want to know is, and this goes out to everyone, would you be willing to play by a set of rules and not break them, unless necessary. yes i know that necessary is a fine line.

assuming that its not necessary and that all you will be involved in is air to air combat, would you be willing to play by rules of engagement. yes or no?

My answer to that question is YES......as I said, I do not vulch unless it is necessary to the overall objective. As for the HO part.....I do not HO until I see tracer coming at me....but I personally usually try to make a move to avoid a co-alt pass.....unfortunately, it doesnt always work...
But, yes, unless necessary, I will never Vulch. Now....good luck defining "necessary"  :)

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14388
      • JG54 website
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2008, 11:24:53 AM »
My answer to that question is YES......as I said, I do not vulch unless it is necessary to the overall objective. As for the HO part.....I do not HO until I see tracer coming at me....but I personally usually try to make a move to avoid a co-alt pass.....unfortunately, it doesnt always work...
But, yes, unless necessary, I will never Vulch. Now....good luck defining "necessary"  :)

thanks man, We'll work on defining necessary after i get more people to offer to comply to rules of engagement first. one step at a time.

Offline raptor33

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2008, 11:26:11 AM »
thanks man, We'll work on defining necessary after i get more people to offer to comply to rules of engagement first. one step at a time.
Any help you need. let me know.
Rap

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14388
      • JG54 website
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2008, 11:29:28 AM »
For that matter, what's a HO? 1, 5, 10, or 30 degrees off nose? Will the enemy stay still while I take out my protractor?
Can I never be shot at if I up a zero and always keep my nose pointed at them?

Remember, YOU chose to point your nose at me. If I shoot you in the face, it's your fault. That said, there are a number of rational reasons to not HO:

1. Enemy is P-47, Mossie, Lightning, Bf 110, or other large aircraft with lots of forward guns.
2. You're a puny little fighter like a zero or 109 and can't afford to take a hit.
3. It's a large gamble. You're very likely to take damage in return.

I think there are enough reasons to not HO without some sort of rule set. In fact, having a set of rules will likely lead to more accusations and more whining. Who will settle the disputes? Will we need a court?

Wedge, would you be willing to comply with a set of rules that said you cant HO on the first pass?? im not saying you cant defend yourself. if both parties dont HO on the first pass, you atleast have a good shot to get behind him.

as for enforcement, we will work on that too. right now im just trying to get people to say, yes or no, they would comply with rules of engagement if they were in place.

so my question to you is, yes or no?

Offline Wedge1126

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2008, 11:33:03 AM »
I'm not opposed to following rules of engagement. I'm just saying that actual rules will need to be written carefully, and even then, will be abused by people. I don't mean someone occasionally breaking a rule. I mean people accusing others of constantly breaking the rules with no way of proving it.

Anyways, if a set of rules are agreed to, I will comply.
Wedge

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14388
      • JG54 website
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2008, 11:39:53 AM »
i understand all of your concerns, right now i just want to know if you would be willing to comply if everyone else did!

thanks wedge, thats 2, only 500 more to go hehehe

Offline a4944

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 287
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2008, 12:37:53 PM »
Yes, I would abide by them.  No, I am not for the rules.  I think rules that can't be enforced and are open to interpretation are not worth having.  200 has been very civil lately even with the HOing and vulching.  I believe bickering over rules will lead to some very bad feelings and an ugly 200 and forum.

Now, if you could get a kill shooter option for a nose to nose shot against an enemy con or against a con on the runsway ....  problem solved.  :aok

Venom

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Lets talk practicality AND reality
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2008, 01:01:27 PM »
Aces High II was designed by an Air Warrior. Have you ever played Air Warrior? AWII/III was coded to give the player roughly a fifteen degree "cone of reduced lethality" from incoming fire on the nose. That meant all incoming on their forward arc (cone) up to a fifteen degree deflection had it's lethality reduced by over ninety percent. Why was that modeled? Ho whines. Not history. Not practicality. Not inability to code otherwise. Not unplayability of the game without it. Ho whines - plain and simple.

Why didn't HT model it? Well, I suppose you'd have to ask him the specifics but it seems rather obvious he never thought it was needed. HT likes as realistic and practical model as possible. Shooting your opponent from whatever angle with your opponent facing whatever angle just happens to be that. Has HT tweaked the game to modify player social interaction at all? *cough*ENI*cough* But then, that's not the flight model, the aircraft stats or anything ... it's a capacity-driven arena balancing tool.

So .... even though the owner and designer of the game (and his staffed `grammers) has knowledge of and the ability to code the magical nosecone of reduced lethality he doesn't appear to have HO issues. Neither does the vast majority of the player base. That leaves it a "deal with it" issue. "Deal with it" could entail sucking it up when it happens and not whining about it or starting a campaign to enforce your personal ethics and standards regarding programmed elements of the game on the rest of the community - in part or as a whole.

It can also involve learning how to effectively reduce the odds of your own suffering, tactically speaking, whether it involves HOing, vulching, other guy cheating through altitude grabbing, suicide bombing, ack-running, anything any player (new or not) has whined from the beginning of time when they were defeated "unfairly" in this game of more than just air dueling. Don't like getting HOed? Don't like getting vulched? Don't like getting cherry-picked? Don't like odds greater than 1:1 ... 2:1 .... 3:1? Learn to avoid it all. Yes, West Virginia .... there is a San .. errr ... there is a way. It's called SA.

HO avoidance: Heh. What can be said? You turned to face the enemy or he turned to face you ... or both. How did you get there? Are you in a low e-state? Did you see this coming? DO you see this coming? *blam* Did you see that coming? How's your rudders, mate? I bet if you had more e and didn't set yourself up in a position to get vulched or HOed so easily neither would happen as frequently. OR you can petition the rest of the community not to do it to you anymore. How about a barrel roll (if you have the e)? How about upping from a less likely spot to encounter something you're too low and slow to avoid as easily as you could if you had your ship at it's optimum corner speed?

Vulch avoidance: Same as above, really. Are you defending a base from capture? Are you outnumbered? Do you really expect to be allowed up and up to speed even at treetop level unmolested? Do you always plan on the generosity or chivalry of your opponent to dictate your fun, much less odds of success? I wouldn't recommend it. If you're gonna tilt at windmills best learn to enjoy doing it and not complain. Or at least stop it with the 459th version of the chivalry campaign. Everyone has a bad day/night/week .... doesn't always mean their personal misery requires the rest of the community to modify their behavior to become the cure.

Ack running: Ask yourself ... why is ack even modeled? "Oh, I dunno Arlo .... to give the Ack-lieds (or Ack-sis) a place to run back to?" Close but no cigar. It certainly wasn't modeled to make that an impossibility, though. Ack is a defense. Yeah, you know this. It makes it harder to go in and bomb a base to smithereens or sink a fleet without at least something in your way. What's this got to do with "Ack-running?" Since when does the existance of something on the map .... be it an ack battery .... a windmill ... whatever .... supposed to dictate where a player flies and fights in either an offensive or defensive role? If there was no ack at all, players would be thumping their chests and looking for a way to berate and embarrass other players for having denied them a kill ... or an easier one (which I find mor-ironic from the standpoint that some of the same "ack runner!" whines eminate from players who also whine that they're not being presented enough of a challenge by their skilless opponents) ... no matter what the circumstances were. The player who dove back to ack went defensive. It doesn't matter if the player lost confidence when it came to facing your superior mad AHII skillz or was bingo or pilot wounded or what. Your choice, at that point, is to follow him in to finish him off or fly the periphery to see if he returns. Sounds too simple? Well, it is. Does this mean nobody will ever feel frustration? Now what type of challenging and fun game would this be if that never happened? (heh) But it isn't grounds for a class action whine-suit to be filed on the AvA staff or a pact enforced on the AvA community involving "proper behavior." As much as some try to paint the AvA to be "The Grande Chivalry Arena" ... I, personally, disagree and never saw that there but on an individual basis. Nor did I ever really require it to have fun.

Player .... mind thy own ethical standard. Feel free to set the example for it but c'mon ... if it's something that's not an issue for the game designer/owner ..... don't run me over with your bandwagon or try to shove the "bird of unethicalness" argument up my nose. I will not stand by the petition (once again). I will not enforce my or anyone else's personal standards (or lack of them, for that matter) on another player. If I was active staff again, I wouldn't enforce anything outside of AHII TOS.

:D

(Disclaimer: The above is merely the long-time, long-winded opinion of Arlo [low stat, skilless dweeb that he is] and does not necessarily reflect the actual views of Hitechcreations, HTC, HT, Skuzzy, Pyro or anything officially affiliated with Aces High II - aka AHII - nor the body of it's staff, paid or volunteer.)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 01:45:55 PM by Arlo »

Offline captain1ma

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14388
      • JG54 website
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2008, 01:19:49 PM »
again, arlo takes a perfectly good thread and screws it up.

Arlo, it's an easy question, YES or NO, period. please skip the mindless bs. just yes or no, pretty simple. i know 5th graders that can answer the question. thank you, come again!
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 01:24:03 PM by captain1ma »

Offline JagdTankker

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 306
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2008, 01:22:11 PM »
he does write a lot of books
<<---chasing the flock of Seagulls-aka JG/11

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: new AVA rules of engagement
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2008, 01:26:41 PM »
again, arlo takes a perfectly good thread and screws it up.

Arlo easy question, YES or NO, period. please skip the mindless bs. just yes or no, pretty simple. i know 5th graders that can answer the question. thank you, come again!

Well no then. Can you handle that with dryness and composure oh leader of the "behavior enforcement" band?

Ah .... offended you I have with more detail than you wanted, Jedi. Rained on your parade with "mindlessness", I did. Carry on. :D
« Last Edit: April 11, 2008, 01:28:47 PM by Arlo »