Separate landing safe spots for planes and GVs

[Karnak]

I would like to see it changed so that only aircraft can get a "You have landed successfully" message from ending a sortie on a runway, GVs doing so would get a "You have ditched" message.  GVs, in order to dissuade the practice of using a heavy tank sitting on the v base's concrete and towering out the moment a shell gets close or using an AA vehicle and towering out before the bombs land, should have to drive back into their hangar or to be further than something like 4500 yards from an enemy in order to get a "You have landed successfully" message.  Obviously aircraft should not be able to taxi into a VH and land successfully either.  The Storch would be the one exception, being able to use either landing spot.

[Tank-Ace]

Big HELL no. It would only further encourage defenders to up aircraft instead of using the hanger spawn for its intended purpose. If they lose their base, they have to drive upwards of an hour and a half just to land.

[Karnak]

Big HELL no. It would only further encourage defenders to up aircraft instead of using the hanger spawn for its intended purpose. If they lose their base, they have to drive upwards of an hour and a half just to land.

No, they would simply land in the remains of their hangar.


In case you hadn't noticed, the game is taking some massive tilts towards both the defender and favoring GVs.  Some push back is in order and the towering out while on concrete is a prime target.

[skorpion]

whats so bad about landing on the runway? your still on the base, so it really shouldnt matter.

-1

[Tank-Ace]

I'm confused, you're not being very clear.


so your requirments for landing would be:
1) GV's must be in the hanger of a friendly field to land

2) no enemies can be within 4500yds to land

3) if your base is captured while defending, you can land in the smoking ruins of the enemy's hanger

 


While I agree the defenders need to lose some of the advantage, I don't think we should make them drive longer than some people can be on line just to land.

To improve GV's offensive ability, we NEED (as of the most recent patch):

1) longer ranged AA. If an A/C wants you dead, then you're arse is grass, no ifs ands or buts about it.

2) an effective way for GV's to shut down the hangers without being within both within close proximity to the base and out in the open.

or 3) perk prices balanced to include the threat of air attack

[skorpion]

.nvm

[Karnak]

whats so bad about landing on the runway? your still on the base, so it really shouldnt matter.

-1

Because it allows the AA vehicle to sit there and shoot down airplanes and then tower out the moment bombs are heading for it.  It also allows very expensive and powerful perk tanks to be used essentially risk free while the attacker has to make due with much less capable cheap or free tanks.

In addition, aircraft have a narrowly defined space on which they can end their sortie successfully, being off in the grass does not work.  Ground vehicles are able to be maneuvered with much greater ease and precision, easily enabling them to enter a vehicle hangar, or the remains of a destroyed vehicle hangar, in order to end their sortie successfully.

The primary goal is to stop the safespot campers from having a safespot from which they can actually fight.

1) GV's must be in the hanger of a friendly field to land

They would be able to successfully end their sortie in that location regardless of how close any enemy is.

2) no enemies can be within 4500yds to land

I believe the rule right now is no enemy within 6000 yards.

3) if your base is captured while defending, you can land in the smoking ruins of the enemy's hanger

No, if your vehicle hangar is destroyed you can still use it to land regardless of how close an enemy is.  Landing successfully in enemy territory requires you, as now, to have a certain separation from any enemy, I am suggesting lowering it to 4500 yards.

1) longer ranged AA. If an A/C wants you dead, then you're arse is grass, no ifs ands or buts about it.

That is greatly or entirely remedied in the coming patch.

2) an effective way for GV's to shut down the hangers without being within both within close proximity to the base and out in the open.

Denying the defender the ability to fight from a spot on which they can successfully end their sortie would help.

3) perk prices balanced to include the threat of air attack

They already are balanced that way, and the threat of successful air attack is being greatly reduced.

[Tank-Ace]

OK, I see what you were saying. I though you meant that both of those requirments had to be met (that you both need to be in the hanger AND further than 4500yds from any enemys to land), not one or the other depending on circumstance.



As to the need for longer ranged AA...... we'll see. My bet is that they'll be harder to detect, but that GV's (especially perked GV's, like the Panther and Tiger II) will still be just as vulnerable once they're detected and marked (with the Storch's smoke).

Denying them the concrete camping-ground would help, but only to a limited degree. Panthers are imune to return fire to a large degree, and Tiger II's are completly imune. I am (or was, used to be?) one of the better GV'ers in the game, and I wouldn't be too keen on facing a panther even off the concrete. A Tiger II and I wouldn't even bother trying dislodge, since if hes determined to hold his ground, even a diciplined group would be hard pressed to make him move.

As for the perk price, it doesn't seem to be so. If it were adjusted well, we wouldn't be so afraid to take our Panthers and Tiger II's out of friendly territory.

[Karnak]

As for the perk price, it doesn't seem to be so. If it were adjusted well, we wouldn't be so afraid to take our Panthers and Tiger II's out of friendly territory.

I disagree.  I think that the fact the option to keep them on the concrete is distorting people's expectations.  They have K/D ratios similar to the Me262 and Tempest, and both of those get used and lost.  The biggest problem that needs a solution is that using them offensively is a do or die proposition as, unlike said Me262 or Tempest, they cannot currently withdraw.

[USAF2010]

+1

This kinda goes along with my thread about the Wirble and the ungodly amounts of fire they can put out nonstop. Im all for preventing that "oh i dont want to die, so i sit on concrete to tower before you can kill me" bs. Fight the good fight!

[Debrody]

Jager, Karnak isnt asking for GV offensive ability.
Hes asking for ending the cowardice.
Tiger2 sitting on the concrete and towering out when the first panzer4f round hits him shukes.
.

[Tilt]

I cannot fault the motivation for this.

I think it would be more preferential (not to say easier to implement) to just add a 30 sec delay on the "end flight" command for GV's.

Like wise I would like a 30 sec delay between the taking of vehicle supplies and the implementation of  repair.

[Karnak]

Proximity to a Storch should probably not count for a successful ending of a sortie.

[waystin2]

The idea bears some mulling over, but my thought is to see what the upcoming update does to what is now primarily defensive GV gameplay.  Most GV'ers won't roll off of their own concrete to fight, let alone roll to an enemy field to attack.  

[kvuo75]

The idea bears some mulling over, but my thought is to see what the upcoming update does to what is now primarily defensive GV gameplay.  Most GV'ers won't roll off of their own concrete to fight, let alone roll to an enemy field to attack.  

most friendly gv's I see are off headed to the spawn, to camp.


I am one of the only ones who sits back at the base usually.