Porking. Needs to be changed.

[Meatwad]

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

[FLS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEberOX33_Y

First blast is reportedly equivalent to 7 tons TNT, second is 21 tons.

[JunkyII]

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.

[FLS]

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.

[Changeup]

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

[JunkyII]

Instead of the game changing how about you just shoot the strafers down?  Does that require too much skill and determination? 

So your just trolling a thread here? FLS...stop being an ass.

[FLS]

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.

[JunkyII]

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.

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

[doright]

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?   

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.

[FLS]

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.

[FLS]

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?

[doright]

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.

[bustr]

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.

[Masherbrum]

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.

 

[GhostCDB]

The first page of this thread was pretty interesting but I can't bring myself to read anymore.

 


- - 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.