Author Topic: New GV dar  (Read 45931 times)

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: New GV dar
« Reply #240 on: December 02, 2017, 07:24:32 PM »
Could always place a three mile circle centered on the airfeild, port, GVbase and in the upper left 45 degree have the red GVDAR darbar start growing just like we get red darbars for a sector as a plane enters the sector. Or a 3 mile square since most GV combat takes place in that size of an area. Everyone knows where the spawns are and you don't get a red neon block saying here I am inside this 2mile cube. And allow players to toggle that circle\square but, keep the GVDAR bar regardless of the toggle state.

bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: realism
« Reply #241 on: December 02, 2017, 07:34:06 PM »
You are not addressing what Hitech is trying to solve as much as you are hiding behind something to voice your emotional opinion. Tanks up until AH3 with the GVDAR and new trees,  were not invisible and died as realistically as tanks in WW2 when hunted by planes. With AH3 and the sudden invisibility, GV's unrealistically started dictating outcomes at feilds out of proportion to how they had ever been able to. Once a person is given by accident that much control over the outcomes in a game, they will do anything to vilify the rest of the community and the owners of the game when efforts are made to adjust that imbalance.

You can't demand realism for a WW2 reason while picking and choosing which klingon cloaking device can't be touched.   
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline redcatcherb412

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 610
Re: realism
« Reply #242 on: December 02, 2017, 07:51:06 PM »
Call it simulated forward observers
Maybe a good idea to add to town defense ...
Recalling 3 man jungle listening posts 300 meters off the perimeter. Nothing more stressing as every sound is heightened and sounds like a hundred enemy sneaking around and the starlight scope was useless under the canopy. You couldn't wait till you turned it over to your squaddie and tried to shut off the sounds in your brain.   Then .......... have 3 freaking elephants haul butt down the trail triggering every trip flare all but giving you a heart attack.  :rofl  You think tanks are loud ? 

Maybe HT could put LP positions outside of towns with anti-tank weapons almost like a soft gun position.
Ground Pounders ...

Offline WEZEL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 815
Re: realism
« Reply #243 on: December 02, 2017, 08:36:17 PM »
Wish I could save ya Kavo.

Offline CAV

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 696
Re: realism
« Reply #244 on: December 02, 2017, 10:00:52 PM »

Quote
As this is a GAME that really doesnt have anything to do with "realism" I think your a bit off point.

I think your a bit off point....

Quote
Aces High is a massive multi-player online combat simulation centered around the World War II air-war

Hitech's words..... right off the AH Web page. If this is a simulation then it has every thing to do with REALISM. Hitech needs to makeup  his mind on this... be a Sim or be game. If it is a sim he has work to do.... if it is a game he has already lost to War Thunder.

"THE BATTLE BETWEEN DARKNESS AND LIGHT" Scenario - RAF 23 Squadron

Offline Delirium

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7276
Re: realism
« Reply #245 on: December 02, 2017, 10:04:21 PM »
Funny, I see the same old thread about new subjects that get the players threatening to quit, like petulant children. This reminds me of the obnoxious fuel debate that occurred some years ago.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Delirium
80th "Headhunters"
Retired AH Trainer (but still teach the P38 selectively)

I found an air leak in my inflatable sheep and plugged the hole! Honest!

Offline Copprhed

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: realism
« Reply #246 on: December 02, 2017, 11:26:01 PM »
You just want more sheep.....Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Flight Leader: "Bogeys at 2 o'clock!"
Wingman: "Roger, It's 1:30 now, what do I do 'til then?"

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: realism
« Reply #247 on: December 03, 2017, 12:07:19 AM »
GV realism  :rolleyes:... hmm lets see.

If you want realism for GVs, start by wishing for supplies to stop fixing tanks, and for remote spawn points to be removed. Real tanks were not fixed or rearmed instantly, and it took days to get anywhere... on roads!

Then we can start the wishes to cancel the firing of the main gun from the commander position and the showing of plane radar dots on your clipboard.

Shall I go on?
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline 1stpar3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: realism
« Reply #248 on: December 03, 2017, 01:16:37 AM »
Maybe a good idea to add to town defense ...
Recalling 3 man jungle listening posts 300 meters off the perimeter. Nothing more stressing as every sound is heightened and sounds like a hundred enemy sneaking around and the starlight scope was useless under the canopy. You couldn't wait till you turned it over to your squaddie and tried to shut off the sounds in your brain.   Then .......... have 3 freaking elephants haul butt down the trail triggering every trip flare all but giving you a heart attack.  :rofl  You think tanks are loud ? 

Maybe HT could put LP positions outside of towns with anti-tank weapons almost like a soft gun position.
Thats a pretty good idea! As of now, the 17pndr guns are useless because of where they placed...well for most players its an issue.   For the record...I am not adverse to doing a way with Vehicle dar and Icons... IF like in WW2 tanking was just as much an team sport as having a wing man in the air game play. Unless they were in DIRECT contact with enemy, they were all using existing road and such. Might even foster a more cooperation aspect to tanking? I think that predominately no one would mind losing GV icons for this change? Would be a definite plus in MHO
"Life is short,break the rules,forgive quickly,kiss slowly,love truly,laugh uncontrollably,and never regret anything that made you smile."  “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”- Mark Twain

Offline JunkyII

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8428
Re: realism
« Reply #249 on: December 03, 2017, 01:46:06 AM »
I don't agree with the GV radar but using WW2 as an example for any argument other then what should be in a historic setup is not viable.


It's all about game play....does this change effect a players in game experience in a positive way or negative way.
DFC Member
Proud Member of Pigs on the Wing
"Yikes"

Offline Dundee

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
Re: realism
« Reply #250 on: December 03, 2017, 01:52:28 AM »
You just want more sheep.....Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!

If you can keep a secret ......the sheep are out......for good, but don't be sad the Unicorns and rainbows in the game will put a smile on your face  :devil
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 01:59:42 AM by Dundee »

Offline Crash Orange

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 911
Re: realism
« Reply #251 on: December 03, 2017, 02:25:04 AM »

Then we can start the wishes to cancel the firing of the main gun from the commander position

I agree with everything else you said but Firing the gun from the commander position is more realistic than not being able to. The real tanks had 4- or 5-man crews that we don't have. It's the same reason guns are slaved in bombers. Before Hitech introduced WASD driving we used to have one guy having to scramble back and forth between the driver, gunner, and commander positions and it was terrible.

As far as the larger realism argument, without thousands of pairs of eyes on the ground the ground game is going to be unrealistic no matter what you do. Having GV dar is less unrealistic than having tanks driving around the battlefield without a single infantryman within 100 miles. And spawn points are more unrealistic than anything else in the game, but they make the game better as a game so we are happy to keep them.

If we really want to be realistic T-34s should require you to smack your joystick with a mallet to get them in gear and Tiger IIs should bog or break down half the time before getting anywhere near the enemy.

Offline zack1234

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13213
Re: realism
« Reply #252 on: December 03, 2017, 03:07:54 AM »
The main reason i stopped using gvs was when they stopped you taking gunners in gvs
There are no pies stored in this plane overnight

                          
The GFC
Pipz lived in the Wilderness near Ontario

Offline kavo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: New GV dar
« Reply #253 on: December 03, 2017, 03:29:52 PM »
it seems that my post has joined others and stirred up plenty of opinions. all of which are very valuable.  .......especially copprheds lack of sheep. Personally I agree that sheep need building into the game .If sheep do everget added,please don`t put a sheep dar in the game.    now back to my wormhole :bolt: :bolt:

Offline +Kilroy+

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 70
Re: New GV dar
« Reply #254 on: December 03, 2017, 11:21:07 PM »
Wow. 14 pages to read up on and I got to hand it to you guys, some of you gave me some really rich quotes and performances. I got me a new video, 44 minutes of this so called "gv dar" and you are all going to have to watch the whole dayam thing, just like I had to endure, if you intend to have yourself considered informed on the subject. After all, I could not have made it without many of you.

 During the course of the video, I get nowhere. I enter a field and immediately begin to withdraw from it. No shots fired, none taken, basically a waste of time - 44 minutes of it. I never flashed the field and only briefly flashed town. Nonetheless I was searched mercilessly and prevented from towering to continue my game elsewhere.

 Cybro was kind enough to make an appearance, by virtue of his FM2 ditched very close to the runway, we are able to see that during this entire video, the only tank, mine, never approached within 7k of that runway. By that measure the field would not flash, it did not flash, but that wasn't good enough for Wiley, who spent 25 of those 44 minutes glommed to the gv dar square, with me stuck watching his ineptitude. It took him two sorties to make the dawning conclusion that he might best affect the war elsewhere - and DartDig, what's up with that guy, almost 15 minutes in a storch over a field that isn't flashing smoking for tanks that do not advance. Storches should run out of gas after 15 minutes, this is absurd.

 I know you won't trouble yourself to watch the entire thing, it is so booooring. Wiley makes his appearance at 15:00 and stays until the end and never drops a bomb anywhere near my tank. 20:20 is a nice perspective segment and to give you an idea of the distances involved, the typical trip from spawn to field, or town, is somewhere around 6k and occasionally a little over. Cybro's distance of 12 to 14k indicates we are twice as far out, I am beyond spawn distance and Wiley has NO business searching me out there and HiTech has facilitated the moronosity. I overlayed two screen shots of the clipboard showing how far out I was when the tanks where searching me and then just Wiley. You can see in the end it is just he and I and when he got far enough away for me to get a green end I took it. When Cybro is not in the player list, it is because I am over 14k from him and the field.


You misunderstand.

You are threatening to quit if the GV dar is not removed. Therefore you would stay, but only if you can hide.

What I'm saying is, it does not matter if you're hiding or just gone.  Either way, you not participating in the fight.

The GV dar is a tool to bring back balance to the total combat system that was lost when the icons changed.

You don't like being hunted now? I say "Good." At least you're risking something now when you try to sneak a base or pork a strat.

You will want to demonstrate in this example how this balances the game. I went to a field and decided it was too heavily defended to press the attack. I am not hiding, I am not creeping, I am between 7k and 14k from the airfield and beyond, simply trying to get a green end sortie, which took 45 minutes to accomplish. In the video I drive for most of the duration, going to cover only for the bombers. It is not at all fair and balanced, that after withdrawing from an attack, I should have to wait 45 minutes and drive 10k, or suffer a proxy kill to someone that couldn't even take advantage of this fancy new "game balancing" gv dar. It is an insult to even begin to pretend this is a fair alternative to "airwars with human manned defenseless tanks to kill," because it is a far cry from a combat simulator.

The GV's are here to be food for attack planes.

Indeed. This is a typical sortie for me. I don't go to a field to hide, I go to attack and often end up getting driven to cover. I've had the freaking storches follow me all the way across sectors back to friendly fields. It is moronic, purposeless and this gv dar encourages the behavior.