Author Topic: Who wants  (Read 646 times)

Offline Tumor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4272
      • Wait For It
Who wants
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2002, 12:08:17 AM »
I don't care about night

Killshooter is necessary.  Otherwise you have limpdick lowlifes giggling about shooting up thier contrymen.  I can just imagin the doofus look on some geeks face after he figures out why shooting his own mates gets him killed.

Collision model needs work.  It's not bad but it's lacking....simply put, when one guy hits another guy then both should take damage.  Lag schmag, front-ends back-ends blah blah blah.  Thats how it should be.  The way it is now the puke who plays to lag and know's he's got a toejam-hot connection or really bad connection can manipulate it.
"Dogfighting is useless"  :Erich Hartmann

Offline aknimitz

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1084
Who wants
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2002, 12:29:10 AM »
Not me
Me
Me

Offline Sparks

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Who wants
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2002, 03:48:20 AM »
me
me
me

All seems ok to me - Love the night

Offline Eaglecz

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 753
Who wants
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2002, 03:58:35 AM »
yes
no
good as it is

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
Who wants
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2002, 06:34:49 AM »
I got a bit bored with the night after a while, but no biggie, still looks nice.

Good as it is.
Good as it is. (add insults)
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
Who wants
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2002, 06:37:47 AM »
I CANT understand why most of you agree with the actual KillShooter feature.

50% of the cases, the mistake is not in the shooter side. The rest is mainly due newbies with little or no experience.

If the target is just to punish those newbies, then why not to SET THEIR AMMO COUNTERS TO 0 , instead of blowing up their planes?. Or just to kill the shooter guns, not the entire plane. This way, the shooter pilot will need to return to base to rearm or to change the plane instead of just being killed.


Here is a fine example of kill shooter:

An enemy is pursuing your mate in a vertical climb, and you are trying to follow the con. The con starts firing to your mate, and you start firing too. At some point you blow up the con just while your mate bails out... ...surprise, several bullets pass through the enemy explosion hitting your mate's chute... ....and BOOOM, you are dead.

Offline DamnedATC

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Who wants
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2002, 07:28:28 AM »
me
me
me


I like all three

ATC

Offline K West

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1445
Who wants
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2002, 07:57:26 AM »
ME
ME
ME

    - Westy

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Who wants
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2002, 08:16:13 AM »
funked is correct.
lazs (the real lazs..  Not that vapid, insipid one with the winking yellow baloon head)

Offline HFMudd

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
Who wants
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2002, 09:54:26 AM »
I like night.  It is quite a bit of fun to fly a TBD down at the wave tops and watch folks crash behind me when they dive down for the "easy" kill.  Seems to me that alone adds something to the game.  I have three complaints about the night though...
1) The icon distance should very short at night.
2) The darn field ACK should be *way* less accurate.
3) Your monitor should explode if you adjust the gamma.

Killshooter is fine.  But I admit that I probably would not notice if worked differently or was eliminated altogether.  I just can't imagine that I would gain or lose much either way.

Collisions, the couple times I have hit something head on I died and they died. Seemed reasonable.

Offline Blindman

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 72
Who wants
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2002, 10:56:01 AM »
Me,  don't like it much but it is part of AH and have to learn how to get better {like getting shot at, don't like much but...}

Me, When it happens you KNOW you REALLY don't want it to happen again, The "Death Penalty" for attempted or accidental homicide of a country man!

Me, Why should my SA be penalized by lag, My FE "did see it", it happened /My FE "didn't see it", it didn't happen
Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

Offline eskimo2

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7207
      • hallbuzz.com
Who wants
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2002, 11:12:48 AM »
MANDOBLE,

Start a tread/poll asking if folks would prefer ammo to 0 to the status quo.  It's a good idea, overlooked by the other topics within this thread.

eskimo

Offline Vortex

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Who wants
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2002, 11:17:46 AM »
The night: I usually log when night time rolls around. Accordingly I could do without it. Others seem to enjoy it though so I'm pretty flexible. Doesn't make much difference to me one way or another

Killshooter: Ideally I'd like to see a different effect...guns disabled for 10 seconds, ammo set to 20%, etc.

Collisions: We need more collisions imo. I'd take the span of the plane's wings and build a front quarter bubble around it with those dimensions (the only planes that wouldn't get a bubble would be buffs). Apply it for nose-nose passes and if the bubbles touch, both planes go boom. The biggest failing of this game is the sheer volume of people that use the joust as the main staple to their combat diet.

Even though with the existing model the chance of nose-to-nose collisions are extremely remote, by removing it you take away the last restriction for all out, complete joust warrior. There's too much of that as it is imo, the last thing we need is to encourage more.

If you're going to allow HO's, you have to have a VERY significant collision model for the front quarter. Remove those collisions and you have to devise a way to remove the front quarter shots as well. I'm not at all adverse to that, actually I'm 100% for it. I just don't think the current gunnery model allows you to tailor gunnery that way.

Vortex
--)-Vortex----
The Musketeers, circa 1990

AH In-Game Handle: Vort

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Who wants
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2002, 11:44:42 AM »
Mandoble, it is never the other pilot's fault.  He did not lock your view forward, ignoring all behind, above and below you.  He did not force you to fire your guns.  Only the shooter has the ultimate control on what he shoots, so with it comes the responsibility to be aware of his surroundings.  Even of pilots whose ability he tends to come to the boards and spit upon.

Think of it as a virtual, very fast, court martial.

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
Who wants
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2002, 11:55:35 AM »
Fatty, imagine me at your six with a faster plane and you pursuing an enemy. You start to fire while I dive below you to overpass and then you see my ugly silouette emerging in front of you with a lot of beautiful flashes in the tail and BOOM... ... of course, your fault... ...Next time better you have a periscope to see what is comming from behind and below your plane while tracking the enemy at your 12.