is it a good idea ???????

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Wotan
Thats a terrible idea. The main doesnt need more "missions". Theres already to many 50 man base rapes going on. Offerring these guys a "bonus" to do even more of umm would be the end of a2a combat in the main.

So your "mission" to "capture a10" would become mass rape everyone wanting to get their "points".

The mission planner isnt an organizational tool. Its a gangbang planner. It oughta cost ya perks to run a mission. If its successful you keep the perks. If it aint then the mission "general" losses umm.

What's it to you?  You quit, yes?

The Mission Planner seems ok if its on your side, if the mission is planned against you, you seem to have a problem.

What's wrong with a few folks getting a few perks for pitching in and successfully attacking a target?  And for perks...good grief, I'm not saying 100 perks or anything like that.  I'm lucky if I see 10 perk points any given night...I'm ecastic if I make it home and bring home a 2 perkpoint mission.  

You see, I like the mission planner because the "generals" seem to get all pissed off if the war doesnt go their way, and they bemoan fellow players for not playing their way.  Or, they gripe about no cooperation.  The mission planner is a way for someone to walk the walk after talking the talk...you really wanna take that base?  Make a mission.  Some join, some don't.  And if the stinking thing is a success because 10-15 individual egos relented and joined in, well HOORAY...maybe a little reward for doing so?

I was expecting some nay-saying about perk points.  I sure wasnt expecting a whine about how bad missions are.  Wotan, you surely are burnt out.  Go make reservations to Florida and hire some local talent  :-)

[Wotan]

I have 3 years invested in ah and I have an opinion and its not whine.

As to the suggestion its terrible as I said. If you dont like what I say then theres an ignore button for you to use. HT is not going put these suggestions into place because he knows what it will  mean. As a matter of fact he has said as much.

So my "whine" is nothing but telling you your suggestion is terrible. Get thicker skin or ignore me or dont offer terrible suggestions.

Instead of trying to get "personal" address the point HT made. Your sugestion doesnt address that. You would have folks joining a mission and then not participating just to get the benefit of the point "bonus".

Just like we have folks jumping sides to get the benefit of the side balancing perk multiplier.

IMHO it would just another thing to be gamed then whined about.

[LePaul]

Originally posted by Wotan
I have 3 years invested in ah and I have an opinion and its not whine.

As to the suggestion its terrible as I said. If you dont like what I say then theres an ignore button for you to use. HT is not going put these suggestions into place because he knows what it will  mean. As a matter of fact he has said as much.

So my "whine" is nothing but telling you your suggestion is terrible. Get thicker skin or ignore me or dont offer terrible suggestions.

Instead of trying to get "personal" address the point HT made. Your sugestion doesnt address that. You would have folks joining a mission and then not participating just to get the benefit of the point "bonus".

Just like we have folks jumping sides to get the benefit of the side balancing perk multiplier.

IMHO it would just another thing to be gamed then whined about.

I applaud your whine, now that you've cried us a river, how about debating the topic at hand.  Why is what I proposed such a *bad* idea I proposed and the refinement I suggested afterwards?

You can dislike me all you like, I haven't a problem with you, other than to disagree.

With all the Desktop Generals I see on nightly, I think the mission planner is a great tool for organzing those who generally wouldnt pitch in

[fffreeze220]

Can u post ur stupid fight some wére else. Me and chris trying to offer HT a good idea.

thx

[Wotan]

My point is clear.

The mission planner is a tool for those massive 50 man base rapes. Linking mission points to an objective like field capture will result in more of these as folks look for easy points. There is not a lack of missions.

Those "generals" are mostly new guys who calm down after awhile. They can be squelched and arent a problem.

As for disliking you thats in your head. I am completely indifferent toward you.

Your suggestion opens the door for more gameyness and subsequently more whines.

You are certainly able to give your opinion, as am I. However, you are the typical type that when someone disagrees with your opinion you revert to name calling and the like.

As shown in you last couple of posts.

Heres what ht said, read this time. He is dead right.

Problems with it, is that in the end all it will do is make people will create a perminate mission just to get more perks, hence will make real missions even less used.

And all that would happen is you end up creating a nuisance feature.

It doesnt get any clearer then that.

[hitech]

Woton: Regardless of your view you did manage to put quite a bit of whine in your post. Things like 50 plane rape, mission planer is a gang bang tool is what will void your argument, regardless of it's content.

Thats why your getting attacked , your trying to belittle people and concepts wrather than debate them.

HiTech
(on the whine patrol)

[Wotan]

belittling people? whos singled out there?

people who participate in those mission types?

Its not like what I said is untrue. It may have been harsh but it is still true and I got the films and pics

Are you telling me you havent seen those 50 man missions? Its these missions that started the whole "suicide" jabo debate.

But either way

YMMV

Are you sure you arent picking on me because I used to fly lw planes

(Thats a joke btw)

[chris3]

..at wotan and the others
i speak for the knights now. we often creat tactical missions which would hit the enemy hard. For example fuelstriks at ouer frontlin or hit baracks somethink like this. But this grat missions worked not very often becaus nobody want to join it.  
Jes of course if we get a mission planer like this , missions for take any filds would be more harder.  But the Enemy have the same missins plane so i think its not so a problem.  I thinke it would be a great fight if two mission kolided in the sky.

but we need something to prevent (what HT ) that people make nonsens missions to get perkis.

cu in the endles war :-)

[hitech]

Woton: Now you accuse me of bias because you use to fly LW planes (note conspericy theory) ?

The belittle happens because you use the terms gang bang and rape. There are people who like to run missions, when you phrase it like 50 man missions, vs 50 man gang bangs it makes all the difference in the world , one is stateing facts the other is trying to belittle/flame/name  call /whine what ever.

HiTech

[Revvin]

What makes a CAP mission successful? I guess that is what HTC is seeking an answer to if you want to take this idea further (which is a good idea but as pointed out has a few flaws) Why is it so terrible that a bunch of players actually want to do more than fly aroudn in circles and make use of the features and tools given to us, field capture and the mission editor which I have used many months now for my squad organising missions that don't involve field capture but bomber missions with proper escort, organising the bombers into formation positions etc to hit strat targets. On the other hand I know missions can be defended against as was shown by a handful of members from my squad and a few other players online. Knights upped a mass heavy P47 mission and everyone defended well and organised themselves into beign able to land whilst covered or waiting for the next wave, in between we tried to hit back, they countered and at one point I thought the field was lost but upping from a nearby field we still managed to defend, getting behind the attackers to their C47's by not flying lemming fashion straight to the field we wanted to defend. For an hour this battle ebbed and flowed and in the end we defended the field and supplied it. It was frantic and it was fun and why the mission editor brings so much to AH.

[GRUNHERZ]

How about getting X perks if you survive to rtb or loosing Y perks if you dont, this could help with some suicide tendencies I have noticed in the massive attack missions.

[Wotan]

umm you missed the fine print ht, that was a joke. Please re read it. The accusation was in jest based on that gen disc thread. If I thought you were biased I would have told you there.

The "50 man base rape" was certainly a jab at those who participate in them but a "whine"? Come on.

Lepaul was simply trying to take a shot at me with his "whine" accusation. Thats fair enough but it certainly wasnt a "whine". Nor was it directed specifically at lepaul. It was a general statement based on my experience. Lepaul can decide to include himself in that generalization or to exclude himself.

I have the films and and pics to show these happen. I may have been harsh but I gotta call it like I see it. Others have as well.

YMMV

[hazed-]

I had an idea which you might like HT.

How about you decide on what you feel a perfect mission would be with the least used players or a sliding scale of perks awarded depending on the numbers in a mission.

ie:

if the mission has 10 pilots each player is awarded say 5 perks

if the mission has 20 you get 2.5 perks and so on.

This would encourage the use of small numbers with specialised tasks.The person who makes a mission with 30 p47s will score very little compared to the person who uses the minimum of resources to complete the same task.

all perks would not be awarded if the mission is a failure:

ie a factory strike that doesnt destroy over 80% of the target or a failed capture attempt etc.

I aslo appreciate what you are saying about a nuisance feature but i think you as a developer should be allowed to add ideas and if they dont work out remove them.

just imo of course

[Duedel]

I like chris idea cause it enables a whole bunch of great opportunities but i think its very hard to define goals respectively to define when a goal is fullfilled p.e. there are more than attack or cap missions, fighter sweaps come to mind. Furtheron there are different flawors of p.e. attack missions, attacking the CV comes to mind.

As i said first u have to define all the possible goals.
Then u have to define what has to be done to reach the goal.

So  here's an example of the complexity only for attack missions:

Goal: Pork the field.
What objects to destroy? How many perks when the goal is to destroy fuel only? How many perks when the goal is to flatten the whole field? Is the goal reached when 99% of the attackers are dead (suicide missions)? How many perks when only 10 people are in or when 50 people are in?

IMHO its very very hard to cover all possibilities. Thats one of the causes that make me very curious about the Mission Theatre.

[LePaul]

Pardon me while I applaud HiTech



You know, most of the missions I have flown have had 10-15 people in them.  A few here and there had many many more, but not these 50-man generalizations Wotan is referring too.

My point stands, what's the big deal if a Mission with an established goal has some sort of small perk reward if it works?  

I'm not saying fill the coffers of players with huge perk points for just signing into a mission and flying around.  I understand the annoyance factor you guys are referring to.

Again, my thought, and however flawed it apparently is, was to encourage and reward cooperation.  I've heard the Generals whine and people moan and groan over how few people are attempting to nab strategic targets.  Kooky me thought that if the aparatus was there to reward people to join and successfully complete a mission, more folks might shut up and try it.

And that's my suggestion...I certainly do not expect it to be implemented but its an open forum, and I thought I'd put it out there.