Latewar planes available with streack only

Hi Manoce,

>it is not usable all the time, but sometimes it just helps that your opponent is headon freak

True, but you have to be pretty sure that he is a head-on freak indeed, or you'll be giving an advantage to an enemy who's not

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Ledada,

>enigmatic is, what i always wanted to be...

I had that much figured out ;-)

>you don't need to answer every post, when you don't know any...

You'd probably have gotten a sensible answer if you had made more sense yourself ;-)

However, I'm entirely happy I'm not criticized for ignoring something for once

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Manoce,

>actually my post started with this "following this logics"

>I just wondered what they would say, when I post this - to my suprise they almost didn't react. Apparently they are out of arguments for anything concerning this problem(restriction).

Nonsense. Your logic is fine, and I told you so. The problem is that the front-end can't handle it, and I told you that, too.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Manoce,

>well.. looks like we add another 2 pages of nothing to this 30+page thread about nothing

This "nothing" is the topic of a neverending thread here just because it is going to change the structure of the entire game once it's implemented

Ironically, the more nonsense is posted here contra the idea, the more obvious it becomes that it touches something that's very important to a lot of people here.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Ho-Hun (hah),
IMHO.. both sides already told why they think plane restriction would be good or bad. Since then (28 pages before) nobody has brought new ideas here and all everyone do is repeating what he or anybody else has already said - in light-blue. Using comparisons and arguing whether they fit or not possible situation in WBFH after introducing streak system is leading to nowhere because even ppl who would be at the same side of argument could not probably understand such comparison in same way.
You could write just "PRO" or "CONTRA" and nothing else instead of your long posts where you play with words and are not even close to the heart of the problem.
-------------------------
frontend can handle it - like u suggested it is just matter of division of one plane into several versions - like it was done with 190A8 and A8R8.
but.. doesn'T matter - i don't care
-------------------------
""True, but you have to be pretty sure that he is a head-on freak indeed, or you'll be giving an advantage to an enemy who's not.""
well, i don't agree... if he is headon freak, it would cost him energy, if he is not.. no side would gain any advantage - just go few hundred yards to the side and stretch him if he try to get behind you - if he doesn!t go HO, look back, watch what he is doing and do appropriate maneuver - you are never giving him any advantage doing this(when you have sufficient speed of course)

 

manoce is right ofcourse...
i stopped checking this thread after 3rd page, till... about 28th...
then i took a part in discussion again; but nothing new appeared, same arguments, same thoughts, just written in other words;
and i admire HoHun for being so patient but it leeds to nowhere, im affraid;
we can make up to 100 pages and we wont agree, just because we think different in this matter;

besides, topic is so huge that only ppl who write here know what was said here

ps still against
but not just to be against, i still - after all this what was said here - think its more harmful then helpful for whole RFH;

 

I think we should change the topic to 'Ho-hun's Masturbating Playground' .

 

as long as people think, they have to say something in a thread, they will do it. In the past, we had threads with 10 replies - look how much were answering here......

 

Hi Manoce,

>Since then (28 pages before) nobody has brought new ideas here

Quite wrong

Read my post from 24th June 2003 22:24, and you'll see that I've made a very important addition.

>You could write just "PRO" or "CONTRA" and nothing else instead of your long posts where you play with words and are not even close to the heart of the problem.

So what's the heart of the problem in your opinion?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Spuint,

>but nothing new appeared, same arguments, same thoughts, just written in other words;

You seem to have missed a major addition to the original suggestion then:

Reduce the streak requirement for the outnumbered side so that the guys with the lower numbers get access to better aircraft easier.

That's going to make the game more fair because it will lead to balanced arena play even at imbalanced numbers.

That's something which currently is totally absent from Freehost, and if you're concerned about fairness, you should be absolutely pro

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Heme,

>as long as people think, they have to say something in a thread, they will do it. In the past, we had threads with 10 replies - look how much were answering here......

Exactly

And better yet, we still have 8 views per post though we're getting close to post #500 here - that means that quite a lot of people are still following the thread.

I'm quite ready to admit that there are many people who don't like "my" idea (it's not mine, actually), but we're only seeing so much interest in this thread because the idea will have a powerful impact on the game.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

this topic......hmmm let me think about it YET again... hmmmm nope, still against it.

and once again let me state

the case in point IS A DEAD HORSE.

p.s. someone dig a hole and throw this thread in it please. and the other threads that started around the same time.

R.I.P

 

Don't agree, One of my common evasives is to appear to accept the Head on, then roll through him so he misses, you just then level off and disappear into the distance whilst he's blowing all his E doing the hard turn back into you.

lol, damm you Manoce, I only figured that out at about page 20 but because I'm stubborn I was still arguing at page 27.

I'll vote for that






Mal

 

heart of the problem: some ppl prefer playability based on realism, some like it more simple

and you can't persuade them, that your point of view is objective good - because such thing just don't exist

you can post here the thousands of reasons, why YOU would like to have it - they could be perfect using logics based on some principles, however other ppl have built their logic on different principles

no matter how hard u would try, you would always had to derive the problem to its core... and that is, that some ppl just don't like the idea of max. realism

---------------------------------
well, i give no fuck against your trying.. do it, you apparently enjoy it... but do not forget, that your will is just one of many and it is kind of fascistic (in my eyes) to force your will for any cost
I've got feeling that you don't really care what do you stand for, important is only that your will would prevail

 

Hi Malino,

>>True, but you have to be pretty sure that he is a head-on freak indeed, or you'll be giving an advantage to an enemy who's not.

>Don't agree, One of my common evasives is to appear to accept the Head on, then roll through him so he misses, you just then level off and disappear into the distance whilst he's blowing all his E doing the hard turn back into you.

You still have lost energy in your roll while he hasn't, so he got an obvious advantage from his head-on attack. That he does that hard turn blowing all his E just proves he's clueless.

And while "disappearing into the distance" has its merits, it doesn't prove the enemy lacked an energy advantage at the merge

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Manoce,

>heart of the problem: some ppl prefer playability based on realism, some like it more simple

>and you can't persuade them, that your point of view is objective good - because such thing just don't exist

That's the closest to the truth my opposition has come yet.

All of the positive effects I've been describing are real, and the vast majority of the negative effects suggested by the opposition were really made up to give their resistance a rational facade.

But I think we both know that the opposition doesn't have a rational foundation, but only an emotional one. And noone has yet pointed out where that dark desire to kill with no regard for the consequences that's driving the kamikazes is coming from - address this, and only then you're truely at the heart of the problem!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

hi ho-hun,

except the "only" in your post, i am glad you have got the main point in some of my further posts!
i talked about the emotional aspects as my main argument and i am too lazy to link them again here... it was tried to reduce these aspects to "kid's behaviour", which i found interesting to answer, because understanding that will be a good base for many game-developers and should be regarded as be a major point of behaviour during lifetime. the same for the "reward", describing the restriction - i commented emotional aspects of rewarding.
indeed i adressed at you before not to neglect the emotional aspects by building up a logical construct.

when you ask for the emotional aspects to play the game (for the majority) which you would accept as argument... quite impossible, i'd say! if these reasons would be easy to see, there would be more good games on the market. it is the reasone for success in game-developing to accept emotions, to know some and to have a good sense for the unknown emotions.
but it can be searched for emotional aspects when small parts of the game would be changed. that is what i tried, not more.
and it should not be necessary (as an argument) to search for more, overall emotional aspects in this discussion, since you are yourself not developing a whole new game, but want to change a part of it (although i am not quite sure about that)!

i would be pleased if my intention could be recognized in that way instead of quoting syntax and answering it as to an independent formula or statement.

 

well, ho-hun, they are not playing simulator, they are playing game - they are happy when they capture the field

they don't want to change it... you can point out many positive effects - but they are positive for you,.,, not for them
they want to not care about virtual death...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that doesn't matter
emotional way of thinking is not inferior to the rational one

and it shouldn't be divided.. it works at the same moment - even you are executing some logical operations influenced and by the means of emotional way of thinking (lets call it "unconsiounous thinking")

 

Hi Ledada,

>i commented emotional aspects of rewarding.
indeed i adressed at you before not to neglect the emotional aspects by building up a logical construct.

I thought you were talking about a before-after comparison while you seem to have been talking about the transition. I'm confident "after" will be fine emotionally, but the transition obviously is not going to be easy

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Manoce,

>well, ho-hun, they are not playing simulator, they are playing game

Realism and gameplay aren't opposites.

>they are happy when they capture the field

Why? Because they're rewarded for it. Reward streaks and they'll be just as happy to kill and survive.

And with regard to happiness - I've seen many players who were quite unhappy (annoyed, angry, frustrated, pissed off ...) because they were seriously outnumbered and just couldn't take any territory, or couldn't keep their rare conquests in the face of overwhelming opposition.

Reward streaks, and the outnumbered side will have something to be happy about. Give them better planes, and their hopes will soar and they'll look forward to get something like an even fight despite being outnumbered.

Not to say there are no people who might be unhappy with the streak restriction. However, there are quite a lot of players who are unhappy with the status quo, and I don't see why the privilege of dying in an Ьberplane each flight should make more people happy than getting an even chance in an arena that balances quantity and quality by the streak restriction.

>emotional way of thinking is not inferior to the rational one

I didn't say that! But we could have saved close to 500 posts in this thread if the status quo crowd hadn't faked being rational ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)