Talk:Avenger - Revision history

Magic9mushroom: /* Proposal: split air strategies into a new page */

2018-07-22T04:59:58Z

Proposal: split air strategies into a new page

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:59, 22 July 2018
Line 116:		Line 116:

	Come to think of it, the structure of all of the aircraft pages deserve a bit of a re-think. The "How to Use It" section in particular is a bit all over the place, and should probably be split into several sections. Hopefully in smaller bite sized chunks. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)		Come to think of it, the structure of all of the aircraft pages deserve a bit of a re-think. The "How to Use It" section in particular is a bit all over the place, and should probably be split into several sections. Hopefully in smaller bite sized chunks. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			:I'm mostly in agreement. I also think the "use four Avengers always!!!1!" argument is bogus for a number of reasons, and we shouldn't be endorsing it (the strategy has benefits, yes, but it also has problems and in any case is not remotely "imperative"). [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 06:59, 22 July 2018 (CEST)

	== A peculiarity on the battlescape ==		== A peculiarity on the battlescape ==

Magic9mushroom at 01:51, 1 June 2015

2015-06-01T01:51:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 1 June 2015
Line 120:		Line 120:

	It may or may not be specific to OpenXcom, but at least in this version, soldiers at the front of the Avenger (i.e., those farthest from the door) can look out through the craft's windshield if they just turn around. This doesn't seem to happen with the Skyranger. [[User:Medinoc\|Medinoc]] ([[User talk:Medinoc\|talk]]) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (EDT)		It may or may not be specific to OpenXcom, but at least in this version, soldiers at the front of the Avenger (i.e., those farthest from the door) can look out through the craft's windshield if they just turn around. This doesn't seem to happen with the Skyranger. [[User:Medinoc\|Medinoc]] ([[User talk:Medinoc\|talk]]) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

			:Yeah, the Avenger's walls aren't as tightly joined as the Skyranger's. If you care to try, you can actually get your soldiers to walk through the NW diagonal wall of the Avenger. See [http://tinypic.com/r/2vj67bq/8 here]. [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 21:51, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

Medinoc: /* A peculiarity on the battlescape */

2015-05-31T22:07:51Z

A peculiarity on the battlescape

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 31 May 2015
Line 119:		Line 119:
	== A peculiarity on the battlescape ==		== A peculiarity on the battlescape ==

	It may or may not be specific to OpenXcom, but at least in this version, soldiers at the front of the Avenger (i.e., those farthest from the door) look out through the craft's windshield if they just turn around. This doesn't seem to happen with the Skyranger. [[User:Medinoc\|Medinoc]] ([[User talk:Medinoc\|talk]]) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (EDT)		It may or may not be specific to OpenXcom, but at least in this version, soldiers at the front of the Avenger (i.e., those farthest from the door) can look out through the craft's windshield if they just turn around. This doesn't seem to happen with the Skyranger. [[User:Medinoc\|Medinoc]] ([[User talk:Medinoc\|talk]]) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

Medinoc: /* A peculiarity on the battlescape */ new section

2015-05-31T22:07:31Z

A peculiarity on the battlescape: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:07, 31 May 2015
Line 116:		Line 116:

	Come to think of it, the structure of all of the aircraft pages deserve a bit of a re-think. The "How to Use It" section in particular is a bit all over the place, and should probably be split into several sections. Hopefully in smaller bite sized chunks. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)		Come to think of it, the structure of all of the aircraft pages deserve a bit of a re-think. The "How to Use It" section in particular is a bit all over the place, and should probably be split into several sections. Hopefully in smaller bite sized chunks. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			== A peculiarity on the battlescape ==

			It may or may not be specific to OpenXcom, but at least in this version, soldiers at the front of the Avenger (i.e., those farthest from the door) look out through the craft's windshield if they just turn around. This doesn't seem to happen with the Skyranger. [[User:Medinoc\|Medinoc]] ([[User talk:Medinoc\|talk]]) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

Jasonred: /* Damage repair rate exactly equal? */

2009-03-23T10:57:34Z

Damage repair rate exactly equal?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 23 March 2009
Line 101:		Line 101:

	: The 1% health scalar between the various ships are definitely different, but most players will probably not be thinking in terms of actual hitpoints and actual damage dealt, but instead will judge based off the percentage indicator when they should start backing off. The percentage is visible - exact hitpoints and damage values are not. That was why the example of 60% damage between the Avenger and Firestorm was used. It wasn't implying the actual health loss was 1:1. It's just a different way of interpreting the data. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:10, 23 March 2009 (EDT)		: The 1% health scalar between the various ships are definitely different, but most players will probably not be thinking in terms of actual hitpoints and actual damage dealt, but instead will judge based off the percentage indicator when they should start backing off. The percentage is visible - exact hitpoints and damage values are not. That was why the example of 60% damage between the Avenger and Firestorm was used. It wasn't implying the actual health loss was 1:1. It's just a different way of interpreting the data. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:10, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

			:: So... what you are saying is... RECEIVING damage is a bad thing? ... um... ok. Maybe I couldn't see the forest for the trees or something. ... Actually, I thought it was obvious? ...
			:: Ah... yes, from this light, the HWPs really have a huge advantage... other than a loss in accuracy, there are NO ILL EFFECTS from receiving damage... as long as they don't actually get destroyed, you are golden!
			:: Your "aircraft breaking off" scenario doesn't really happen to me much... I only engage battleships in midair IF I HAVE TO... like for a critical base defence which I might fail, or for a desperate attempt to stop an infiltration. ... For those situations, failure is not an option, so I always I engage either with at least an Avenger or multiple aircraft.
			:: During my noob days, I did commit the stupid mistake of using a single Avenger to shoot down BOTH battleships during the Infiltration mission, 1 after another... that was bad, landed my Avenger in repairs for so freaking long... the next time, I used 5 avengers, 4 on battleship A, the badly damaged avenger heads back, and the 4 others whack Battleship B.

			:: <b>I ''never'' said high health was a disadvantage (or that low hitpoints was better). It's the disadvantage of high health that I'm referring to.</b> --> Maybe I'm stupid or something, but it seems to me that these are almost the same thing. Anyhow, yes, I am also saying there is no real disadvantage OF high health. The only disadvantage is that newbie commanders get tricked by a false sense of security. By that argument, Power Armor has a disadvantage compared to Coveralls --> commanders tend to get a little more cocky once they have the whole squad in power armor, compared to no armor at all.

			[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 06:57, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

	== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==		== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==

NKF: /* Damage repair rate exactly equal? */ Never said it wasn't.

2009-03-23T06:10:04Z

Damage repair rate exactly equal?: Never said it wasn't.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:10, 23 March 2009
Line 96:		Line 96:
	There is NO TRADE OFF AT ALL. It is always better to have higher max health. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 17:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)		There is NO TRADE OFF AT ALL. It is always better to have higher max health. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 17:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			: I ''never'' said high health was a disadvantage (or that low hitpoints was better). It's the disadvantage of high health that I'm referring to. As health loss is correlated with rest time, it's definitely a trade-off: you soak up more damage - you jolly well rest more. Those with high hit points just have more to lose. Surviving the attack with high/low hitpoints is another topic of discussion entirely.

			: Since the Avenger has lots of health to lose, is it not put at a disadvantage with its long downtime if the player ''willingly'' lets it get badly damaged? It's careless on the part of the player, but is often caused as a direct result of the Avenger being able to sustain more damage than any other aircraft. With the other aircraft, you can't afford to soak up too much damage so players will have them break off from combat sooner to minimize their losses.

			: The 1% health scalar between the various ships are definitely different, but most players will probably not be thinking in terms of actual hitpoints and actual damage dealt, but instead will judge based off the percentage indicator when they should start backing off. The percentage is visible - exact hitpoints and damage values are not. That was why the example of 60% damage between the Avenger and Firestorm was used. It wasn't implying the actual health loss was 1:1. It's just a different way of interpreting the data. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:10, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

	== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==		== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==

Jasonred: High Health is always better than low health.

2009-03-22T21:44:50Z

High Health is always better than low health.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 22 March 2009
Line 88:		Line 88:

	:::You're probably thinking of soldier hitpoints with that comment. Isn't it also true that that the Avenger is put at a disadvantage by this? See, on the one hand, the advantage is that you survive better because you can withstand the attacks more thanks to having more hitpoints. No other aircraft can boast this. That's one of the traits that make the Avenger stand out amongst them. But on the other hand, because the Avenger can withstand more damage, you end up paying dearly for it with longer downtime if you let it get badly damaged. Ship and soldiers basically trade off better survivability for a longer recuperation time, so there's two sides to it. HWPs on the other hand are a counter-example where high hitpoints are nothing but an advantage, since they have no downtime. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)		:::You're probably thinking of soldier hitpoints with that comment. Isn't it also true that that the Avenger is put at a disadvantage by this? See, on the one hand, the advantage is that you survive better because you can withstand the attacks more thanks to having more hitpoints. No other aircraft can boast this. That's one of the traits that make the Avenger stand out amongst them. But on the other hand, because the Avenger can withstand more damage, you end up paying dearly for it with longer downtime if you let it get badly damaged. Ship and soldiers basically trade off better survivability for a longer recuperation time, so there's two sides to it. HWPs on the other hand are a counter-example where high hitpoints are nothing but an advantage, since they have no downtime. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			: Nope. Absolutely no disadvantage to have higher HP than lower HP. I challenge you to present me any possible scenario where it is better to have lower HP.
			When an airplane receives X damage, there are only 2 possibilities. Either it will be in repairs for X hours. OR it will be destroyed.
			Same for high Health soldiers... Any troop that receives Y an amount of damage will either survive, and need Y +/- random integer number of days to recover, OR he will die outright.
			Having high health simply has the effect that, instead of dying, you get put into repairs/ recovery.
			Compare 2 soldiers. One has 50 health, the other has 100 health. Both soldiers receive 30 damage. Behold... both soldiers spend around 30 days in recovery. Later, both soldiers receive 80 damage. One spends 80 days in recovery, the other is DEAD.
			There is NO TRADE OFF AT ALL. It is always better to have higher max health. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 17:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)



	== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==		== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==

NKF at 18:08, 22 March 2009

2009-03-22T18:08:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 22 March 2009
Line 86:		Line 86:

	::"The Avenger's high hit points frequently trick inexperienced commanders into making an Avenger solo a Battleship" ... I think that reflects it. ... anyhow, a lot of people are confused about the avengers... I keep reading stuff about hybrid craft being "complex" and thus being slower to repair. The avenger is infamous for being grounded for over a month... it's a huge misconception that this is due to some disadvantage of the avenger over other aircraft. A previous article went along the lines of "the greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness" sort of stuff. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 07:35, 22 March 2009 (EDT)		::"The Avenger's high hit points frequently trick inexperienced commanders into making an Avenger solo a Battleship" ... I think that reflects it. ... anyhow, a lot of people are confused about the avengers... I keep reading stuff about hybrid craft being "complex" and thus being slower to repair. The avenger is infamous for being grounded for over a month... it's a huge misconception that this is due to some disadvantage of the avenger over other aircraft. A previous article went along the lines of "the greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness" sort of stuff. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 07:35, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			:::You're probably thinking of soldier hitpoints with that comment. Isn't it also true that that the Avenger is put at a disadvantage by this? See, on the one hand, the advantage is that you survive better because you can withstand the attacks more thanks to having more hitpoints. No other aircraft can boast this. That's one of the traits that make the Avenger stand out amongst them. But on the other hand, because the Avenger can withstand more damage, you end up paying dearly for it with longer downtime if you let it get badly damaged. Ship and soldiers basically trade off better survivability for a longer recuperation time, so there's two sides to it. HWPs on the other hand are a counter-example where high hitpoints are nothing but an advantage, since they have no downtime. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 14:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

	== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==		== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==

Jasonred: Avenger vs other aircraft

2009-03-22T11:35:54Z

Avenger vs other aircraft

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 22 March 2009
Line 83:		Line 83:
	[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 18:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)		[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 18:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

	: On an earlier note: I think the whole Avenger vs. Firestorm at 60% issue has just been clouded and just made the original message more confusing than it was. I don't think it was implied that the 60% meant equal loss of hitpoints - far from it. The Avenger, thanks to its greater hitpoints, makes players more careless to the point that they let the Avenger take more damage (since it can). They may then break off the attack once damage hits the half way mark (or any arbitrary "stop-now-before-its-too-late!" mark of your choosing). If I can get some free time in the next day or two, I'll take a shot at revising it - hopefully without losing the message. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)		: On an earlier note: I think the whole Avenger vs. Firestorm at 60% issue has just been clouded and just made the original message more confusing than it was. I don't think it was implied that the 60% meant equal loss of hitpoints - far from it. The Avenger, thanks to its greater hitpoints, makes players more careless to the point that they let the Avenger take more damage (since it can). They may then break off the attack once damage hits the half way mark (or any arbitrary "stop-now-before-its-too-late!" mark of your choosing). If I can get some free time in the next day or two, I'll take a shot at revising it - hopefully without losing the message. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			::"The Avenger's high hit points frequently trick inexperienced commanders into making an Avenger solo a Battleship" ... I think that reflects it. ... anyhow, a lot of people are confused about the avengers... I keep reading stuff about hybrid craft being "complex" and thus being slower to repair. The avenger is infamous for being grounded for over a month... it's a huge misconception that this is due to some disadvantage of the avenger over other aircraft. A previous article went along the lines of "the greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness" sort of stuff. [[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 07:35, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

	== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==		== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==

NKF: A proposal for a new article

2009-03-22T06:54:55Z

A proposal for a new article

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 22 March 2009
Line 82:		Line 82:
	Alternatively, 1 Avenger leading the attack, + 3 Interceptors... just cross your fingers that the potshots don't down those interceptors.		Alternatively, 1 Avenger leading the attack, + 3 Interceptors... just cross your fingers that the potshots don't down those interceptors.
	[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 18:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)		[[User:Jasonred\|Jasonred]] 18:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

			: On an earlier note: I think the whole Avenger vs. Firestorm at 60% issue has just been clouded and just made the original message more confusing than it was. I don't think it was implied that the 60% meant equal loss of hitpoints - far from it. The Avenger, thanks to its greater hitpoints, makes players more careless to the point that they let the Avenger take more damage (since it can). They may then break off the attack once damage hits the half way mark (or any arbitrary "stop-now-before-its-too-late!" mark of your choosing). If I can get some free time in the next day or two, I'll take a shot at revising it - hopefully without losing the message. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

			== Proposal: split air strategies into a new page ==

			As of the recent discussions, I think we've since gone way past the whole intent of the Avenger page, which is to describe the Avenger and what it can do. Instead we've derailed and gone right into what I would classify as general interception strategies. All arguments for the various methods are perfectly valid, but I dare say they deserve a brand new section of their own (with a shiny new spiffy link on the main UFO menu). Any in favour of that?

			Come to think of it, the structure of all of the aircraft pages deserve a bit of a re-think. The "How to Use It" section in particular is a bit all over the place, and should probably be split into several sections. Hopefully in smaller bite sized chunks. -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)