>No, it doesn't, it really, really doesn't...
>Especially with DB's...

I was considering the worst-case scenario. For most conceivable situations, you're right.
But it's human nature that if something can be done, chances are it will be done here and
there.

And I was illustrating my point, which still stands. If you make a punishment for
wrongdoing, you'd better make darn well sure you don't get false positives. I'm saying
that the level of false positives for being on the border would be through the roof.

No matter which of my examples you isolate and pick apart, people should have the freedom
to move their planes wherever they want as long as it's not exploiting. Being on the
border becomes an exploit when it's used to avoid things. Being on the border for 2
seconds is not exploiting. Traveling along the border for 10+ seconds (or having a scout
circle on the border) is.

Regardless of how you define border humping, restriction just makes so much more sense
than punishment. Take Emma's analogy. It's the difference between fencing it off so people
can't get in... and putting land mines in so whoever enters will be "taught a lesson".

Supposing you have a property that's off limits to people.

Rather than telling people they shouldn't go inside and naively expect them to listen,
it would be easier to simply fence up all access points so they can't do so even if
they wanted to.

As Shadistic said, trying to instill a certain code of conduct among people is pointless
and an exercise in futility.

I get a good chuckle each time I see people yelling "border humping noob" or "go
get some skill", like the offending party even gives a damn what others think of him.

If a person doesn't listen to what his parents, friends or employers tell him to do in
real life, what makes you think he will ever listen to anything some anonymous
online person says?

Much simpler to fix the system so they can't do it even if they wanted to.

Penalizing BH is a bad idea. It should be made impossible by restricting the area
planes can use.

>>-Grouping planes takes a lot of maneuvering, and if you're far enough north or south,
>>you'll be clicking onto the border.

No, it doesn't, it really, really doesn't...
Especially with DB's...

TAKE DOWN ALL PLANES THAT GO OFFBORDER.

Somehow it must be possible.

>Why would you even click on the border for a plane in the first place?

For a couple reasons.
-Everyone who's familiar with CV gameplay knows that the farther away from your planes you
direct them, the less inconsistency you'll see.
-Grouping planes takes a lot of maneuvering, and if you're far enough north or south,
you'll be clicking onto the border.
-Situations are fluid. No good CV is static and in the middle- they leave openings where
their planes aren't. If you're close to the border, maneuvering will bump you into it
every so often.
-Mistakes happen.
-It's not a crime to click outside the border when you're managing aircraft, unless your
intention is to remain there.

I don't see why what you said is an argument against mine.
Why would you enact a punishment for exploiting a loophole when you can effectively remove
the loophole? For some reason you seem bent on fixing the players when it's the system
that needs fixing.

Kill two birds with one stone; the former offenders will simply stop, and the former
people affected will be happier. No need to do anything more.

Yes i actually like the fuel usage increase on the border idea. It would be like your
planes flying off course and so then must try and make it back b4 running out of gas.
Only prob is the MN db so the fuel usage would have to be extreme.

Also in reply to poster after my earlier post for my earlier idea of taking damage like we
used to on the rocks, it wouldn't be so much of a problem really if you were to actually
micro manage your planes like we are all supposed to, in fact the idea would be even more
incentive to do so.

Wow solids zoomed out....

Yeah, I like OT....


Splid went north in his Iowa.-Correct
Splid has done much more damage than anyone else on his team.-Very Correct.
Splid has fired 9 salvo's of HE.-Correct.
Splid has a great hit rate for 45* guns.-In that game Correct, normally hugely Incorrect :)
Splid has targeted mostly ships with tougher submergence or bounced some salvo's,
or fired at lower angles.-That game I hammered 2 BB5s I think.
Splid lost a scout, but is about to send out another one.-Correct.
Splid is out of OH after nearly 3 minutes.-Correct :(
Splid isn't creative when naming his sailors.-Lol. Correct. USENG1, USREP1, USFGUN :)
Splid plays zoomed out (or zoomed out for the pic).-I do a bit of both to be honest.
Splid plays with his TDA primarily turned off.-Correct.
Splid has premium and only has 1 smoke bomb remaining (use it wisely!) - Never has a
wiser word been spoken, that 1 bomb has been there for MONTHS.


On Topic, I am not sure about the "warning" ideas. I prefer ways of penalising the BW CV
rather than helping the other team to defend against it.

Don't really care for border humpers either way. I don't see enough of them that
they have any significant impact and I don't see why good players would have a
problem with it. If they're on your team, then thats more food for you. If they're not
on your team, then thats more food for you.

Some other interesting things to note :)
Splid went north in his Iowa.
Splid has done much more damage than anyone else on his team.
Splid has fired 9 salvo's of HE.
Splid has a great hit rate for 45* guns.
Splid has targeted mostly ships with tougher submergence or bounced some salvo's,
or fired at lower angles.
Splid lost a scout, but is about to send out another one.
Splid is out of OH after nearly 3 minutes.
Splid isn't creative when naming his sailors.
Splid plays zoomed out (or zoomed out for the pic).
Splid plays with his TDA primarily turned off.
Splid has premium and only has 1 smoke bomb remaining (use it wisely!)