Multiplayer is a mess from a game design perspective

[YSoMadTovarisch]

touching the subject of reputation - if you play enough, you will KNOW who is a serious player, and who is not.

stats for rep aint working in this small community. its not like we a re a million players... even if i wish that a billion copies be sold.

Talk about projecting your views onto other people...

 

You may know, most don't.

Then say what you really feel instead of going thru a thousand pieces of proof that the game suucks.

 

say you want a Dota-2 like game point system.

get to the point...

Tell you what, I don't even want a rating system at all, I want players to play the maps the way they're meant to be played, because if they don't the game's balance and everything else is FUBAR. And thus we need to give people some incentive to do the objective, because currently without the incentive they're not, and I've been to every expert server and on every single one the exact samething happen: people just go death match.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Yakdriver]

then they better quickly learn - because flying a proper Coop with complete strangers is not easy...
and speaking for myself, cooperatively flying is the only way to truly enjoy.

and if most are airquakers by choice then your whole rambling is pointless, because the airquakers are having (wait for the drumroll) a blast.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

You can solve that problem by not having a K/D ratio section in your profile at all, but instead, a rating system like Dota 2 (minus the match making aspect), eliminate the capability to switch side except for players balance(and if you lose when you join the other team for balance you will not lose rating points, and get half of the rating points you'd get from your original team), if your team is outnumbered 2 to 1 you'll not lose rating point and if you join the game half way through your rating will not be counted. It needs some fine tuning for sure, but that's an example.

 

Pretty funny because I'm the type of player who doesn't give a damn about epeen nor cosmetics.

Good start, no K/D but please don't say balance and side in the same sentence!  Opps I just did!  I'd say if you were on the underdog side and outnumbered 2 to 1 or more and your team won the map you should get 1.5 the points as if you were on the bigger side. Something like that. You should get more points for doing what is needed instead of just shooting someone down. Part of the airquake is more points are awarded for fighter kills than anything else.

[BraveSirRobin]

Pretty funny because I'm the type of player who doesn't give a damn about epeen nor cosmetics.

 

Of course not.  It's just everyone else that does...  Any idea why you're the only "pure" one?

[SYN_Per]

Having too many servers create another problem as it spread the population out and thus everyone's experience will be lacking.

No, it's actually self regulating. Besides the comunity has not yet got hold of all the tools to get online ideas going. What's the big effin rush everywhere?

[dkoor]

Good start, no K/D but please don't say balance and side in the same sentence!  Opps I just did!  I'd say if you were on the underdog side and outnumbered 2 to 1 or more and your team won the map you should get 1.5 the points as if you were on the bigger side. Something like that. You should get more points for doing what is needed instead of just shooting someone down. Part of the airquake is more points are awarded for fighter kills than anything else.

Must admit, seeing unbalanced airquake map was a true rarity back in a day... I've seen some, but they were practically as common as unicorn in a grocery store.

Me-262, TA-152, sometimes "usual ones" such as P-38L (boosted) and FW-190D 1944 (faster model) etc. were all kicked out for the sake of "balance" and ultimately, player satisfaction.

 

I'm almost certain that unbalanced server wont work in a long run. Probably not even on a brand name server.

Edited November 7, 2014 by dkoor

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Of course not.  It's just everyone else that does...  Any idea why you're the only "pure" one?

 

Woops, you got me, I care so much about epeens, cosmetics,unlocks that my SP progression after 123 hours played since the start of October is this:

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Yakdriver]

no it shows that you tried to take off for 120 hours befor you even figured it out.

stats...lie.

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm not sure what you think that proves.  A lot of the unlocks are fully functioning weapons, not cosmetics.

 

In any case, why do you think you're the only "pure" one?

[Yakdriver]

Talk about projecting your views onto other people...

 

You may know, most don't.

Tell you what, I don't even want a rating system at all, I want players to play the maps the way they're meant to be played, because if they don't the game's balance and everything else is FUBAR. And thus we need to give people some incentive to do the objective, because currently without the incentive they're not, and I've been to every expert server and on every single one the exact samething happen: people just go death match.

 

you are getting more in-credible by the minute.

 

if you want to be forced to play by the way its meant to be played, play offline campaigns.

if you want that for online, join a squad [ok, atm not possible becauise no ded.server]

or host your own server and kick anyone who behaves in a way that does not please you on your server [later]

or fly a campaign with dedicated people [later]

 

dogfight server is airquake.

except if the mission designer puts the shackles on you and forces specific behavior.

That has been the state for a decade and a half.

That will be the case for the next decade.

 

This thread will not change a thing.

all you can do, and your only choice is to sit back, and wait.

 

and if it still does not please you, ask for a refund or something.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Luckily I don't give a dam about stats, haven't done so in a single game yet. It's truely disappointing to see players still act with a selfish and point orientated mentally flooding the Exoert servers (not all of course, I knwo some very good pilots out there).

 

A MP XP system is the best solution in my opinion. It's almost 100% confrimed it will stay in the game so things cant turn more acardy than they are already.

 

The core idea should be a suffisticated online reward system though, whch shall motivate pilots to act as a team and follow their objectives.

 

XP should get rewarded:

- after accomplishing any type of combat objective (number of objectives depending on server)

- for airkills (less reward than for an accomplished objective)

- for long sorties (bonus added via small multiplier for already gained XP)

 

BUT provided only after successfull landing following the SP pattern:

- crashing / landing on enemy territory = 0%

- landing / crashlanding on friendly territory = 50%

- landing on friendly airfield = 100%

 

Additionally the winning side of a session should reccieve a xp multiplier for rewarding thir effort while the losign side gains no multiplier at all.

If a player leaves the match before the session ends he won't reccieve any victory multiplier even if his side wins afterwards.

 

To avoid small squad XP point cheating on private servers the system should only account to public servers with a min player count of 20-30. If this player count issn't reached a message should warn joining players that no XP will be provided for their action.

 

Excuse me for this long post, it's just sth that kept me busy for some time now

Edited November 7, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[Feathered_IV]

So, sounds like 90% of the problem is the players themselves and the question is how to force them into a narrow channel of behaviour but ensure that they have the incentive to do so?

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Must admit, seeing unbalanced airquake map was a true rarity back in a day... I've seen some, but they were practically as common as unicorn in a grocery store.

Me-262, TA-152, sometimes "usual ones" such as P-38L (boosted) and FW-190D 1944 (faster model) etc. were all kicked out for the sake of "balance" and ultimately, player satisfaction.

 

I'm almost certain that unbalanced server wont work in a long run. Probably not even on a brand name server.

Yeah I was talking more of a player number balance not plane. I have never seen a unicorn in a grocery store but I swear after a really good Judas Priest concert I saw one in a 7-11 as I was getting my funyuns and MT dew.   It was about 420 in the morning  Ah the good old days.

[Y-29.Silky]

Number 1: Rarely have I experienced high altitude fighting in the Syn/HeavyMetal/AttackAkhtuba servers. For an example in the Heavy Metal server, German tanks are attacking airfields, IL-2's have to stop them, and the Luftwaffe have to protect them from being destroyed, or else they can't win and vice versa, all the while the He-111's and Pe-2's bomb supply dumps that decrease your fuel load. This is classic Eastern Front. And yes, teams can win before the time runs out, so there's a lot of incentive.

 

Number 2: Concerning the servers above, German fighters ARE forced to come down to intercept IL-2's. But also I do agree because even so, with objectives that determine a Win/Loss outcome, many people are playing it as a deathmatch game; rather than escorting, they're looking for kills. I've noticed a lot of people judge your skills by the number of kills you get, which is complete War Thunder mentality. It also limits a flight sim as a flight sim should have ALL roles (fighters, bombers, recon, supply, etc, etc).

 

Also concerning balance, I beg to differ if Russian pilots actually fly to their advantages,

 

Number 3: I agree with you on the vulching; I recently made a poll, and it seems vulchers are winning. I remember in IL-2: 1946, if you vulched without rockets or bombs, you were banned from the server. I haven't played Clod so much because it blew ass when it first came out, but apparently people say that's where the vulching "became part of the game". I wish the mission editors would spread the airfields more, rather than having them reachable in a 2 minute flight, not a fix, but a valid work-around.

 

Number 4: I beg to differ again, those servers I mentioned above have trucks lined up to force people to taxi, I've accidentally ran into a few damaging my aircraft. It's not the airfields fault if someone accidentally taxis the long way (which I have done plenty), but I noticed they even prevented that with placing trucks there.

 

GrapeJam is spot on, gamers are getting spoiled and it's spilling into the flight sim community.

 

Sorry for the long post, my passion runs deep.

[fdswer]

Sounds like a basic case of people not playing the way you want

[=VARP=Cygann]

And we yet again return to the old issue. Ongoing DF server will never ever feel 20% as good as barely average old IL2 co-op mission with set objective goals and 1 life and then exit or spectate. And no, none of mission/map designs can ever provide such nice experience as proper co-op chain of missions can hosted one after another...

 

ROF and BOS both require way too much work for this to happen, won't even mention how hard CLOD fails in this department. That is why old IL2 will take even longer to get worthy successor, regardless of how far in FM and DM newer games have advanced. Don't get me wrong, I love all mentioned games here, but that don't change the fact that IL2:1946 can only be truly replaced by a game that will provide easy (yes it must be fairly simple) way to create and host co-op mission sequences (online campaigns if you like).

[coconut]

Play any multiplayer game online, and you'll experience the same problem: although you might experience nice teamplay now and then, most of the time it's just death-match. The real fun if you are serious is to play in clans (or squadrons, for flight sims) vs other clans. Hopefully the issue will clear itself up once the dedicated server comes out.

 

Regarding incentives: Look at war thunder, you can always win the game on the ground, but that's seldom the way it goes. People just go for aircraft kills, for whatever reason. That's just the way people playing as individuals do it.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I seem to remember '46 had a mod where you could run a co-op but it wasn't dead is dead you could respawn without everyone having to restart. I flew for a while with JG11 in CO-OPs and we had to restart if someone messed up T/O or dropped bombs on the runway and blew everyone up.   I'm not admitting to anything, I do not know how the bombs got on the runway sir! And it funny that there are no bombs on my plane..huh wonder how that happened.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Edited November 7, 2014 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[=LD=Hethwill]

With 1 life scripting you will have to wait until the end of the mission cycle. I assure you the 1 life events will make the whole difference.

 

Squads will go and do their assigned job and try to get back alive. Their kills will count as much as their RTB numbers Kill counts end when you die. Restart from 0 next mission cycle, etc...

 

 

We can speculate a lot but we have to wait for DServer and FMB.

[sturmkraehe]

This game has nice FMs, and unparalleled feel of flight, but the game design itself is seriously lacking.

 

Number 1:

Historically, the common aerial combat altitude on the eastern front was below 3km, but in this game it's above 3km. Why? First of all the air war on the eastern front centered around close ground support, involved low flying bombers/attackers and their escorts, but in this game there's no incentive to win a match, and thus no incentive to destroy ground targets, no incentive to fly ground pounders, no incentive to escort them, the only incentive to do so is because you like it.

 

Number 2:

And thus, the multiplayer's turned into a deathmatch style game, where everybody's roaming around at 4k plus altitude and this brings another serious problem: balance. 1942 Russian aircrafts are barely competitive with German aircrafts below 3km, have no hope to compete with them above 3km. IRL German fighters were forced to come down low to intercept Russian aircrafts because if they didn't Russian aircrafts would shred German ground forces to pieces. In this game any low altitude action involve vulching the vast majority of the time.

 

Number 3:

AA's ineffectiveness leads to vulching being a serious problem in this game. The AI is extremely buggy, and hell, the AAs themself are not even properly modeled in the slightest, it's not unusual to see the AA fire at the exact same place for hours till match's end, without even stopping to reload or cool their guns,

 

Number 4:

Maps are buggy and extremely poorly designed. Half of the objects on the airfields don't even have collision model, some airfields are hard to taxi while other don't, further deepen the vulching problem. Objects are sometimes placed in inappropriate places(like rows of truck right on the runway).

 

I agree that people don't behave according to the history. But then again historically few flew alone but rather in large groups. Simply impossible to gather enough guys to fly bomber in formation.

 

And apart from introducing an artificial blockage system that prevents people from climbing beyond 3 km I don't see how one could make people fly at historic altitudes. There's nobody here who has the power to order them to do so.

 

I disagree however with Numer 3 and 4. The AA could be more effective if they could be present in historical numbers. But then again this would be unhistorical in terms of intrudor to AA ratio because also the attacker were more numerous. 

 

Number 4: Apart from perhaps lacking collision models the maps are superbly well done and look great. Ground object placement is above all a decision by map makers. Some mission makers intentionally place trucks on runways to prevent people to do wild take-offs not using the appropriate runway.

Edited November 7, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[LeLv76_Erkki]

So you are at the same time complaining about people flying over 3k and air quake dogfights? I thought all we need now is more anti-aircraft guns to discourage unorganized vulching and airfield strafing done by single fighters...

 

Dunno, typically every furball is at 4k max and will quickly lose altitude. The people who dont have the patience will also not climb high but will instead just fly to the closest enemy airfield in their Bf 109s carrying gun gondolas or LaGG-3s with summer camo paints on them. Sooner or later most of them will move to the servers with easier more relaxed settings that will better cater to their preferences and where they have more fun.

 

The more diversity the better, in the end everyone should have the chance to play the game as close as to his or her preferences as possible.

Edited November 7, 2014 by LeLv76_Erkki

[Capt_Hook]

IMHO, this has all already been considered and fixed before in IL2.  It's all about the incentives.  Human nature is human nature... many long, long time combat flight simmers (myself included) are naturally competitive by nature, and trying to fight against that in a PUBLIC server is pointless (online war servers such as Ghost Skies and co-ops are obviously a different animal.)  You're much better off catering to what makes a player tick.

 

For many (dare I say most?  All I have is anecdotal data) players persistent stats are the only key that works at all.  Warclouds, Greater Green, and Spits vs 109s (which is still running) all kept persistent stats for the players that played there.  Warclouds was one of the best at it, with a nice MYSQL setup that kept detailed stats for 6 months or more.  Spits vs 109s also has a wonderfully detailed stats engine, though I'm not sure if they have Warclouds old automatic IP restrictions capability.  Once you played on Warclouds with a certain username from a certain IP you always had to play with that username or get kicked, thus keeping the stats at least somewhat accurate and consistent.  Squadrons have squad combined stats and rankings, bomber and fighter pilots get separate ladders, etc.

 

Ground targets and rolling the map always gave more points than air to air kills, thus pushing people up the ladder for playing the map.  Ground pounders were rewarded MORE than air aces, which is how it should be (though I can't stand bombing myself.)  Especially in a conflict like Stalingrad, which was all about the infantry, ground kills and ground objectives should give much higher rewards to players than air. 

 

Keeping stats isn't a panacea, of course.  It's a lot more work for the server admin.  Some players never pay any attention to them.  Etc.  But for many it's enough of an incentive that a significant part of the server population is actively working over ground targets and trying to roll the map.  This alone makes it worth it, IMHO.  And on a public, 24x7 server, this is likely the best you can do.

 

Ultimately if you're really into nothing but pure, planned simulation of historical events, you'll just have to wait for the dserver and the resulting online war mods.  A Ghost Skies - like mod would probably be extremely popular.

[unreasonable]

So, sounds like 90% of the problem is the players themselves and the question is how to force them into a narrow channel of behaviour but ensure that they have the incentive to do so?

Forget unlocks, points, peer pressure etc as incentives. The only thing that will work in this context is money.

 

BoS really would work better as a coin operated system. You put in your shiny shilling and get a take off slot after signing up for a set of mission objectives. The cost of the next mission is dependent on the results of the previous one, with a big discount for achieving mission objectives, surviving, and landing at your home base. Complete success makes the next slot free. Death increases the cost of the next slot considerably. Shooting down enemy aircraft gives zero cost/benefit unless it is an explicit mission objective.

 

This would discourage new players from expert servers until they had trained a little and give people a strong incentive to play mission style, while offering only a small penalty to good players. BoS needs the money as well, I suspect.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

 

Play any multiplayer game online, and you'll experience the same problem: although you might experience nice teamplay now and then, most of the time it's just death-match. The real fun if you are serious is to play in clans (or squadrons, for flight sims) vs other clans. Hopefully the issue will clear itself up once the dedicated server comes out.

 

Most games also don't have a rating system, take for example: CSGO with public servers vs competitive mode, in public servers where there's no rating everybody just death match for fun, while in competitive mode there's rating and everybody's super serious about the objective. This game can also have this option between unrated servers and rated servers.

 

 

Regarding incentives: Look at war thunder, you can always win the game on the ground, but that's seldom the way it goes. People just go for aircraft kills, for whatever reason. That's just the way people playing as individuals do it.

 

What you're talking about is WT's RB and SB modes where you only have 1 life and winning condition can be easily achieved by killing the whole enemy team, in arcade mode where there's multiple respawns people focus more on completing the objective , winning through killing the whole enemy team is possible but much harder because of multiple respawns.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Yakdriver]

i wouldn t know- the arcade thing is a  bit too much airquake. die respawn de respawn. no respact for life and limb, engine or plane.

and you are comparing an arcade game to a simulator.

WT arcade and BoS cann not even be named in the same sentence. They are not in the same league. WT is the Mario Kart antichrist that the unlock system pushed us towards.

and nope, once again... defense of port moresby.
J-mitchell. against barges. 2x500lbs versus two cargoes.
reload repair, then hover over the jap island to vulch the returning axis.
done.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

i wouldn t know- the arcade thing is a  bit too much airquake. die respawn de respawn. no respact for life and limb, engine or plane.

and you are comparing an arcade game to a simulator.

WT arcade and BoS cann not even be named in the same sentence. They are not in the same league. WT is the Mario Kart antichrist that the unlock system pushed us towards.

and nope, once again... defense of port moresby.

J-mitchell. against barges. 2x500lbs versus two cargoes.

reload repair, then hover over the jap island to vulch the returning axis.

done.

 

What you said has little to do with the premise but more to do with bad map design.

[Yakdriver]

ah, now you get it.
the code runs flawlessly.
the features are abundant.
the online design works... its an online mass slaughter game essentially.

The map design or mission design or mission maker is the culprit, that can be changed.
the mind of the people can not be.
because even in WT i see everybody rushing for D mustangs, hayate and Griffon spits.

Once again.
i understand where you are coming from.
and i am essentially on your side - concerning how the tools available are used to "win the day".
That will change once you get both tools to make things better.
and i am sure i will join a dogfight of yours, and use my tool of choice, probably the shtormo, in the environment it was used back then, and use it with as much ruse and affinity i can.

However, pushing dirt and blame on the devs for airquake is, as you have agreed - largely misguided.
i rest my case.
thanks for playing and learning.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[YSoMadTovarisch]

ah, now you get it.

the code runs flawlessly.

the features are abundant.

the online design works... its an online mass slaughter game essentially.

 

The map design or mission design or mission maker is the culprit, that can be changed.

the mind of the people can not be.

because even in WT i see everybody rushing for D mustangs, hayate and Griffon spits.

 

Once again.

i understand where you are coming from.

and i am essentially on your side - concerning how the tools available are used to "win the day".

That will change once you get both tools to make things better.

and i am sure i will join a dogfight of yours, and use my tool of choice, probably the shtormo, in the environment it was used back then, and use it with as much ruse and affinity i can.

 

However, pushing dirt and blame on the devs for airquake is, as you have agreed - largely misguided.

i rest my case.

thanks for playing and learning.

No, matter of fact is: in WT, arcade mode people are more focused on objective than in RB and SB, simply because winning through completing the objective is easier than death-matching, and thus easy rp and money from it. People are naturally graviated first and foremost toward easy and quick materialistic gain and if the option doesn't exist they will be graviated toward easy and quick fun, which is death matching.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Yakdriver]

then  i offer the (offensive?) theought that for you, for the time being, WT arcade mode is the way to go.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

then  i offer the (offensive?) theought that for you, for the time being, WT arcade mode is the way to go.

I'd like to re-emphasize my statement that personally I don't give a damn about unlocks and personal rating(and if rating is to be implemented my rating will among the bottom because I'm very inexperienced with dogfighting without marker). The reason I play IL2 more than DCS is because of the immersion(or at least the potential), and currently even on expert servers there's almost nothing that resemble the actual air war on the Eastern front most of the time simply because people don't wanna play the map the way it should be played.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GrapeJam

[LizLemon]

Only at a low level is WT like that in sb and rb. Get to the higher levels and its all b-17 spam all the time.

 

Unless gaijin completely nerfed bombers in the past few months.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Only at a low level is WT like that in sb and rb. Get to the higher levels and its all b-17 spam all the time.

 

Unless gaijin completely nerfed bombers in the past few months.

Bombers got nerfed hard, and the B17 spam is further proof that people are naturally graviated toward quick and easy materialistic gain and foremost.

[sturmkraehe]

IMHO, this has all already been considered and fixed before in IL2.  It's all about the incentives.  Human nature is human nature... many long, long time combat flight simmers (myself included) are naturally competitive by nature, and trying to fight against that in a PUBLIC server is pointless (online war servers such as Ghost Skies and co-ops are obviously a different animal.)  You're much better off catering to what makes a player tick.

 

For many (dare I say most?  All I have is anecdotal data) players persistent stats are the only key that works at all.  Warclouds, Greater Green, and Spits vs 109s (which is still running) all kept persistent stats for the players that played there.  Warclouds was one of the best at it, with a nice MYSQL setup that kept detailed stats for 6 months or more.  Spits vs 109s also has a wonderfully detailed stats engine, though I'm not sure if they have Warclouds old automatic IP restrictions capability.  Once you played on Warclouds with a certain username from a certain IP you always had to play with that username or get kicked, thus keeping the stats at least somewhat accurate and consistent.  Squadrons have squad combined stats and rankings, bomber and fighter pilots get separate ladders, etc.

 

Ground targets and rolling the map always gave more points than air to air kills, thus pushing people up the ladder for playing the map.  Ground pounders were rewarded MORE than air aces, which is how it should be (though I can't stand bombing myself.)  Especially in a conflict like Stalingrad, which was all about the infantry, ground kills and ground objectives should give much higher rewards to players than air. 

 

Keeping stats isn't a panacea, of course.  It's a lot more work for the server admin.  Some players never pay any attention to them.  Etc.  But for many it's enough of an incentive that a significant part of the server population is actively working over ground targets and trying to roll the map.  This alone makes it worth it, IMHO.  And on a public, 24x7 server, this is likely the best you can do.

 

Ultimately if you're really into nothing but pure, planned simulation of historical events, you'll just have to wait for the dserver and the resulting online war mods.  A Ghost Skies - like mod would probably be extremely popular.

 

I hope that sooner or later server operators get the opportunity to set up their own stat system. I also think that the current stat system rewards bombers not enough and that being killed resulting in zero points is a bad choice (in particular again considering bombers that are generally doomed anyway).

 

We also get information that who shot down who in most servers but we don't get information who destroyed which mission objective. I think those who go for mission objectives should get their share of fame too. Now I understand that putting a message "Player X has destroyed target at Y" is not the best idea to display right after the feat (will attrackt only fighters to that place) but it may as well be displayed with a certain delay to allow the guy to sneak away.

[Y-29.Silky]

This thread... Will be a long one..

 

Edited November 8, 2014 by Silky

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I hope that sooner or later server operators get the opportunity to set up their own stat system. I also think that the current stat system rewards bombers not enough and that being killed resulting in zero points is a bad choice (in particular again considering bombers that are generally doomed anyway).

 

We also get information that who shot down who in most servers but we don't get information who destroyed which mission objective. I think those who go for mission objectives should get their share of fame too. Now I understand that putting a message "Player X has destroyed target at Y" is not the best idea to display right after the feat (will attrackt only fighters to that place) but it may as well be displayed with a certain delay to allow the guy to sneak away.

I agree, if we, the bombers get our target even if killed, ditched or landed we still win and should get points for it anyways.

I don't want to see the  "Tank factory is destroyed " message to anyone but the one who killed it. if everyone can see it they will just run to the site knowing they can catch a bomber on the way out for a easy kill. But if we already hit your target we still win. Your job is to stop us before we drop,not after. Silky you're going to need more popcorn bro...

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I agree, if we, the bombers get our target even if killed, ditched or landed we still win and should get points for it anyways.

I don't want to see the  "Tank factory is destroyed " message to anyone but the one who killed it. if everyone can see it they will just run to the site knowing they can catch a bomber on the way out for a easy kill. But if we already hit your target we still win. Your job is to stop us before we drop,not after. Silky you're going to need more popcorn bro...

Why it's dangerous for bombers to have their kills announced to everybody I don't see it as being unrealistic, irl bombers were commonly intercepted on their way home because the troops on the sector they'd just bombed radioed and direct interceptors to their route.

 

Well, you can have the kill messages announced to friendlies only.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GrapeJam

[76SQN-FatherTed]

The incentive can be something else, but there must be one(other than having fun), else if most players don't play the way you want them to play then everything else in the system will be broken.

 

We're not supposed to have fun?  In a game?  Why do you play?  I understand what you're saying about persuading people to play the "proper" way - I've argued similarly about other games' designs - but in the end you can't make everyone else enjoy the game in the way you wish to.  As others have said, you need to have your own server and a bunch of like-minded peeps.  I play a WW2 shooter which has clans who do the whole role-play thing.  In the game it's perfectly possible to lob grenades into your own spawn, or drive around running people over in a jeep, but it doesn't happen on a clan's server because they choose not to do it.  This has nothing to do with incentives within the game.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

We're not supposed to have fun?  In a game?  Why do you play?  I understand what you're saying about persuading people to play the "proper" way - I've argued similarly about other games' designs - but in the end you can't make everyone else enjoy the game in the way you wish to.  As others have said, you need to have your own server and a bunch of like-minded peeps.  I play a WW2 shooter which has clans who do the whole role-play thing.  In the game it's perfectly possible to lob grenades into your own spawn, or drive around running people over in a jeep, but it doesn't happen on a clan's server because they choose not to do it.  This has nothing to do with incentives within the game.

Incentive doesn't force anybody to not play the way they want, but encourage them to play the way you want them to play, they're always free to not follow that incentive.

[sturmkraehe]

I agree, if we, the bombers get our target even if killed, ditched or landed we still win and should get points for it anyways.

I don't want to see the  "Tank factory is destroyed " message to anyone but the one who killed it. if everyone can see it they will just run to the site knowing they can catch a bomber on the way out for a easy kill. But if we already hit your target we still win. Your job is to stop us before we drop,not after. Silky you're going to need more popcorn bro...

 

That's why I suggest to have delay between the destruction of target and message display. This could be 1min or 2 min or even 5 min after the bombing. Or the message could be made vague like "Player X destroyed a mission objective" without naming which one so that the other side does not know which target has just been hit.

Edited November 8, 2014 by sturmkraehe