do we need autobalancing?

[VeryOldMan]

The main reason I'm in WoL is it's the only populated server when I'm online. I've hit TAW on the weekends and loved it but hence it is empty during my evenings when I'm on.

 

That said, just the other night a server rotated it was me and a buddy on Soviets....2 players.

 

The server kept filling up and filling up: 28 Germans and still just us 2 on Soviets.

 

We left. I'm sure that server rotation was a blast....

That happened with me ONCE... (were 3 on our side ) I talked the other guys we took of with max fuel and went AWAY from front line  with  carefully trimmed Pe-2 with   low power setting to keep flying as long as possible, 

 

I hope the other 31 LW fighters had fun

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

People I have talked to refused to switch sides because they "care about stats".

 

That's the heart of the matter.

 

 

Disable the loss of points on aviaskins stat page, and people will more readily switch.

[Fabioccio]

Omg

[Gambit21]

People I have talked to refused to switch sides because they "care about stats".

 

That's the heart of the matter.

 

 

Disable the loss of points on aviaskins stat page, and people will more readily switch.

 

I think stats are a huge problem frankly. They lead to any number of problems, including intentional disconnects and all manner of horrible behavior.

Maybe it's because I'm from the old CoOp culture...any stats that existed were ones we kept for ourselves, and the mission was about the mission - not ego.

I flew for whatever side needed pilots generally, and I know many others that did the same.

 

A while back, a few years now before Moscow was released, I sat in my Yak after landing back at base and invited one of the Germans to come and try and bomb me with his Stuka - he scored, I congratulated him.

I cant' imagine one of these stat whores doing that.

 

I'll get back online when we have CoOps again, I doubt before.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I can certainly see a number of bad behaviors being driven by stats; but on the other hand, if it wasn't stats, toxic people would just be toxic about something else.

[19//Moach]

disabling the punishment delay in switching teams, or reducing it to a "confirmatory minimum" (30s)  would probably have a very good effect on the unwillingness to switch problem...

 

I have a few (rare) times found myself in a situation where I had considered switching to an outnumbered blue team, only to be discouraged from doing so by the exceedingly long "naughty corner" delay imposed on those who switch during a match... 

 

this and any loss of scoring (to those who give any shits about that) are quite off putting factors, and it is obvious that this hinders many player-made attempts to balance out uneven teams... it is strongly recommended that server admins revise these settings to promote team switching, rather than punish it.

 

 

 

also - looking at the numbers for this month on WoL, it is more or less clear that despite momentary peaks of absurd unevenness,

we nevertheless do not need auto-balancing

 

the statistics show an overall 336 red, 412 both, 441 blue totals for the month, and the win/loss percentage is about 1/10th off from the center of the scale for blue over red

 

this is definitely not severe enough to warrant as brutal a measure as auto-balancing.

 

 

there are many reasons why players choose to stick to one side over another... one of the most popular ones is also one of the most controversial.  it has to do with a certain plane which performs in vast excess of it's historical capabilities, under certain conditions

 

it will be extremely interesting to observe the results of the upcoming FM patch in relation to this phenomena.  for Science, of course

Edited July 25, 2017 by 19//Moach

[KaC_Richard_Rogers]

 

also - looking at the numbers for this month on WoL, it is more or less clear that despite momentary peaks of absurd unevenness,

we nevertheless do not need auto-balancing

 

the statistics show an overall 336 red, 412 both, 441 blue totals for the month, and the win/loss percentage is about 1/10th off from the center of the scale for blue over red

 

this is definitely not severe enough to warrant as brutal a measure as auto-balancing.

 

 

there are many reasons why players choose to stick to one side over another... l

 

The thing about facts is context. I almost always find myself flying odds of 2-1 on good nights and on others, well one afternoon 20 Germans and 3 Russians.

 

As far as WoL goes the stats are a major contributor to the imbalance we have and I do not have any issue with pilots not changing because their stats would be trashed. I do have an issue with these pilots never going Russian for a month. 

 

The problem is that I believe that this issue will hit a crucial mass son and then WoL will go the way of the Dodo. I have seen this happen before on other flight sim servers.

 

I am only new to WoL but I am quickly tiring of the mission design bias regarding plane sets made 10x worse by the side stacking.

[Dave]

I think it is certainly possible to strongly encourage the behaviour we'd like - ie reasonably balanced teams and cooperative mission-driven behaviour - through better mission design.

 

For example, wannabe Hartmanns shouldn't be punished for wanting to fly fighters, but a whole team of 30 Hartmanns hovering over a handful of persistent Pe2s should be actively thwarted by mission design. I certainly don't have all the answers on how this can be achieved but I do believe it is possible. One idea would be to reward interdiction objectives by reducing supplies of certain aircraft types - you could think of it as a loss of fuel, oil, spares and ammunition for example. A similar idea I have seen work well on other servers is resupply of forward airfields. Supplementary AI pilots to bolster human player numbers and generally improve "player" density could also help (but may be too costly in compute resources). A more dynamic fluid battlespace where the success or failure of ground objectives have real and immediate consequences for the flow of the game is the biggest single improvement I can think of here and would be a major step forward in gameplay over the relatively sterile environments that are WoL missions IMHO.

It also seems to me (might just be bad luck or perception) that WoL missions tend to be predominantly set in the early period of the eastern conflict which is a major disincentive to would-be VVS flyers.

 

The most crucial ingredient in my own frustration however is the lack of communication between players. After years of AA and ARMA2 I just can't fathom why people trying to fly planes that generally lack trim would rather type in chat than coordinate their efforts as a team using TeamSpeak. It simply defies logic. 

For those that do use voice comms there is the next hurdle of server fragmentation. Why does every clan (sometimes every pilot) insist on being the only person on their own private TeamSpeak or Discord server? Irrespective of its other virtues, if a communications medium doesn't support team communication it has failed - completely.

In this vein ARMA2 had an outstanding radio mod called ACRE that accurately modelled the characteristics of the various radios in use in the simulated environment and it so enhanced immersion and engagement that everybody got on comms for a more authentic experience. Why can't this be done for BoX (at least for the latter battles where the VVS had fitted radios)? Why is this not a built in feature of the game? I mean leaving radio comms out of a combat flight sim is like leaving weapons out of an FPS.

 

I've just finished a long contract and have a little spare time at least for a month or two before I start another. I'd like to work with anyone else who wants to improve the current options wrt to missions. I can easily host a server (yes yet another BoX server) on AWS for this purpose. What would help me out is some other peoples' ideas on what could be improved and what would encourage them to leave WOL to play on a US-hosted server. My preference is to host in the US because I am personally located in Australia close to the arsehole of the Internet and if I'm to be paying the hosting bills I'm not going to suffer the 400 ping I currently get on WOL.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Dave

[DickDong]

I think it is certainly possible to strongly encourage the behaviour we'd like - ie reasonably balanced teams and cooperative mission-driven behaviour - through better mission design.

 

For example, wannabe Hartmanns shouldn't be punished for wanting to fly fighters, but a whole team of 30 Hartmanns hovering over a handful of persistent Pe2s should be actively thwarted by mission design. I certainly don't have all the answers on how this can be achieved but I do believe it is possible. One idea would be to reward interdiction objectives by reducing supplies of certain aircraft types - you could think of it as a loss of fuel, oil, spares and ammunition for example. A similar idea I have seen work well on other servers is resupply of forward airfields. Supplementary AI pilots to bolster human player numbers and generally improve "player" density could also help (but may be too costly in compute resources). A more dynamic fluid battlespace where the success or failure of ground objectives have real and immediate consequences for the flow of the game is the biggest single improvement I can think of here and would be a major step forward in gameplay over the relatively sterile environments that are WoL missions IMHO.

It also seems to me (might just be bad luck or perception) that WoL missions tend to be predominantly set in the early period of the eastern conflict which is a major disincentive to would-be VVS flyers.

 

The most crucial ingredient in my own frustration however is the lack of communication between players. After years of AA and ARMA2 I just can't fathom why people trying to fly planes that generally lack trim would rather type in chat than coordinate their efforts as a team using TeamSpeak. It simply defies logic.

For those that do use voice comms there is the next hurdle of server fragmentation. Why does every clan (sometimes every pilot) insist on being the only person on their own private TeamSpeak or Discord server? Irrespective of its other virtues, if a communications medium doesn't support team communication it has failed - completely.

In this vein ARMA2 had an outstanding radio mod called ACRE that accurately modelled the characteristics of the various radios in use in the simulated environment and it so enhanced immersion and engagement that everybody got on comms for a more authentic experience. Why can't this be done for BoX (at least for the latter battles where the VVS had fitted radios)? Why is this not a built in feature of the game? I mean leaving radio comms out of a combat flight sim is like leaving weapons out of an FPS.

 

I've just finished a long contract and have a little spare time at least for a month or two before I start another. I'd like to work with anyone else who wants to improve the current options wrt to missions. I can easily host a server (yes yet another BoX server) on AWS for this purpose. What would help me out is some other peoples' ideas on what could be improved and what would encourage them to leave WOL to play on a US-hosted server. My preference is to host in the US because I am personally located in Australia close to the arsehole of the Internet and if I'm to be paying the hosting bills I'm not going to suffer the 400 ping I currently get on WOL.

Yes! to a populated server in US. Sick of getting disco'ed from servers.

[VeryOldMan]

 

 

the statistics show an overall 336 red, 412 both, 441 blue totals for the month, and the win/loss percentage is about 1/10th off from the center of the scale for blue over red

 

this is definitely not severe enough to warrant as brutal a measure as auto-balancing.

 

 

When you look like that although you forego that  trough time the spread is nto uniform. At  Russian peak time there is FAR more allied  than LW, during rest of the day there is  far more LW than Allies. That is why I think the nationality is the  major factor (something we can only "fix" when we have some western front scenario).

[JaffaCake]

Tbh I understand all of the concerns, but I paid pretty penny for this game and I will fly what I want to fly when I want to fly everything else be damned. If the server doesn't permit it - so be it - I'll find another one or fly vs AI. Thankfully I mostly main Pe2 so the changes proposed here wouldn't normally affect me.

Edited July 25, 2017 by JaffaCake

[Dave]

Tbh I understand all of the concerns, but I paid pretty penny for this game and I will fly what I want to fly when I want to fly everything else be damned. If the server doesn't permit it - so be it - I'll find another one or fly vs AI. Thankfully I mostly main Pe2 so the changes proposed here wouldn't normally affect me.

You are quite justified in this position of course, but consider that everyone else paid a pretty penny also and for those that did so to play MP many currently endure a consistently shit experience due to the selfishness of others.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

What a bunch of melodramatics.

[Cpt_Cool]

A hopping USA server would be great though. Usually when I get home from work and get a chance to hop on there is around 20-30 on WOL. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

something we can only "fix" when we have some western front scenario

 

-snip-

 

Where do you gather that..? If there were a late-war Western Front scenario I'd still be flying Luftwaffe.

 

Because while Dave may think it's selfish of me to play my couple-hundred-dollar software investment the way I see fit, I think it's selfish of him to expect anybody to spend their time making sure he's having fun.

[JaffaCake]

You are quite justified in this position of course, but consider that everyone else paid a pretty penny also and for those that did so to play MP many currently endure a consistently shit experience due to the selfishness of others.

 

Then the best way is to have a solution that is a carrot rather than a stick. Because only a certain kind of people enjoy the sticks after giving the money.

[Max_Damage]

Yes like all other games do, we need autobalance.

disabling the punishment delay in switching teams, or reducing it to a "confirmatory minimum" (30s)  would probably have a very good effect on the unwillingness to switch problem...

 

I have a few (rare) times found myself in a situation where I had considered switching to an outnumbered blue team, only to be discouraged from doing so by the exceedingly long "naughty corner" delay imposed on those who switch during a match... 

 

this and any loss of scoring (to those who give any shits about that) are quite off putting factors, and it is obvious that this hinders many player-made attempts to balance out uneven teams... it is strongly recommended that server admins revise these settings to promote team switching, rather than punish it.

 

 

 

also - looking at the numbers for this month on WoL, it is more or less clear that despite momentary peaks of absurd unevenness,

we nevertheless do not need auto-balancing

 

the statistics show an overall 336 red, 412 both, 441 blue totals for the month, and the win/loss percentage is about 1/10th off from the center of the scale for blue over red

 

this is definitely not severe enough to warrant as brutal a measure as auto-balancing.

 

 

there are many reasons why players choose to stick to one side over another... one of the most popular ones is also one of the most controversial.  it has to do with a certain plane which performs in vast excess of it's historical capabilities, under certain conditions

 

it will be extremely interesting to observe the results of the upcoming FM patch in relation to this phenomena.  for Science, of course

actually 1/10 off center means one side wins ~25% more often then the other and this is pretty huge. If you ever played world of tanks, players with 50% and 57% winrate are worlds apart.

I hope once Kuban map is out there will be server running Kuban map and it's planeset all the time, as i said previously good planeset matchup could be best solution for balance.
Lot of guys will jump on VVS side and fly spitfire and yak-1b, and all that before rest of the BoK planes arrive.
I also think historical accuracy is nonsense regarding MP, why;
-usually there is always more germans flying on server, in real life there were two russians on one german so historical accuracy falls into the water

well thats very false tough. In 1942 LW had complete number superiority. Particularly above summer/ autum Stalingrad.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Max_Damage

[Max_Damage]

Between Random Expert and Tactical Air War, the only reason why WOL is the server of choice for as many people as it is, is... laziness?  Maybe fear of the unknown?  It doesn't take much more time to get into action on RE or TAW, and it really only takes a little more effort.  And for anybody who complains about the ping, I live in San Francisco and have zero problems, nor does anyone in my squadron(one of whom lives on a tiny Caribbean island) .

 

Do yourself and everybody else a favor and just hop on those servers if you never have.  The more people do, the more they will grow and thrive.

TAW: 23 mm banned from il2 planes which is an instant a complete joke. realistic weapon completely banned.

 

RE: minimap simulator. They want it to look more realistic. They forgot that the players dont have pilot and navigator training and have lots of other handicaps like having to see the world through a 23 inch plate and having no force feedbakc whatsoever. Its not realistic as long as you are sitting at home and not flying an actual olane. I will spend my time elsewhere :D

Edited July 25, 2017 by Max_Damage

[curiousGamblerr]

It's all about balance, folks (no pun intended). Like everything else in life.

 

On the one hand, there is the ideal that each of us should be able to do anything we want with the software we purchased. I paid money for the game, I should be able to play it how I like- who could argue against this? In theory it seems self evident.

 

On the other hand, there is the ideal of empathy and compassion, where we all care about one another's experience because, well, we're decent people after all. You might scoff at this second ideal, but consider our universal hatred of team killing and cheating. We hate those things because they ruin everyone else's experience, so we don't care that the team killer himself is "doing what he wants with his software" but ban him anyway. But he paid $80 for the premium edition!

 

 

These two ideals exist in conflict, and craving a black and white perspective on the world, folks on this forum naturally gravitate to one side or the other exclusively. In reality, the answer is in between. (The answer is always in between!)

 

So I tend to fly the team with less players, because I like everyone to have fun, and there's nothing wrong with a target rich environment. At the same time, sometimes I'm just really craving a 109 and say screw it, its 40-20, what's 41-20, I'm gonna go German for this map. For me personally, this second case is the minority and nine times out of ten I'm picking the side with less players, but that's just me. The point is you can strike a balance without acting obtuse and pretending your ideal is the only ideal.

 

Not to bring up politics, but this conflict is seen in society all the time. Ideally, yes, I worked for my money and I should get to keep it all. Because I have empathy and compassion for my fellow citizen, however, I pay taxes so everyone's children can go to school, the less fortunate can eat, etc. As a product of the welfare system that went on to be successful enough to complain about capital gains taxes, I guess I'm well equipped to see both sides here, but it frustrates me that's not the case for most people.

 

In this discussion, autobalancing is like taxes, it's regulation- people are too selfish to volunteer to pay for public schools, so the government taxes the people and ensures there is money for the schools. But if you've taken Econ 101, you know taxes are inefficient and cause dead weight loss. Things would be better if we didn't need taxes to accomplish the goal of having public schools.

 

We all know that doesn't work. But could it work here? Could this community adopt a culture of decency which prevented egregious team stacking, without introducing autobalancing regulation and its inherent inefficiency? ...Probably not. But maybe y'all will surprise me. 

 

\rant

 

Really I would hate autobalancing, I just felt feisty this morning and wanted to bomb atomically, socrates philosophies and hypotheses, can't define how I be droppin' these, mockeries, lyrically perform armed robbery, flee with the lottery...

 

 

 

 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

There is a fundamental difference between banning a repetitive TK'r and telling people they can't fly a 109 because "muh shit experience," "ur shellfish," "L0L0L Hartmannz," etc.

 

Perhaps people wouldn't be so polarized if certain individuals could ask for "fair play" without insulting others based on their preferences or what they enjoy.

 

Honestly, nobody is asking anybody to do anything for the "community" when it is prefaced with a sense of self importance. I don't get it. 

[RAY-EU]

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

well thats very false tough. In 1942 LW had complete number superiority. Particularly above summer/ autum Stalingrad.

The ratio in November was 4.5 Soviet fighters per German fighter across the Stalingrad front, but Germans usually had local air superiority by concentrating their efforts while the Soviet Air Forces preferred small groups until a fighter tactics convention in 1943 proposed changes to that ("let's stop poking them with separate fingers and hit them with a full fist instead", quoting). Right now you have the opposite, concentrated groups of Soviet aircraft squaring off against lone wolves or pairs mostly.

[Dave]

Someone's ADD prevented them from reading the whole thread before acting like a child.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Someone's ADD prevented them from reading the whole thread before acting like a child.

 

I've been reading the thread since it was started - it's the same moot point "me me me" arguments that are rehashed every time autobalance is brought up.

 

Be as insulting as you'd like - it serves as validation of my point.

 

Quite frankly, Dave, I don't care how much fun you're having. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[Lusekofte]

Hey multiplayer is not a new thing, there is no simple solution for balancing teams. Autobalance will not work , I am just for a test run to prove it. This discussion is as old as multiplayer have existed, most servers abandoned forced balance for a reason. 

There is something wrong with a hobby if you are forced to fly something that you will not like to fly. For me personally I could wish for a possibility to fly Stuka once in a while or HE 111 16, But the current balance make me choose VVS on all servers, we registered as a LW unit in one server , but had to abandon the idea since the number was unequal, We felt and do feel we have to take balance into account when we fly, others do not. Unfair come to mind, but there it is, we all make our choices, and luckily this is not the only sim alive these days. Until it is fixed somehow the increase of people will be far less than hoped, because you loose some in the other end faster than it would otherwise 

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

There is a fundamental difference between banning a repetitive TK'r and telling people they can't fly a 109 because "muh shit experience," "ur shellfish," "L0L0L Hartmannz," etc.

 

Perhaps people wouldn't be so polarized if certain individuals could ask for "fair play" without insulting others based on their preferences or what they enjoy.

 

Well thats quite unfair.

While you choose to only argue with the loud minority of people who have to insult people to feel good, you are strawmanning sensible arguments because someone that agreed with those arguments behaved like a child.

 

Everyone is free to use the product how they like, by implying that the pro auto balance side is arguing against that you are strawmanning them.

The servers you are playing on in multiplayer arent actualy part of the product you bought, only the ability to use them is.

So everyone is free to use the product how they like and play singleplayer, or join a multiplayer server where there might be some senisble limitations based on the experience of 20 vs 50 matches.

Just as there are limitations on what planes you can fly or which loadouts you can take.

 

 

Because while Dave may think it's selfish of me to play my couple-hundred-dollar software investment the way I see fit, I think it's selfish of him to expect anybody to spend their time making sure he's having fun.

Noone is expecting you to do that, and you know it.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I'm building a straw man out of your position? I don't think so... You are, at its essence, arguing that I should not be able to play without autobalance because it infringes upon your enjoyment. You also took it upon yourself to infer that if I'm not going to play with your enjoyment in mind that I should stick to SP. Hmm. 

 

Hey, at least you are correct in asserting that, without autobalance, everyone is free to use the product how they like.

 

It's also ironic that "sensible" server administrators decided it was "sensible" to leave any form out autobalance out of the equation. 

 

You could always get a DServer key and start a "Wings of Balance" server.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

arguing that I should not be able to play without autobalance because it infringes upon your enjoyment. You also took it upon yourself to infer that if I'm not going to play with your enjoyment in mind that I should stick to SP. Hmm. 

 

never said that read again.

You are either intentionaly strawmanning and acting stupid or seriously believe that i was arguing that.

 

 

 

Hey, at least you are correct in asserting that, without autobalance, everyone is free to use the product how they like.

Never did that either. with or without autobalance everyone is free to use the product how they like.

Though technically thats not true, you are not allowed to make copys of it and sell it.

 

 

You could always get a DServer key and start a "Wings of Balance" server.

Youre right I could and i seriously started thinking about it, but i lack the money and the know how and so i just try to bully the server admins into doing as I please by ranting on the forums. :D

Just wanted to take the argument out of your moth before you make it.

Though I would call it having a discussion to see where everyone stands and exchange arguments. But in the end it comes down to the server admins and what they want and as i have learned they seem pretty opposed to it, I can live with that though i think its not perfect.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Bombenleger

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

i just try to bully the server admins into doing as I please by ranting on the forums. :D

 

-snip-

 

 in the end it comes down to the server admins and what they want and as i have learned they seem pretty opposed to it

 

-snip-

 

Obviously...

 

And obviously...

[NO_SQDeriku777]

I think it is certainly possible to strongly encourage the behaviour we'd like - ie reasonably balanced teams and cooperative mission-driven behaviour - through better mission design.

 

For example, wannabe Hartmanns shouldn't be punished for wanting to fly fighters, but a whole team of 30 Hartmanns hovering over a handful of persistent Pe2s should be actively thwarted by mission design. I certainly don't have all the answers on how this can be achieved but I do believe it is possible. One idea would be to reward interdiction objectives by reducing supplies of certain aircraft types - you could think of it as a loss of fuel, oil, spares and ammunition for example. A similar idea I have seen work well on other servers is resupply of forward airfields. Supplementary AI pilots to bolster human player numbers and generally improve "player" density could also help (but may be too costly in compute resources). A more dynamic fluid battlespace where the success or failure of ground objectives have real and immediate consequences for the flow of the game is the biggest single improvement I can think of here and would be a major step forward in gameplay over the relatively sterile environments that are WoL missions IMHO.

It also seems to me (might just be bad luck or perception) that WoL missions tend to be predominantly set in the early period of the eastern conflict which is a major disincentive to would-be VVS flyers.

 

The most crucial ingredient in my own frustration however is the lack of communication between players. After years of AA and ARMA2 I just can't fathom why people trying to fly planes that generally lack trim would rather type in chat than coordinate their efforts as a team using TeamSpeak. It simply defies logic.

For those that do use voice comms there is the next hurdle of server fragmentation. Why does every clan (sometimes every pilot) insist on being the only person on their own private TeamSpeak or Discord server? Irrespective of its other virtues, if a communications medium doesn't support team communication it has failed - completely.

In this vein ARMA2 had an outstanding radio mod called ACRE that accurately modelled the characteristics of the various radios in use in the simulated environment and it so enhanced immersion and engagement that everybody got on comms for a more authentic experience. Why can't this be done for BoX (at least for the latter battles where the VVS had fitted radios)? Why is this not a built in feature of the game? I mean leaving radio comms out of a combat flight sim is like leaving weapons out of an FPS.

 

I've just finished a long contract and have a little spare time at least for a month or two before I start another. I'd like to work with anyone else who wants to improve the current options wrt to missions. I can easily host a server (yes yet another BoX server) on AWS for this purpose. What would help me out is some other peoples' ideas on what could be improved and what would encourage them to leave WOL to play on a US-hosted server. My preference is to host in the US because I am personally located in Australia close to the arsehole of the Internet and if I'm to be paying the hosting bills I'm not going to suffer the 400 ping I currently get on WOL.

If there were away to limit the proportional fuel load outs for new players jumping into an unbalanced side ( bombers exempted ) the problem would be solved. You want to fly with 20 other fighters in a 20 V 10 situation You get 50% fuel. 30 v 10, you get 30% fuel, and so on. Existing players on your side get that restriction applied to their next sortie. Forcing a rear airfield spawn with distance proportional to balance would also help. Does anyone with mission design experience know if this is possible?

 

As far as the comms issue goes, I think that the upcoming Air Marshall feature is going to be crucial, particularly for "herding cats". In an infantry based FPS shooter you don't need to worry too much about losing sight of your teammates if you don't wait for them to spawn. At 450 KMH you can get out of that 10KM sight bubble real quick. I enjoy escorting bombers. Too many damn times bombers will just take off without waiting for escort because they aren't on global comms and don't want to waste time asking for it in chat or coodinate with me if they have a tree hugging flight path that hides them. I could meet them at their target if I knew their target and ETA. Some people do put this info in chat but some perverse law dictates that I am always flying on the other side of the map when I get this info.

Edited July 25, 2017 by NO_SQDeriku777

[NO_SQDeriku777]

Well thats quite unfair.

While you choose to only argue with the loud minority of people who have to insult people to feel good, you are strawmanning sensible arguments because someone that agreed with those arguments behaved like a child.

Everyone is free to use the product how they like, by implying that the pro auto balance side is arguing against that you are strawmanning them.

The servers you are playing on in multiplayer arent actualy part of the product you bought, only the ability to use them is.

So everyone is free to use the product how they like and play singleplayer, or join a multiplayer server where there might be some senisble limitations based on the experience of 20 vs 50 matches.

Just as there are limitations on what planes you can fly or which loadouts you can take.

 

 

 

Noone is expecting you to do that, and you know it.

The person you are engaging with I have on ignore which is a really nice forum feature in my profile preferences. He doesn't offer anything of value to discussions and just raises the bile level of any discussion he is in. If everyone just adds him to their ignore list and stops responding to his posts we can continue to have a productive discussion without being distracted by his bile. Ignore settings are under "My Profile, Edit My Profile, Edit Ignore Prefernces" Edited July 25, 2017 by NO_SQDeriku777

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I see Space Ghost posted. I have him on ignore which is a really nice forum feature in my profile preferences. He doesn't offer anything of value to discussions and just raises the bile level of any discussion he is in. If everyone just adds him to their ignore list and stops responding to his posts we can continue to have a productive discussion without being distracted by his bile. Ignore settings are under "My Profile, Edit My Profile, Edit Ignore Prefernces"

 

 

[SYN_Haashashin]

You guys are getting way to personal around here. Keep it civil.

 

Haash

[Aap]

Again, if a server/mission set up a simple logic to keep the teams balanced, which has been explained in another thread already, we would not need to blame the community, Hartmanns, reds or blues - just the logic would take care of the issue without any emotions or blaming other players. Simple as that.

[NO_SQDeriku777]

You guys are getting way to personal around here. Keep it civil.

 

Haash

If this is in reference to my post, my apologies. I have amended it to remove the name. I only wish to draw attention to the ignore feature, which I believe can be a big help in keeping a thread on-track.

[Gambit21]

Using the ignore feature is fine if that's what you wish to do, but talking about it isn't really the way to keep anything on track...just FYI.

That's just a way to get in a jab, while trying to seem like you're not getting in a jab.

[NO_SQDeriku777]

Using the ignore feature is fine if that's what you wish to do, but talking about it isn't really the way to keep anything on track...just FYI.

That's just a way to get in a jab, while trying to seem like you're not getting in a jab.

You are correct. I am more than willing to admit that it was bad manners and I should not have posted that.

[xDeadMan]

Its a sandbox. Less rules the better.

 

Go into the duel arena if you dont want to play in a sandbox.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Nunz2

[Gambit21]

Not quite sure I agree with the sandbox analogy - numerous servers in varying 'flavors' is the answer. It's not a binary "pick airquake or duels" thing.

 

I prefer to fly with mission oriented pilots - thus CoOps.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Not quite sure I agree with the sandbox analogy - numerous servers in varying 'flavors' is the answer. It's not a binary "pick airquake or duels" thing.

 

I prefer to fly with mission oriented pilots - thus CoOps.

 

 

You're free to enjoy CoOps, certainly.  But it's easy enough to be mission oriented in multiplayer flying against other mission oriented humans.  That's the only kind of gameplay I participate in, with TAW and RE.

Edited July 25, 2017 by 7-GvShAP/Silas