Jump to content
RustyEagle

ability to rearm, refuel, and repair

Recommended Posts

The R+R feature of CLoD created a vastly more rewarding multiplayer environment, where the experience of a successful sortie was made completely different from that of a failed one.

 

Currently in BoX, the simple premise of having to respawn anyways puts a taste of pointlessness in flying full missions.  Combined with the lacks and wants of a crude kills-only scoreboard, this causes players to behave in absurd ways. 

 

Suicidal rams, Disposable Bombers, Airfield Camping, and all manner of unauthentic (and at times aggravating) behaviors ensue directly from this ever-present sense of the utter pointlessness of returning alive.  Even when returning is accomplished, it falls short of being as meaningful a reward as it had been in CloD.

 

R+R was a feature of ATAG, not CloD.

 

ATAG was the only server to implement a refuel-and-rearm solution. This feature was not made available to any other CloD servers.

 

 

Elsewhere, alternative work-arounds were used. For example, on the Storm of War server, squads would "own" airfields and airstock. Lost aircraft would need to be re-applied for and flown in, damaged aircraft would be put into the workshop for repair, intact aircraft would be ready to go immediately, but only after a despawn/respawn.

 

 

Yes, aircraft accountability is appealing to some pilots. But an in-mission R+R is not the only way of accomplishing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was NOT a little used novelty in CLoD, nor is it a gimmick, as some might insist.

 

 

The R+R feature of CLoD created a vastly more rewarding multiplayer environment, where the experience of a successful sortie was made completely different from that of a failed one.

 

Currently in BoX, the simple premise of having to respawn anyways puts a taste of pointlessness in flying full missions.  Combined with the lacks and wants of a crude kills-only scoreboard, this causes players to behave in absurd ways. 

 

Suicidal rams, Disposable Bombers, Airfield Camping, and all manner of unauthentic (and at times aggravating) behaviors ensue directly from this ever-present sense of the utter pointlessness of returning alive.  Even when returning is accomplished, it falls short of being as meaningful a reward as it had been in CloD.

 

 

The CloD R+R feature also introduced a whole new element to online play:  A relevant logistical choice to be made by each player.  As the rear bases offered more advanced airplane types, they could be brought forward at the expense of a longer haul.  This made them special to those operating them, and infused these pilots with a heightened instinct for self-preservation.   Being able to rearm those types at bases closer to the action made this a very interesting and deeply engaging mechanic.

 

 

Therefore: To dismiss R+R as an unimportant lesser priority, is to completely miss the point of how player behavior evolves around existing features.  A sad, near-sighted mistake, which many a game designer have historically blundered upon to their own detriment.

 

 

R+R can help cure a lion's share of the behavioral issues that plague our online games, and at the same time, it'd offer SP mission designers a whole new world of possibility.

 

 

Let us please have it.   Anyone saying otherwise is lobbying for an ultimately lesser game. Probably without even realising it.   I trust that our devs are wise enough to see through such folly.

very well said and written, you deserve an Internet cookie :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore: To dismiss R+R as an unimportant lesser priority, is to completely miss the point of how player behavior evolves around existing features.  A sad, near-sighted mistake, which many a game designer have historically blundered upon to their own detriment.

 

 

R+R can help cure a lion's share of the behavioral issues that plague our online games, and at the same time, it'd offer SP mission designers a whole new world of possibility.

 

 

Let us please have it.   Anyone saying otherwise is lobbying for an ultimately lesser game. Probably without even realising it.   I trust that our devs are wise enough to see through such folly.

 

What a lot of tosh.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always happy to be in the minority but if you're getting re-fueled/re-armed/patched up or what have you in 2.5 minutes; that's not immersion, that's fantasy land.

 

And if you're getting out of your armchair to make a coffee or whatever, what's the point?  How immersive is getting up and getting a coffee when you're supposed to be  strapped in your seat waiting anxiously for permission to get back in the air? 

 

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...because I don't have a dog in this fight.

That said...

 

I could apply your above logic to anything in the sim, as there are compromises out of necessity everywhere - thus arbitrarily picking a faster re-arm/refuel as the "well that's just too far" line doesn't make much sense to me.

Aircraft were often warmed/started by crew, not the pilot, yet we climb in, start up and we're taxiing within seconds...much faster than what was possible in real life.

Thus I don't see the problem in someone coming from the point of view that "yes a faster re-arm/re-fuel while not exactly historically accurate, is still more immersive than booting back into the game GUI"

That statement frankly makes sense to me.

 

We get up and get coffee etc all the time when it's wouldn't be possible in real life, so I'm not sure the "you're sitting in your comfortable armchair" is really a valid argument for or against any feature TBH, although your'point

there wasn't lost on me.

 

So again, I don't care, (although again I think those latching on to saying it's useless lack a bit of imagination...transports?)

I get why people ask for it - I certainly don't see the desire as pointless or foolish, and again as a mission designer I would utilize it here and there as I pointed out above.

 

Look how much fun dropping paratroopers is...how often did that happen on the Eastern Front again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument against R&R has been that it is pointless *unless there is an incentive*     If some servers want to have good fighters only available at rear fields but once flown in they can be refueled & re-armed at forward fields then I have no problem with that though the BoS & BoM maps are a little too small to really give much of a difference between Rear & Forward fields.   When I saw this mechanic used in special one-of events there was usually a reasonable flight time eg Fighters only available from London and Eastwards but all the action near the Isle Of Wight & Tangmere a good 15 minutes flight away to the SW.

 

Moach seems to indicate that R&R worked in CLoD because the ATAG server did restrict aircraft to rear fields but my memory of it is that all the fighters were available at all open fields in ATAG and few people used R&R because it was quicker to respawn and get back to the fight. That was what they wanted, Fly-die-fly-die as quick as possible and no more than two minutes flight from a big furball.  Perhaps ATAG changed after I got bored of its 'Air Quake' death match style play and I moved to more realistic servers but I would be surprised as ATAG had a stated policy of refusing to bring in any rules that might discourage casual players from dropping in for 20 minutes & playing as unrealistically as they want. 

 

TL:DR version.   Yes to R&R but only if there is also a mechanic to make people use it.  

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would need something more than R+R, i would need line and base maintenance with battalion of mechanics and fitters, and large warehouse for spare parts!

 

I welcome the idea, it would make us taxing more often once landed which increases immersion a lot (having purpose and goal to taxi).

This along with new "rain" effect, increased rendering distance would rock my immersion.

Edited by EAF_Ribbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In multiplayer, where the state of objects is independent of a single player's aircraft, there is relatively little application to it.

 

In single player modes however it would open up a lot of doors to scenarios where a target must be destroyed at all costs, but the state the player leaves it in matters.

 

For example, say you need to urgently destroy a column of German scouts approaching the airfield! In that case you could take off, expend all your ammunition, land, rearm and give them hell again until a) they're destroyed or b) your aircraft crashes. The same goes for bridges, tanks, an enemy airfield or even multiple aircraft. In scenarios where the number of aircraft is very limited (ie when having serviced aircraft ready to relaunch right after you land in your current kite is not possible) and/or you have the same target repeatedly, mission builders would then have the option to make tougher targets which could possibly require a second visit if that fits the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im all about user choice.

 

If it's easy to implement, id appreciate it.

 

If its on a server and one doesnt approve... Dont play on that server.

 

It could add to the engine stress mechanic and add to the game.

 

Not for everyone but we wouldnt all *have* to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In multiplayer, where the state of objects is independent of a single player's aircraft, there is relatively little application to it.

 

In single player modes however it would open up a lot of doors to scenarios where a target must be destroyed at all costs, but the state the player leaves it in matters.

 

For example, say you need to urgently destroy a column of German scouts approaching the airfield! In that case you could take off, expend all your ammunition, land, rearm and give them hell again until a) they're destroyed or b) your aircraft crashes. The same goes for bridges, tanks, an enemy airfield or even multiple aircraft. In scenarios where the number of aircraft is very limited (ie when having serviced aircraft ready to relaunch right after you land in your current kite is not possible) and/or you have the same target repeatedly, mission builders would then have the option to make tougher targets which could possibly require a second visit if that fits the mission.

 

I don't play SP much but I agree it would be good in that situation.   Perhaps in MP it could still serve a similar purpose.  In the Random Expert server you get points for contributing towards a mission target being destroyed so maybe making multiple trips using R&R would add a bonus.  You would have to only apply that when someone has actually hit an enemy target or taken damage before the R&R otherwise people would do an R&R before their first sortie ;-)   You also need to adjust the way the external stats are done because they count a sortie as being from spawn to despawn and if someone is doing multiple sorties with R&R until they fail to RTB then the stats would show that they never manage to RTB :-)

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - just for the sake of discussion, if it were to be implemented in game how long would you be prepared to wait with a timer ticking down for it to actually happen? Realistic reloading/refuelling times per aircraft? A set period of something like 10-20 minutes? What about busy airfields where demand for the ground crews would be high? What if the mission design called for limited fuel and ammunition to be available at a given field until resupply happens? Lots of different considerations would need to be assessed when implementing something like this in a mission whether MP, Co-op or SP.

 

I totally understand and support the immersion side of the discussion - I just think that the majority of players would very likely skip the wait given a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - just for the sake of discussion, if it were to be implemented in game how long would you be prepared to wait with a timer ticking down for it to actually happen? Realistic reloading/refuelling times per aircraft? A set period of something like 10-20 minutes? What about busy airfields where demand for the ground crews would be high? What if the mission design called for limited fuel and ammunition to be available at a given field until resupply happens? Lots of different considerations would need to be assessed when implementing something like this in a mission whether MP, Co-op or SP.

 

I totally understand and support the immersion side of the discussion - I just think that the majority of players would very likely skip the wait given a choice.

 

I don't think I would ever wait longer than 5 minutes for a refuel & re-arm. I have done it in CLoD and it is a long time & quite frustrating when you are in a server where vulching is common.  I might accept up to ten minutes for big repairs as I know it is my fault.  It also depends on what I gain from doing R&R instead of just despawning & respawning.   If it is just for the thrill of making life harder then I would not wait more than a minute though I am happy to spend a minute or two taxiing there.  I know, that sounds illogical, but I already taxi to a bunker after landing because it adds to the immersion but sitting still for an artificial countdown does not feel immersive for me.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be F1 pit crew level of performance to turn an aircraft around in that sort of time - just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In DCS it takes ground crew 1-2 min to fully rearm and refuel an A-10 and no one complains about it there. Why this 'realism' argument is being brought up over and over again is beyond me.

 

Watching what usualy is going on at airfields in MP this would be one of the least issues you had with realism.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if

- you left your aircraft which is being serviced

- enter the lobby and talk to the intelligence officer (fill an AAR questionaire

- by claiming victories

- confirming kills by others and

- reporting on losses and contacts seen by marking them on the map).

In a fog of war situation your report could add to the general picture and might help the Air Commodore what targets to select for the next wave.

While in the lobby you could also "refresh" your map with the contacts seen by others recently.

All this could be done in an interactive debriefing/briefing interface in 5 to 8 minutes. If your plane is not critically damaged, it should be patched up and serviced by then, or you could take another aircraft, if available (in the latter case your first crate will be available for the next or the next-next wave).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the most important feature for me but i'll be glad if it's ever implemented. At the end of the day it's all about having choices and options. If you dont want to R&R then don't.

I can see some interesting missions and MP sessions using this feature.

Edited by Jade_Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple solution, single player you have choice in option to have this thing off, semi realistic with this 1-2min refuel/rearm, and full realism where you wait this 15min or something, depends on plane. Everyone would be happy, for multiplayer it would depend on server setting. But i think this 1-2min for multi would be the best. If you don't want you can always just leave flight and spawn new plane like always.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id like the time to be set by the mission maker.

 

Different times would suit different play types

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why this 'realism' argument is being brought up over and over again is beyond me.

 

I think the “realism” argument keeps coming up because the leading argument in favor or R&R is “immersion”, which really implies realism. So, if you’re going to realistically implement R&R you should be sitting there for 20 minutes waiting for your aircraft to be serviced. If you don’t, it’s not very realistic, and, therefore, not very immersive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don agree having RR which will took less time is just pragmatic and more immerse that game without RR. We can go towards game which try depict realism that is enough for me. Simulation is based on simplification and never achieve true realism, but that should not stop developer adding stuff that happened in real word but in pragmatic doses, like other stuff that make game more immerse and still be enjoyable and pragmatic for all who like CFS genre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but that should not stop developer adding stuff that happened in real word but in pragmatic doses

Pragmatism. When you don’t have the attention span for realism.

 

There should be a poster with a flight simmer going to get a beer while his aircraft is being “serviced”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the “realism” argument keeps coming up because the leading argument in favor or R&R is “immersion”, which really implies realism. So, if you’re going to realistically implement R&R you should be sitting there for 20 minutes waiting for your aircraft to be serviced. If you don’t, it’s not very realistic, and, therefore, not very immersive.

We should also have to spend a realistic amount of time prepping, dressing, and getting to the aircraft from our barracks, tents, or wherever our pilot resides. Also a walk-around, then a realistic interval for engine starting and warming.

 

Upon landing and exiting the mission we should be required to wait 20 minutes before rebooting into another aircraft.

Immediately re-entering in a new aircraft moments later is horribly unrealistic.

We should have to experience every "sim minute" as real life minutes.

 

Also, pilots generally only flew one type of aircraft, so no switching planes.

Switching sides? Of course not.

 

Also - realistic flight lengths - none of this 30 minute stuff.

 

Basically anything in the sim that isn't exactly as it was, or take as long as it did in real life must not be worthwhile.

 

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate again, but I think it's obvious how easy it is to turn this kind of logic around on you guys.

Just say you don't need it, nor would you choose time be spent developing it, and leave it at that.

Any other argument can just be flipped on you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pragmatism. When you don’t have the attention span for realism.

 

There should be a poster with a flight simmer going to get a beer while his aircraft is being “serviced”.

You wrong I have attention for realism but in realistic proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should also have to spend a realistic amount of time prepping, dressing, and getting to the aircraft from our barracks, tents, or wherever our pilot resides.

We don’t do any of things because it’s not a combat pilot life simulator. It’s a combat simulator. Waiting 2 minutes for your aircraft to be serviced isn’t simulating anything. Done realistically it’s no more compelling than a “pilot putting his flight suit on” simulator.

 

If you want to call the 2 minute option ‘pragmatic”, fine. However, we already have a “pragmatic” way to service an aircraft.

All we do is flipping argument ,in the end someone else decides.

A decision that has already been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSR - I get exactly where you're coming from.

I guess my point is that where you draw the line, and where Moach does is personal and somewhat arbitrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSR - I get exactly where you're coming from.

I guess my point is that where you draw the line, and where Moach does is personal and somewhat arbitrary.

My line is that I expect them to recreate the things that they decide to simulate as realistically as possible. They don’t try to recreate any of the pre-flight checks or the post-flight briefing. If they did, I would hope that they’d do it as realistically as possible. Same goes for reload/refuel. If you want realistic r/r, your plane should sit there for 20 minutes. Do you think that would be popular?

Btw, I admit that auto-level is an exception to my realism rule.

Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implement RRR in multiplayer yes. Time 1-5 min depending on amount of fuel / ammunition / repairs. If the player takes advantage of it, he / she will increase the points gain factor. At the same time, limit the use of the same modification for a new aircraft if the player does not carry out the RRR and terminates the flight and takes a new aircraft.

 

I'm sorry for my bad English

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..... I wouldn't mind seeing it - I always shed a tear when I bring my perfectly good plane back, land and exit, then find out I can't take her back up again due to availability shenanigans.

 

 

von Luck

 

Me too,I would rather wait 10-15 sek in R+R instead. And i would also like to taxi my plane to some r+r area.. and even wait there my turn if its busy time...and if it would rain, i wouldnt mind...

Edited by VesseL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it would be kind of cool if there are still some enemies to be had and just run out of ammo, if could get back and re-arm and go have another go at them. Would certainly make for some long missions though.

 

I can take it or leave it really, no big deal either way for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in Aces High and it was only used to artificially increase per sortie streaks or when the base was closed and could no longer spawn aircraft. The latter doesn't happen here and the former is just gaming the scoring system.

 

As far as use in Single Player, it's not a dynamic environment in that new flights and vehicles spawn in - a mission is just that, one mission. It's not an environment where something is attacked, go back, RR, fly again and new targets come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it. I'd love the ability to RRR. It's a feature that would enhance the way I like to play BoX, and does so in other sims. There's something satisfying about keeping the same aircraft going. Not being ejected and teleported is a good feel. Heck, I'd love to be able to get out and walk around while I waited, but I know that's pushing the boat out somewhat.

 

I can imagine why others wouldn't be for it though. Some find the idea of returning to base an utter drag and must fight until they are destroyed. I can't imagine that type of player waiting for a refuel.

 

I don't mean to imply all against the idea have no sense of honor or skill. The above paragraph is just a large pool of players I have met who I imagine this great feature would be wasted on.

 

Great idea - even if not a new idea. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be F1 pit crew level of performance to turn an aircraft around in that sort of time - just saying.

 

Actually they got pretty good at it - IIRC, in the Geoffrey Wellum book about his time in Malta ("First Light" ?) he specifically mentioned the ground crew and how fast they became at getting the plane back into the air.  Sorry if I'm mistaken or provide more, can't check my book for the next few days. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the sortie should stop if you go to rrr, and new sortie start after rrr.

 

Many of us think that the MP needs some kind of "waiting list" system, and this could be part of it. And ofcourse it would be optional to use it.

 

If it would be much work for the devs, its maybe not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as use in Single Player, it's not a dynamic environment in that new flights and vehicles spawn in - a mission is just that, one mission. It's not an environment where something is attacked, go back, RR, fly again and new targets come into play.

Incorrect my friend - that is actually quite easy to do in the mission editor.

 

I could make all that happen and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ppl here confusing actions with waiting and doing nothing. And pack everything under realism!

Making player to taxi once landed instead finishing flight in the middle of runway will simulate RL and add immersion. Actions are important not waiting time doing nothing, making pilot engaged in all kind of situations and stages of flight should be goal of any flight simmer.

With option to avoid it if someone's having trouble with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can imagine why others wouldn't be for it though. Some find the idea of returning to base an utter drag and must fight until they are destroyed. I can't imagine that type of player waiting for a refuel.

 

I don't mean to imply all against the idea have no sense of honor or skill. The above paragraph is just a large pool of players I have met who I imagine this great feature would be wasted on.

 

Even more old tosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more old tosh.

 

What is? You don't think some players can't be bothered with RTBing and you think all players have the utmost respect for their virtual life? That is what you have quoted of me. I can only assume you think the opposite, which is ....wild ...to say the least. 

 

:wacko:

Edited by Flitgun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...