Jump to content
RustyEagle

ability to rearm, refuel, and repair

Recommended Posts

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

 

I could make all that happen and more.

 

I would love to play a mission like that. Red Baron II/3D was the only place where the environment was "alive" but another, earlier, rendition was Domark's plane creation software that had two WWII scenarios (awful flight models and DMs, but that same engine was used in Confirmed Kill which later became WarBirds) where new aircraft would respawn. No rearm capability but was still cool to fight waves of Zeros and D3As hitting Midway.

 

However, I would prefer the limited development time was on creating an in-game comms system that was area limited (can only communicate with someone in your vicinity) or a channel based system.

 

I've played with the rearm/repair system in AH, and in my experience with it - it just isn't worth the effort.

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.

I think this is a great point.

 

We've all had the experience of waiting. We don't need to play a game for that, so forget waiting 20 minutes for a rearm and refuel.

 

But the act of taxiing of the runway to a refuel station and waiting a token period of time before taxiing back and taking off for another go at the target- that's the stuff we play this game for! I'm so with you Ribbon, thanks for articulating this nuance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, if we're talking about SP, and it's optional, then fine; what the hell.  And frankly, I could also live with it in MP, 'if' it's a check-box thing that you signed up for.  I mean If people want a break for a toilet stop or they want to nip down the mall for a mocha and a pack of 20 Rothmans, or maybe txt the girl/boy friend, who am I to raise an objection.  After all, immersion is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.  As long as we aren't all forced to indulge in the same fantasy trip, where's the harm right (except of course for the expenditure of dev time and money). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulf, this fantasy trip could save you some time, if there would not be free 190 available in the base. This is about doing, not waiting. RRR time should be max 20sek i think.

 

Thanks Ribbon for the inspiration :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulf, this fantasy trip could save you some time, if there would not be free 190 available in the base. This is about doing, not waiting. RRR time should be max 20sek i think.

 

Thanks Ribbon for the inspiration :)

 

 

Well ... if it was made really cool like, levitating out of your aircraft as the world sort of sped up around you and you went into this state of false consciousness where you imagined you were a Scottish Pit Pony (or some other type of horse) but were then suddenly brought back to reality as the engine in your aircraft burst into life; and the whole thing had taken less than 3 seconds. I mean sure, I could get into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great point.

 

We've all had the experience of waiting. We don't need to play a game for that, so forget waiting 20 minutes for a rearm and refuel.

 

But the act of taxiing of the runway to a refuel station and waiting a token period of time before taxiing back and taking off for another go at the target- that's the stuff we play this game for! I'm so with you Ribbon, thanks for articulating this nuance.

 

Pretty much what I said earlier.   I am happy to spend a few minutes taxiing to a refueling area then shutting down the engine but not happy about sitting in the cockpit while some arbitrary timer ticks down.  One is an immersive recreation of an actual task and the other is a fantasy gaming mechanism that ruins immersion.  I would probably be more onboard if I could see fitters & riggers running around  :happy:  but still not for more than a few minutes if it gives me no advantage.  Someone mentioned only being allowed to apply mods after taxiing somewhere and that might work for me if it was an option a server might choose to use or not use.  Set a re-arming and refuelling point somewhere away from the active runway so a person has to go out of his way to go there before or after landing. It would then take you a minute or so to choose your loadout and fuel level before you taxi to the active runway.  Some people might say 'F that!  I will just go with the default.' and that is fine. Not sure if the default fuel is 100% or 50% as the optimal fuel level varies from plane to plane.  Perhaps make the default 25% as the sort of person that can't be arsed taxiing for longer than 10 seconds probably does not spend long in the air anyway  :P

 

None of this really worth 1C spending any time on though.  It really needs to be something that can be done by a mission creator using the available ME tools & scripts.  That is the only reason CLoD got the functionality.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing nothing during RR can be solved for example if you can make use of whatever options would be available through new future - air marshal or using Looby during RR. Hard to speculate because as those new options are announced, nobody knows they implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing nothing during RR can be solved for example if you can make use of whatever options would be available through new future - air marshal or using Looby during RR. Hard to speculate because as those new options are announced, nobody knows they implementation.

Didn't Jason mention a simple flight planer for the ingame map along the way? That could be a reasonable task to attend while waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Jason mention a simple flight planer for the ingame map along the way? That could be a reasonable task to attend while waiting.

 

Shameless plug: Just use il2missionplanner.com! (or MAGNUM's Android app if you have an Android device!)  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be no shame, both of you created great tools.

 

I tend to be disorganized and not plan my sorties, but this will become invaluable once coop is available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree Mission Planner is a fantastic bit of software but it would be better if we could use it inside the game instead of having a browser window open under the game and having to alt-tab.    Better still if the route you planned was added to your in-cockpit map.   If you have a tablet that runs a browser that can display Mission Planner then both issues are pretty much solved of course but I do not.

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. :)

 

 

I understand your concern, but I would instead suggest you are looking at the problem from a poor angle here.

 

Those players who "cannot be bothered to fly home" are not barbaric blood-fiends who are so thirsty for action that they cannot suffer a moment enough to RTB. Not most of them, at least.

 

If that were truly their case, they'd never bother with WoL at all.  You'd find them all in Berloga, where the flight towards battle is omitted same as the trip back.

 

 

No, I largely reckon these players are simply not as adept of the role playing practices exercised by those who do fly home.  In a sense, we are the weird ones, who inflict themselves with the useless concern, increasing our risk of being intercepted and slowing ourselves down from racking up more kills.

 

 

 

 

There are two major factors which create this most unfavorable situation, and those are easily remedied once properly understood.

 

The first one is Scoring. Something I've already discussed in length on other threads and does not warrant straying off topic here.

The second part, just as important, is the uselessness of returning alive.

 

 

The mental processes guiding this behavior are better understood in the Casino industry.  Studies on gambling addiction have discovered that some players experience more pleasure in losing than they do from winning, despite the money being lost.  These individuals are addicted. They unknowingly prefer  the taste of defeat, because they are wired such as to recognize victory as an ending to their play, whereas defeat allows them to try again and again.

 

I do not remember where I learned this.... Must have been during my internship making online casino games.

 

 

Anyways, the point to observe here is the Reward of Continuity.

 

 

Having to respawn anyways imposes a cycle in which the experiences of defeat and victory differ only by the color of an icon. 

 

 

 In CloD, the difference was that of an unbroken flight of glory, vs. an interruption, followed by a restart with a cold airplane, from a base far away most often.   Even the airplane itself felt different.  Many a joke were made about how "my new plane smells better, but it's not the same..."

 

 

In CloD, returning for R+R, was a moment of proud release.  A lull in combat for which one was grateful.  It required landing, then shutting down the engine, and the "<rr100" server command.   The entire experience was thoroughly satisfying,  because it felt like A Gift of Continuity.    The "flow" of the game went on uninterrupted. That special airplane brought from the rear could be turned around again.

 

I don't recall EVER thinking if it wouldn't have been faster to take a new airplane, even when flying a more ordinary type from a forward base.  Perhaps in many occasions, it would. Bailing out is always faster.  But the thought had never crossed my mind.  Nor have I ever seen anyone do so in CLoD. 

 

I do remember it felt frustrating flying as bomber, however.  Whereas R+R worked for fighters, CloD nevertheless required bombers to respawn.  I still remember my first reaction to that concept, years ago. It was "Then why do they bother flying back?" - I asked this over teamspeak.   And surely enough, They flew home merely for the sake of role-playing.

 

Fighters, nevertheless, would always RTB to R+R whenever their situation allowed.  Nobody would ram, no-one would vulch (except when that was a mission objective).  There would always be another fight, should they live long enough to see it.

 

 

 

 

So there you have it, plain as day:   

R+R is the deciding factor which separates "Why bother RTB?" from "The thought of a faster alternative not even crossing one's mind".

 

 

I do agree still, the length of time required to complete rearming should be optional for the mission designer to decide.

 

The requirement of shutting down the engine should be enforced. As it was in CloD.   R+R should be possible at any base in friendly territory.  Mission designers should also be able to designate "service bases" where R+R is possible, even if spawning isn't.

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea that r/r increases your incentive to rtb is complete nonsense.

 

I play the game to attempt to realistically simulate WW2 air combat. Not to pretend that imaginary ground crew are servicing my aircraft in record time while I go get a beer.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea that r/r increases your incentive to rtb is complete nonsense.

 

I play the game to attempt to realistically simulate WW2 air combat. Not to pretend that imaginary ground crew are servicing my aircraft in record time while I go get a beer.

 

Why is it nonsense?  Does the explanation not suffice, or do you just refuse to see any sense in it?

 

 

You claim to play for realism, as most of us do.   Very well, but how is this to suggest R+R would not have the same effect in BoX as it has been clearly observed to have in CloD?

 

 

Nobody is asking for a 10 minute sit-down, if that is your interpretation of it.  That would not be very pleasant, at all.  Nobody would force you to do it either, if that's what worries you.

 

 

I trust our developers have better sense than to do away with a largely called for improvement, over the groundless objections of an antagonistic few. Who pick at unresolved minutia of some hypothetical worst-case implementation, to wield in pointless debate at our ideas for the general better. 

 

 

 

As for the amount of time required for rearming, this is a point where realism must concede to playability.  This is really the least concern of such an implementation.  The main object of R+R is to offer the opportunity of an unbroken experience by flying home.   The details of "how long it should take" is less relevant.  It may as well be instantaneous, for all it matters then.    

 

A Token delay of 30 seconds would do well to represent the larger amount of time it would have taken IRL within the context of a multiplayer game.  Having already flown home, taxied out and powered down, the great overall concept of RTB has already been realized.  Therefore, to rearm in a symbolic short time is still less unrealistic than "vanishing mid-runway and reappearing on the ramp" 

 

Ideally, this delay should be left for mission makers to decide.  30 seconds or a minute would do nicely, I believe.   But this point is a mere detail, much too small to be held fully against the central idea: That R+R itself is necessary and the benefits it would bring.

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it nonsense? 

 

As near as I can tell, this is the entire argument for r/r increasing incentive for rtb.

 

r/r + magic = rtb

 

That’s it. Why does some construct that is no less gamey than what we’re doing now increase the chances that I, or anyone else, will rtb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of amazes me that little things like this engender such vehement opposition.  Simple fact is, this would increase the enjoyment level of some of those that play this game.  The whole purpose of playing the game is to derive enjoyment.

 

Time and resources permitting, it would be a good idea to implement it.  There, obviously, exists a hierarchy of things that need fixed/implemented and where this falls is open to debate.  But to vociferously dismiss the idea completely out of hand because it just doesn't fit with your personal idea on what is and isn't appropriate seems a bit short sighted and kind of snobby.  If some people think it is a worthless gimmick, that are in no way forced to take advantage of the extra option.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of amazes me that little things like this engender such vehement opposition.  Simple fact is, this would increase the enjoyment level of some of those that play this game.  The whole purpose of playing the game is to derive enjoyment.

 

Time and resources permitting, it would be a good idea to implement it.  There, obviously, exists a hierarchy of things that need fixed/implemented and where this falls is open to debate.  But to vociferously dismiss the idea completely out of hand because it just doesn't fit with your personal idea on what is and isn't appropriate seems a bit short sighted and kind of snobby.  If some people think it is a worthless gimmick, that are in no way forced to take advantage of the extra option.

 

Yes, exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to vociferously dismiss the idea completely out of hand because it just doesn't fit with your personal idea on what is and isn't appropriate seems a bit short sighted and kind of snobby.

So people who don’t want the developers wasting time on bad ideas should just shut up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So people who don’t want the developers wasting time on bad ideas should just shut up?

 

 

People who assume it to be in their place to arbitrarily tell devs what is and isn't a good idea should.

Edited by 19//Moach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who assume it to be in their place to arbitrarily tell devs what is and isn't a good idea should.

Unless it’s you. Then it appears to be ok.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it’s you. Then it appears to be ok.

 

There's a difference between a detailed post about the arguments for a feature and a post boiling down to "I don't understand your reasoning, therefore this is a waste of dev time."

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between a detailed post about the arguments for a feature and a post boiling down to "I don't understand your reasoning, therefore this is a waste of dev time."

 

very well put, sir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, at the most serious of online servers, how many people do you see taxiing all the way to the parking area after a successful landing?

 

Now how many people do you see landing, rolling off the runway and despawning or rolling to a halt?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, at the most serious of online servers, how many people do you see taxiing all the way to the parking area after a successful landing?

 

Now how many people do you see landing, rolling off the runway and despawning or rolling to a halt?

 

I taxi... but then again, I am the kind of player who role-plays....

 

For now, it is pointless to do so. Naturally then, most people don't.

 

 

In CloD, It was fairly common to see traffic going in many directions around airfields.  There wasn't necessarily a rearming point per se. Anywhere in the base was fine.  But nevertheless, people still made the trip to a safe parking area, either for good practice or sometimes because of the explosions going on around the airfield (which at times took artillery fire, in some places)

 

R+R would make airfields much more alive.  And with more purpose to it than simply departures, I would also expect there would be less people risking a straight-ahead takeoff, taxiing instead.

Edited by 19//Moach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players who don't bother RTB'ing don't do so because they are impatient and can't suffer a moment without action.

 

If that were the case, Berloga would be consistently fuller than WoL. Yet, the contrary is true.  Obviously then, The premise of full sorties has a broader appeal than that of nonstop action.

 

 

I would confidently suggest, that anyone who dismisses RTB, decides thusly because there is not only an absence of incentive to it, but also a dearth of any purpose as well.   

 

 

Scoring would grant the incentive.  R+R would serve the purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A trigger point, when an aircraft enters it and turns off engine; after :

 

1 minute - ammo and bombs replenished

2 minutes 30 - fuel replenished

5 minutes damaged repaired

 

Yes the timings are using 'artistic license' and there are no animations, just suddenly the items levels are there and a voice announcement perhaps for the first two, the third would be a visible refresh. Yes bombs suddenly popping into existence are not great, but what about the whole aircraft spawning in; that is not exactly realistic!

 

And as has been said, what adds to the game or immersion is personal, if it doesn't detract from other people's enjoyment why on earth do other people care so much? Personally, I think seeing a handful of aircraft on a ramp/apron somewhere waiting for rrr would add to my enjoyment; it makes the airfields look more alive. Exactly the same as when you see even just a pair taking off together instead of someone hoofing it across field on their own (to get their stat kills from vulching an enemy airbase.)

 

 

Indeed. The forum is surely a place for discussion, (and anyone who thinks we command the devs is off it.)

 

forum

 

noun

noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora

1.

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 'You' to 'Other people' as it read like a reply to Lucas directly which it wasn't!

Such a trigger SHOULD be added/supported. It could add a LOT to an evacuation scenario involving the JU-52. Basically, land refuel, load up the wounded, and shit yourself waiting, hoping the Russian Arty doesn't blow you up or a Mad Ivan strafes you. Plus, when we go Pacfic this would be a must-have for any Henderson Field scenario!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it necessary to reinvent the wheel? For almost a decade DCS has had a rudimentary system that works well. You taxi to the parking area, and request a rearm/refuel/repair. It takes two minutes or so for each action,there are no gimmicks besides the ground crew replying to you, and it serves the purpose well.

 

But it wouldn't change online behaviour all that much, and perhaps we need to stop this quest to mould how people play the game. There are a handful of popular servers that cater to each profile, and these have a crowd fitting of the designer's target audience. If things are ugly on Wings of Liberty then don't try and change WoL, change server instead. If 40+ people at any given time enjoy the state of affairs there then we need to accept that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it necessary to reinvent the wheel? For almost a decade DCS has had a rudimentary system that works well. You taxi to the parking area, and request a rearm/refuel/repair. It takes two minutes or so for each action,there are no gimmicks besides the ground crew replying to you, and it serves the purpose well.

But it wouldn't change online behaviour all that much, and perhaps we need to stop this quest to mould how people play the game. There are a handful of popular servers that cater to each profile, and these have a crowd fitting of the designer's target audience. If things are ugly on Wings of Liberty then don't try and change WoL, change server instead. If 40+ people at any given time enjoy the state of affairs there then we need to accept that.

I'll tell you why. COOP will let us decide HOW we want to fly and with whom. However, most of us aren't mission designers like the people that make The TAW/DED missions. A rudimentary system like DCS is fine. It should be baked into the base game as an option so that we can enjoy the feature in quick COOP missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... if it was made really cool like, levitating out of your aircraft as the world sort of sped up around you and you went into this state of false consciousness where you imagined you were a Scottish Pit Pony (or some other type of horse) but were then suddenly brought back to reality as the engine in your aircraft burst into life; and the whole thing had taken less than 3 seconds. I mean sure, I could get into that.

 

Lol. That would be great!!! But,, it should be optional what altered consciousness one wants to experience. Pit Pony,really? And only 3sek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to play a mission like that. Red Baron II/3D was the only place where the environment was "alive"...

 

I think you haven't experienced it yet because A - there's relatively few of us building missions, and B - there's not much reason right now to make a player land and take off again, and return to the

same spot.

 

With the editor however, we have the ability to both activate units that are placed, but invisible/inactive, and spawn units.

From the player perspective, there's no difference. From a mission building perspective there is, but no reason to get into the weeds on that.

 

Basically I can trigger any event, with any other event. New flights, convoys, ships, unit damage, structure damage, etc, at any point on the mission.

 

With repair/rearm, maybe your character in a 190 campaign used to fly twin engine aircraft, and has been asked to take a Ju-52 to a another base and pick up supplies that you're running short of.

 

In an actual Ju-52 campaign, (or Li2) there's no end to picking up and dropping off that could happen.

A special mission where you pick up troopers and drop them in an impromptu, last minute commando operation to take out a bridge...

 

As I said above, Po-2's refueled and re-armed all night long, and the turn-around time wasn't that long at all.

 

The flip-side to this, I personally have no intention of making anymore transport missions in the foreseeable future, so it would be up to someone else.

That leaves the Po-2 and greater realism in such a campaign, but then you're talking about all that development time for functionality that relatively few people will use,

even with the Po-2, Ju-52 and Li2 put together.

 

So purely from a single player perspective,  I'm left with the "cool if it was already there, but not asking for it now" position again.

Edited by Gambit21
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your concern, but I would instead suggest you are looking at the problem from a poor angle here.

 

Those players who "cannot be bothered to fly home" are not barbaric blood-fiends who are so thirsty for action that they cannot suffer a moment enough to RTB. Not most of them, at least.

 

If that were truly their case, they'd never bother with WoL at all.  You'd find them all in Berloga, where the flight towards battle is omitted same as the trip back.

 

 

No, I largely reckon these players are simply not as adept of the role playing practices exercised by those who do fly home.  In a sense, we are the weird ones, who inflict themselves with the useless concern, increasing our risk of being intercepted and slowing ourselves down from racking up more kills.

 

 

...] 

 

Hi Moach :)

 

I'm sure your player profile described above does account for some players. I very much agree with your point about a lack of role-playing in a lot of players. I think there is a lot of truth to that. Your summary 'scoring' and 'uselessness of staying alive' is also on the money.

 

I do still believe there are 'some players who find it a drag to RTB'. They're in WoL, because that's where almost everybody else is. An 'action thirsty, barbaric blood fiend' won't find his blood lust quenched in a lowly populated server, I imagine. 

 

Perhaps you have just further defined a group within the wide-ranging group of pilots who find RTBing an unnecessary chore, and I don't disagree with that at all - you have just gone into more detail.

 

My suggestion on the matter is unoriginal, and that is to add a similar setup as in TAW, where one is threatened with a lesser performing aircraft next spawn if you don't make it home and R+R. I don't think that is the be all and end all answer. Just an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between a detailed post about the arguments for a feature and a post boiling down to "I don't understand your reasoning, therefore this is a waste of dev time."

Good thing for me that I didn’t make that argument. I think it’s a gamey feature that isn’t realistic, or any better than the gamey feature we have now. I haven’t seen a single argument that even comes close to convincing me otherwise. In fact, the best argument appears to be “it won’t suck because it won’t be done realistically”. That is not exactly compelling.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing for me that I didn’t make that argument. I think it’s a gamey feature that isn’t realistic, or any better than the gamey feature we have now. I haven’t seen a single argument that even comes close to convincing me otherwise. In fact, the best argument appears to be “it won’t suck because it won’t be done realistically”. That is not exactly compelling.

 

'Gamey feature'? Hmm. I'd argue R+R is less 'gamey' than not. To land, rearm and refuel an aircraft, then take off again seems much more realistic a concept than to end flight, teleport somewhere - possibly at a different airfield and in a matter of 5 seconds appear in a ready to go aircraft.

 

How can you argue rearm and refuel is a 'gamey feature'?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

How can you argue rearm and refuel is a 'gamey feature'?

It was rarely done during the war and you have absolutely no intention of doing it realistically. In fact, one of the selling points is that it won’t be done realistically. Gamey.

 

Also, it appears that the only reason many people want to do it is to screw someone else out of getting a better aircraft. I’d rather not reward that sort of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was rarely done during the war and you have absolutely no intention of doing it realistically. In fact, one of the selling points is that it won’t be done realistically. Gamey.

 

Also, it appears that the only reason many people want to do it is to screw someone else out of getting a better aircraft. I’d rather not reward that sort of behavior.

 

To be fair, 'rarely done during the war' is hardly fair when the alternative is teleporting into a new plane. I find it hard to accept your argument 'gamey' when compared to the present state of 'complete and utter game teleporting across the map'. Be reasonable.

 

As for your second sentence. It's like you plucked one tiny sentence and used it to summarise the entire book. No, some of us want it as we think it would be more immersive - AND it MIGHT improve pilot behavior in that we MIGHT have less suicidal killers around.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, 'rarely done during the war' is hardly fair when the alternative is teleporting into a new plane. I find it hard to accept your argument 'gamey' when compared to the present state of 'complete and utter game teleporting across the map'. Be reasonable.

 

I’m being completely reasonable. In fact, I’m quite certain that I called the current method “gamey”. The problem for you, is that your idea is no better. In fact, you have to sell it as unrealistic because you know that virtually no one will use it if it’s done realistically. Sorry, but when you have to assure people that your idea won’t be done realistically, then your idea isn’t very good.

 

 AND it MIGHT improve pilot behavior in that we MIGHT have less suicidal killers around.

It has roughly the same odds of eliminating hunger around the world and bringing peace to the Middle East.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m being completely reasonable. In fact, I’m quite certain that I called the current method “gamey”. The problem for you, is that your idea is no better. In fact, you have to sell it as unrealistic because you know that virtually no one will use it if it’s done realistically. Sorry, but when you have to assure people that your idea won’t be done realistically, then your idea isn’t very good.

 

 

It has roughly the same odds of eliminating hunger around the world and bringing peace to the Middle East.

 

Ha ha - I did quite clearly say it might improve pilot behavior. I emphasised 'might' with caps. And I still think it might, despite your far out comparison.

 

I'm selling it as unrealistic am I? I just re-read myself and I cannot understand how you reached that view. It seems you put words in my mouth.

 

But I have just re-read you carefully again also. It would seem you yourself agree that R+R is more realistic. If you agree it was 'rarely done during the war' then that must be more realistic than 'never done during the war', and never would be teleporting around the place into new planes.  ;)  But perhaps now I am the one putting words into your mouth.

 

Anyway Bravesirrobin. I know you don't like the idea - fine. I do. I love it.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm selling it as unrealistic am I? I just re-read myself and I cannot understand how you reached that view. It seems you put words in my mouth.

 

 

It would be realistic to wait about 20 minutes.  Everyone selling the idea is pushing 2 minutes or less.  Some have specifically said that they don't want to wait a realistic time.  So I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth.

 

In any case, I'm pretty sure the dev team has said they're not doing it.  Great call by them.

 and never would be teleporting around the place into new planes.  ;)  

 

 

No one teleports in the game.  You exit the aircraft and then respawn in another new aircraft.  It's gamey.  But no one pretends otherwise.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one teleports in the game.  You exit the aircraft and then respawn 

 

Saves me a post.

I was about to remark on the obvious difference in realism and historical veracity between teleportation and spawning.

You just can't compare the two.

One is clearly represents the real world, the other one doesn't.

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...