ability to rearm, refuel, and repair

[Gambit21]

They have expressed it. Repeatedly. Those of us who think it’s a waste of development time also get to express our opinions.

 

No doubt...you were supporting this feature correct?

[19//Moach]

I'd like to point something out about the claims made about R+R having "never been performed in the war" -- This is an untrue statement, as R+R was commonly practiced during the battle of britain, and in just about as little time as depicted in CloD  (the ATAG R+R is conveniently shorter by about a minute or so, but it's close enough to the real thing that it makes no matter)

 

 

source: (Youtube, Guy Martin's Spitfire)  https://youtu.be/i7Zebpu2nS4?t=1561

 

I strongly recommend watching that entire documentary, it is a beautiful tribute to the Spitfire. 

 

Still, the link posted here takes you straight to the part that makes a very clear point about how R+R was performed back then.  

 

 

 

Anyways, the concept of R+R is most relevant due to the added Reward of Continuity it provides.  This makes a victorious sortie much unlike a defeated one. The flow of one's uninterrupted presence in the multiplayer world made for a vastly rewarding sortie cycle.  Much unlike the "return is pointless" reality of BoX.

 

Mind that R+R was completely optional in CloD, as well as it should certainly be in BoX.  Yet the possibility of returning to base for a reason was something much larger than the naysayers insist upon denying. 

 

 

These  Forum Warriors  and their quest to win an argument just for the sake of winning the debate itself cannot be allowed to lessen the full potential of this series.  So far, our devs have proven wise enough to see though this unfortunate pattern that exists in this community and ultimately make the right decisions.

Edited October 27, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Wulf]

No doubt...you were supporting this feature correct?

 

 

I see you've fast approaching '20' posts on the issue.  Not too shabby for a guy who ...(cough, cough) 'doesn't have a dog in the fight.'

[Gambit21]

I see you've fast approaching '20' posts on the issue.  Not too shabby for a guy who ...(cough, cough) 'doesn't have a dog in the fight.'

So...I need to be doggedly attached to one side or the other, and be incapable of conceding a point to either side?

That' behavior is why these threads are largely unproductive.

 

I'd argue that two froggy posts aside (because this is becoming silly) I've lent some decent insight from a mission builder's perspective.

[curiousGamblerr]

They have expressed it. Repeatedly. Those of us who think it’s a waste of development time also get to express our opinions.

Repeatedly.

[19//Moach]

I find it outright rude how a few insist on denying an optional feature to many that want it.

 

Whereas they lose nothing should it be implemented, as they may just as well opt not use it themselves if it is not to their taste.

 

 

Whereas, if it were not implemented, all those who do want it (a vast majority, according to polls) would be left without, wishing their game was better in that sense.

 

 

 

And why?  For the sake of a few who think they know what is and isn't the best priority for devs, and presume it be their place to decide for them on the matter.

 

 

 

Really,  R+R is wanted by the many.  If there are a few who'd rather not have it, they are welcome not to use it.   They are not welcome to impose their personal opinion onto everyone else by denying them the option, and less yet to go telling developers what priority to assign prospective features.

Edited October 28, 2017 by 19//Moach

[BraveSirRobin]

I'd like to point something out about the claims made about R+R having "never been performed in the war" -- This is an untrue statement, 

 

 

Do you have a link to a post where someone actually made that claim?  

 They are not welcome to impose their personal opinion onto everyone else by denying them the option, and less yet to go telling developers what priority to assign prospective features.

 

No one is imposing anything on you.  You express your opinion.  People who disagree express their opinion.  That's why the forum is here. 

[NO_SQDeriku777]

They have expressed it. Repeatedly. Those of us who think it’s a waste of development time also get to express our opinions.

Who is this "they" you are referring to? A shadowy and determined cabal of people from a static player base that never grows? Guess what., I never participated in any of the previous threads discussing this topic, so I welcome this thread as it gives me the chance to voice my support for the idea.

Edited October 28, 2017 by NO_SQDeriku777

[DD_Arthur]

  They are not welcome to impose their personal opinion onto everyone else by denying them the option, and less yet to go telling developers what priority to assign prospective features.

 

You really are full of it Moach.

[Ribbon]

They have expressed it. Repeatedly. Those of us who think it’s a waste of development time also get to express our opinions.

Expressing opinion is made by one or two comments related to the main thread, expressing opinion against every post supporting RRR in this thread is fighting against it! Edited October 28, 2017 by EAF_Ribbon

[NO_SQDeriku777]

Expressing opinion is made by one or two comments related to the main thread, expressing opinion against every post supporting RRR in this thread is fighting against it!

Not only fighting it, but making it impossible for those of us who want the feature to continue a very enjoyable and productive discussion of potential ways of implementing it and its effect on gameplay. It is rude and obnoxious. The first 3 pages of this thread were quite enjoyable. Now all we are doing is wasting space responding to people who are dead set against the feature and have derailed our discussion.

[FuriousMeow]

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.

 

I think I misunderstood your point, and you did mine, I don't care for new objects spawning in the same location - I meant that flights would be spawned in, or active, based on their own mission way off the initial flight plan. Like RBII/3D, flights were generated way off based on having their own goals and they'd spawn in when the player was within range of them. Otherwise, there was an entire background "war simulation" going on.

 

I don't care for objects being timer spawned at the same location and RTBing to rearm/refuel, then going back to the same location - I meant a truly dynamic environment.

 

This repair, refuel stuff was used never during the war in the time frames being considered here, and repair took days to weeks. A new sortie was hours later and many times with an entirely different airplane in WWII.

 

And everyone needs to be honest with this "well add a reason to RtB and those that currently don't, will!" except the score itself is already more incentive than RtBing to sit around for x amount of time to rearm/refuel and, I hope this would never happen, repair as that is just silly. Adding this feature has zero impact on those that don't care to RtB, that is an entirely fictitious premise right there. If they aren't doing it now, rearm/refuel won't cause them to either.

Edited October 28, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[Gambit21]

I think I misunderstood your point, and you did mine, I don't care for new objects spawning in the same location - I meant that flights would be spawned in, or active, based on their own mission way off the initial flight plan. Like RBII/3D, flights were generated way off based on having their own goals and they'd spawn in when the player was within range of them. Otherwise, there was an entire background "war simulation" going on.

 

If I understand you correctly now, all this is possible with the mission editor...at least from the player experience perspective.

What I mean is, you cant' tell if that new flight was placed/spawned/acativated there by some dynamic mechanism, or because I decided I wanted that flight to spawn there and attack that convoy, etc.

In other words, what's going on under the hood is removed from your experience, be it by design or a dynamic campaign.

If that makes any sense.

[FuriousMeow]

If I understand you correctly now, all this is possible with the mission editor...at least from the player experience perspective.

What I mean is, you cant' tell if that new flight was placed/spawned/acativated there by some dynamic mechanism, or because I decided I wanted that flight to spawn there and attack that convoy, etc.

In other words, what's going on under the hood is removed from your experience, be it by design or a dynamic campaign.

If that makes any sense.

 

Current ME is timer based though right? Like spawn flights or active ground units at mission start plus (x amount of time)? What I'm referencing is all flights generated either already exist - just not spawned until player is near but are in a simple background sim - and some will be timer based spawned and they all do their own missions. I know the timer based option works in the current ME, I wasn't aware - since I didn't see that capability in RoF - that there was the background simulation going on where flights were actually out there that could be come across but they would only spawn in graphically when player was within range but you if you come across them they could already be in mid-dogfight. It's not ideal as it's not played out with real-time FM and DM computations but it saves on a lot of FM/DM processing so there's a real war going on and until you come across the area those aircraft/ground vehicles are present but it's just a background dice roll sim that provides the outcome until they graphically spawn in.

 

I'm probably not explaining it that well, that's how I understood the general setup on how both the RBII/3D dynamic campaign systems worked as far as the "live environment" that the player is in for SP.

 

So basically you could fly all over the map, not just your flight plan, and encounter enemy flights on their own missions. That could have use in SP for rearm/refuel to get back up and extend that day's sorties longer - especially in cases where the field the player lands at ends up coming under attack.

Edited October 28, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[Gambit21]

Current ME is timer based though right? Like spawn flights or active ground units at mission start plus (x amount of time)?

 

Mission Begin + Timer is one way, but far from the only way.

There are so many event's triggers, combination of events...plus timers to trigger things by...you can do almost anything you can think of.

 

The most basic after the mission begin + timer, is a trigger zone (there are several types) that will activate the group (group being convoy, flight, ships) based on the player (or any other linked entity) entering

that zone. I can add a timer to this if I wish as well. That's just the beginning though.

Here are some events (aside from timers/trigger zones) in both the aircraft properties and complex trigger properties that can be used to trigger other mission events.

 

Object entered

Object left

Landed

Took off

Dropped bombs

Dropped cargo

bingo fuel

bingo bombs

bingo main gun

damaged

Pilot wounded

critically damaged

crashed

killed

pilot killed

gunner killed

 

I can also place a counter that say would require 2 vehicles(or any number) to be killed, and when those two exact vehicles die, it spawns a flight of 190's to come and help cover the rest of the convoy.

I can place a random generator that can place basically any number of randomly generated groups based on any event or combination of events, and make the mission so varied and unpredictable

that I have no way to really test it! The events being so varied and unpredictable that I have no way to guarantee the quality of the experience. So I use random generators only sparingly

otherwise testing is a time sucking drag...and it already is that.

 

There's also a proximity trigger that I can link to any two entities, and trigger another mission event based on them getting within a certain range, or getting further away from each other depending on setting.

Anything from more spawning/activating of groups to a simple subtitle/message to the player. So instead of a static trigger zone, this event will trigger when these entities get within a certain distance from

each other no matter where they are on the map.

 

...and you can daisy-chain these events and create very complex logic to get anything to happen you want basically.

I can do something as nonsensical as when a truck passed in front you on the base while you're starting your engine, a village on the other side of the map is destroyed...very easily.

That doesn't make sense, but just saying that's possible with a few clicks.

 

That's a very Cliff Notes version of what's possible, but my wife is getting irritated with me because I logged back on to the computer after telling her I was done for the night.

Females.

 

Anyway, the editor is so powerful that there's really no reason to miss a dynamic campaign...so long as there's a good supply of custom campaigns...and we'll get there eventually.

It takes endless hours - I think I average 15 - 20 hours per mission all told.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Gambit21

[BraveSirRobin]

Expressing opinion is made by one or two comments related to the main thread, expressing opinion against every post supporting RRR in this thread is fighting against it!

 

Apparently the rules are quite strict for what people who don't want a feature are allowed to say.

[FuriousMeow]

That's a very Cliff Notes version of what's possible, but my wife is getting irritated with me because I logged back on to the computer after telling her I was done for the night.

Females.

 

Anyway, the editor is so powerful that there's really no reason to miss a dynamic campaign...so long as there's a good supply of custom campaigns...and we'll get there eventually.

It takes endless hours - I think I average 15 - 20 hours per mission all told.

 

Say no more on the wife bit. Totally understood.

 

The aspect you want works for missions like Po-2, because they are the simplest of aircraft and operated at night where very little, if any, damage occurred - basically radial versions of rotary or inlines during WWI where all that needs to be done is refuel and rearm. Unless damaged, which of course requires a whole lot more effort.

 

I just don't understand the need to rearm/refuel when landing and grabbing a new plane would be quicker in every sense. Unless the airfield couldn't provide new planes. Now, that's for MP.

 

For SP, I guess it could be an argument but it wasn't used as much for day time attacks mostly due to both damage the aircraft sustained but also that they most likely came back with dead crew that they had to be pulled off the flight line for a day or two.

 

So I only see this as something that rarely happened but lots of development time will be spent on it when there are far better items to work on.

Edited October 28, 2017 by FuriousMeow

[VesseL]

 

BraveSirRobin, do you have any other reason to not want this RRR thing, than the time and effort it would take from the devs? If it could be done by someone else, you would support the idea?

 

I think it would benefit also those, who would not use it. The airfields would be more lively. Anyway this is all just smalltalk if it will never conna happen.

[BraveSirRobin]

BraveSirRobin, do you have any other reason to not want this RRR thing, than the time and effort it would take from the devs?

 

No.  I don't want any dev time spent on this.  But I'm relatively certain that it would require dev time to make it work.

[Ribbon]

Apparently the rules are quite strict for what people who don't want a feature are allowed to say.

No there are no rules BUT with one argument you are replying on most posts derailing thread into THIS!

You said your opinion and i really respect it, there are things with higher priority too but let us discuss idea we like not derailing it.

You could propose something else after first argument, why repeating the same argumemt.

Thread is about RRR, you could be nice and polite and respect our opinion and let us enjoy it, be gentleman, be "Sir"!

 

Edit: Tell us what do you think devs should spend time on?

Tell us what do you think it is more important small feature than RRR, give us your suggestion?

Edited October 28, 2017 by EAF_Ribbon

[RustyEagle]

No.  I don't want any dev time spent on this.  But I'm relatively certain that it would require dev time to make it work.

then what do you want dev time spent on? creating new collectible planes? you could make an argument that some players don't want time spent developing planes that they will never fly because they are behind a pay wall. There are plenty of players however that want this feature and other than sacrificing development time it has no real negatives. very disappointing to see people complain about something that could enhance the experience for some players.

[Brano]

then what do you want dev time spent on? creating new collectible planes?

There is rather lenghty to-do list in DD120.

And yes,more collectibles...and maps.

[curiousGamblerr]

then what do you want dev time spent on? creating new collectible planes? you could make an argument that some players don't want time spent developing planes that they will never fly because they are behind a pay wall. There are plenty of players however that want this feature and other than sacrificing development time it has no real negatives. very disappointing to see people complain about something that could enhance the experience for some players.

The devs have to keep selling new content like planes to keep the lights on and enable them to continue enhancing the core game with features like this RRR idea, new career, coop, shadows, rain and all that other great stuff. And the use of the term "pay wall" here is completely absurd.

[Royal_Flight]

I don't want the 109-G6, I don't think anyone needs a sixth version of the same aircraft, and everything about the 'mk 108' speculation leaves me cold.

But there are loads of people who do want it and seem keen on its arrival so I don't begrudge them it, and I certainly wouldn't go on about it in the thread full of people who are looking forward to getting their hands on it, even if I think the devs time would be better spent on other things (like r/r, better engine modelling or more Western aircraft).

 

If r/r adds depth for the people who can imagine how to use it and at least gives the choice to people who don't, then it's worth doing. I'd argue, more than more versions of existing assets just so the chosen few can fly circles at 5k in a slightly different silhouette.

(but that's like, just your opinion, man)

Anything to give more options is worthwhile.

[sinned]

This would be a nice feature. Especially for dynamic carrier operation.

[NO_SQDeriku777]

No.  I don't want any dev time spent on this.  But I'm relatively certain that it would require dev time to make it work.

Then what you said only needs to be said once. You have made your position clear. Now quit trying to derail the thread but injecting yourself REPEATEDLY into the conversation, particularly if you have no new points to offer. Those of us that want this feature would like discuss this in peace.

[NO_SQDeriku777]

I would ask the mods to move this thread into the Suggestions Forum and establish a clear editorial policy that posts dismissing suggestions based on the notion of "developer priorities" is really only appropriate coming for the devs themselves. People should be free to talk about any suggestion without having to deal with this line of argumentation from self-appointed project managers.

Edited October 28, 2017 by NO_SQDeriku777

[BraveSirRobin]

Those of us that want this feature would like discuss this in peace.

Then you should probably set up your own forum. If you want to keep pushing for it here, you should probably expect responses from people who think it’s a waste of dev time.

[BraveSirRobin]

I don't want the 109-G6, I don't think anyone needs a sixth version of the same aircraft, and everything about the 'mk 108' speculation leaves me cold.

The people who buy the 109 are paying for development of the game’s enhancements. But if you think it’s a bad idea to develop the G6, you are free to say something. I certainly won’t tell you to shut up.

[56RAF_Roblex]

Those of us that want this feature would like discuss this in peace.

 

circle jerk

When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation). Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself. 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20jerk

[BraveSirRobin]

People should be free to talk about any suggestion without having to deal with this line of argumentation from self-appointed project managers.

So it’s ok to tell developers what you want them to do, but not ok to tell them what you don’t want them to do?

[xvii-Dietrich]

Some questions for those who are calling for some sort of R+R (= rearm + refuel) feature.

 

1. Would the R+R work for all aircraft types? Or only fighters?
2. Would the R+R work if the aircraft was damaged? If so, would there be any limit to the amount of damage?
3. Would the R+R also include repair of damage?
4. What about if there was an injured pilot or crew?
5. Would R+R also re-arm bombs?
6. Would the R+R also re-arm rockets?
7. Would the R+R also re-load cargo on the Ju 52?
8. Would the R+R also permit new loads of paratroops?
9. Would the R+R also re-load supply canisters?
10. Could pilots change the loadout during the R+R, or does that need a re-spawn?
11. How long should the R+R take?
12. Does the R+R need an animation (e.g. trucks driving out to the aircraft, or ground-crews in attendance)?
13. Would R+R take the same amount of time, regardless of the task (e.g. in real-life, topping up a Bf-109 would not take long; re-fuelling and re-laoding an empty He-111 would take ages)?
14. If R+R only happens in certain areas (e.g. at a certain dispersal point, rather than just parked in the middle of the runway), how will pilots find out where those areas are?
15. Would "hot-refuelling" (refuelling with the engine still on) be permitted?
16. Would "hot-repair" (repair with the engine still on) be permitted?

[NO_SQDeriku777]

circle jerk

When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation). Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle%20jerk

I don't have a response to this rude assault. You made your position clear in earlier posts. Now you spew inflammatory vitriol dismissing many of us as "blowhards" and continue derailing our discussion. I just hope the forum mods will consider the suggestion I made in my previous post. Edited October 28, 2017 by NO_SQDeriku777

[BlitzPig_EL]

"Preaching to the choir" is the essence of just about every post on every enthusiast/hobbyist board on the interwebs.

 

I the only "attacks" I see in this thread are from those that want this feature, shot in the direction of those that don't.

 

You all need to lighten up.

 

A lot.

[curiousGamblerr]

Good questions Dietrich. Here are my thoughts on them:

 

1. Yes

2. Yes. I think no hard limit, let the pilot decide how much damage he's willing to fly with (so basically just superficial bullet holes... I don't think any 109 pilot wants to head out again with leaking radiators for example)

3. No damage repair

4. Don't allow it with injured pilot, but replace the crew if any are injured or dead

5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Yes, rearm the exact same load out you started with. To change load outs, respawn.

10. Above

11. I think a server setting would be good, for me a minute or two seems good but up to 5 would be reasonable. Like folks have mentioned, this is about the act of taxiing and all that, not about sitting still in an aircraft for 20+ minutes.

12. I think an animation would be great but this game doesn't have anything like that so I would expect it or be upset if we got this feature someday without an animation

13. Good question, I think there is merit to that idea (1 minute for fighters, 2 for attackers and 3 for bombers or something)

14. Good question. Maybe there is a fuel truck or something added to all airfields and rearm can happen within some distance of this truck. I think there are plenty of workable options here.

15. As unrealistic as it is, I want to say yes to this one. But if you had to turn your engine off for refuel I wouldn't care.

16. No, and I'm against repair being included in this feature as a whole. Refuel and rearm are the only two R's I want.

 

----

 

To those of you that continue to call this a circle jerk, the only people being redundant are you. We get it- you don't want it, and think it's an unrealistic waste of time. Fine. I don't even disagree with you that there are a million more important things. But still, the rest of us that are interested in the feature even a little bit would like to discuss the practical details, it's fun to discuss the logistics. But by all means, keep stroking your own egos by repeating yourselves between every useful post in the thread. raaid is probably lonely on my ignore list anyway.

Edited October 28, 2017 by 19//curiousGamblerr

[NO_SQDeriku777]

So it’s ok to tell developers what you want them to do, but not ok to tell them what you don’t want them to do?

You conflate discussing a suggested feature with TELLING the Devs what to do? Your posts would only be valid for a thread specifically discussing what the Devs should be prioritizing. Then you could give them the benefit of your project management expertise. We are no discussing developer priorities here. All you seem be doing is successfully derailing a thread, which is not cool.

Good questions Dietrich. Here are my thoughts on them:

1. Yes

2. Yes. I think no hard limit, let the pilot decide how much damage he's willing to fly with (so basically just superficial bullet holes... I don't think any 109 pilot wants to head out again with leaking radiators for example)

3. No damage repair

4. Don't allow it with injured pilot, but replace the crew if any are injured or dead

5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Yes, rearm the exact same load out you started with. To change load outs, respawn.

10. Above

11. I think a server setting would be good, for me a minute or two seems good but up to 5 would be reasonable. Like folks have mentioned, this is about the act of taxiing and all that, not about sitting still in an aircraft for 20+ minutes.

12. I think an animation would be great but this game doesn't have anything like that so I would expect it or be upset if we got this feature someday without an animation

13. Good question, I think there is merit to that idea (1 minute for fighters, 2 for attackers and 3 for bombers or something)

14. Good question. Maybe there is a fuel truck or something added to all airfields and rearm can happen within some distance of this truck. I think there are plenty of workable options here.

15. As unrealistic as it is, I want to say yes to this one. But if you had to turn your engine off for refuel I wouldn't care.

16. No, and I'm against repair being included in this feature as a whole. Refuel and rearm are the only two R's I want.

----

To those of you that continue to call this a circle jerk, the only people being redundant are you. We get it- you don't want it, and think it's an unrealistic waste of time. Fine. I don't even disagree with you that there are a million more important things. But still, the rest of us that are interested in the feature even a little bit would like to discuss the practical details, it's fun to discuss the logistics. But by all means, keep stroking your own egos by repeating yourselves between every useful post in the thread.

Thanks for getting us back on track. I will make use of the ignore feature and continue participating in the discussion.

[BraveSirRobin]

You conflate discussing a suggested feature with TELLING the Devs what to do?

I’m not “conflating” anything. When you start a thread suggesting a feature that you want, you are TELLING the developer what you want them to do.

[sniperton]

My personal opinion is that RRR doesn't fit well the current game environment and is therefore not worth the effort. But the situation will possibly change when we get the coop mode and the new SP career system. Let us see first what the devs come out with.

 

With all my respect, this discussion is pointless and leads only to flame wars as long as we do not positively know what the game environment is going to evolve into.

[NO_SQDeriku777]

I would really love to hear more from the folks that know the most about the mission editor about how various RRR scenarios could be simulated and what enhancements could be made to the mission editor to open up more options. In laymans terms for us poor sods that can't wrap their heads around the mission editor.

[BraveSirRobin]

Gambit, can you create a SP mission where a person can exit and respawn? Or would that have to be a MP mission where the server is pw protected so only one person can access it?