R&R, RTB and Engine Limits: A concept for solving three big problems

[19//Moach]

Problem 1:   Engine limits are unrealistically enforced by catastrophically deterministic total engine destruction events.

 

Problem 2:   The lack of Refuel+Rearm possibility refutes the importance of self-preservation and hinders mission design and player's tactical options.

 

Problem 3:   A few players treat their planes as disposable, leading to unrealistic and frustrating behavior in MP due to scoring logic.

 

 

 

What I have thought of, is a set of methods by which it could perhaps be possible to address these issues together.

 

 

To do this, we must first tackle problem 2, which can only be solved one way:  By implementing an ATAG-like R+R feature which allows undamaged aircraft to be serviced and turned around at any friendly airfield with a reasonably realistic/convenient downtime.   Let us not engage in pointlessness about the details of how long that should take for now, let us all assume this is done in a way which pleases most and/or is not up for debate for the few who refuse to agree (whom can always go on without using it)

 

 

So, having established R+R as a feature, a new reward-of-convenience* is earned by pilots who succeed in keeping their planes undamaged.   

 

And that's where we find the solution for the engine limits issue as well.

 

 

As any responsible crew chief would do upon the return of a damaged aircraft,  it is expected that the game would deny R+R for such a plane, for it is deemed unairworthy and unfit to return to the air.   In ATAG (though not currently, due to maintenance issues) this would have been indicated with a message saying "cannot R+R as your plane has damage" 

 

That is perfectly fine and reasonable for enemy-caused damage, but we must also consider damage inflicted by the pilot himself, including such as:  Exceeding engine limits.

 

 

 

The solution for the first two problems then becomes simple and obvious:    "Cannot R+R as engine limits have been exceeded"

 

 

 

So any plane which abuses the realistic (but unhistorical) fact that engine limits are really recommendations, and not physical self-destruction timers, will be treated as damaged upon return, denying that pilot the convenience of a quick* return to action.  

 

 Also, good engine management would be granted the undenyable reward of a continuous and unbroken flight experience, whereas the respawn cycle triggers all the same psychological cues as defeat, even in victory. (except the color of an icon, which is wholly meaningless to the subconscious interpretation of gameplay)

 

 

* compared to a longer haul from a further airbase where one's prefered mount is available for spawn.

 

 

 

 

But wait!  If you think this through one step ahead, you can see Problem 3 actually getting worse because of this. 

 

Because now "disposable pilots" gain the added benefit of unlimited engine abuse from their objectionable practices of "not giving a ****".  We must do something about it.

 

 

That issue needs to be handled by means of scoring changes.   And it is critical that this gets addressed together with the previous two problems, as to prevent further encouragement of such unfair exploits. 

 

 

For this, we propose that the scoreboard be made to count streaks of victories, and make them overridingly more significant to ranking than total count. 

 

Such victory streaks must be made the most important measure of a player's success for all to see, that is:  This is what should determine the order of the ingame scoreboard. (without having to check a website) Needless to say, a streak is lost unless the player returns to a friendly base, or crashlands close enough and all that.

 

Counting and displaying the total number of landings for a player as a part of his score may also prove beneficial to behavior authenticity. Anything to make it abundantly clear that a player who does not land has not completed his mission.  As long as the server has this option selected, that is.

 

 

 

I am of the strong belief that should these three features be implemented, this would become a fantastically more enjoyable simulator experience.  And all these three problems, which I currently see as the largest detriments to the MP environment for this game, could be very satisfyingly resolved.

 

 

 

Thanks in advance.  

 

 

 

Extended suggestions added below.

 

 

 

 

Please cooperate in keeping this thread free of pointless debate by not engaging in discussion of implementation minutia against the general merits of the concept as a whole. 

It is not for us to decide whether devs must or not heed to these points of advice, and it is rude to assume oneself in a position to tell them how best to spend their man-hours.   

If you disagree with the suggestions, please elaborate on what alternatives you'd propose.  Else, quiet sits the wise man.

Edited February 2, 2018 by 19//Moach

[Jade_Monkey]

Bravo! I really like your proposal.

 

Thanks for putting some thought into this and outlining a potential solution.

[56RAF_Roblex]

Moach we had this debate before and I gave up reading the thread because we were going nowhere. 

 

Having read your new proposal I am still left with the same question as last time. What is my incentive for using R&R?      You say you want to encourage its use by rewarding 'Streaks' but why can I not just return home after thrashing  my engine and despawn and respawn and take off again with a fresh engine?  I still have my streak intact and I am less likely to lose my streak because I am not sitting on the field waiting to be vulched in between sorties.  

 

Now, as before,  I am failing to see how R&R encourages RTBs when I already RTB whenever possible and if I did not believe in RTBs I would not have my mind changed by the being made to sit on the field for 5 minutes between sorties.

Edited January 31, 2018 by 56RAF_Roblex

[unreasonable]

I would question the overall utility of using a MP only mechanism, unless there is also a different SP mechanism.   ATM, for SP, we still have to pay some attention to engine issues, albeit in a way that most of us agree is rather unrealistic.  If the plane does not actually risk suffering in flight damage there would be no point: career/campaign designers are unlikely to want to spend their time creating a persistent engine overhaul and repair simulator to match the R&R mechanism you suggest for MP.  So we would then need two different engine models, which causes a different set of problems.

 

Personally I hope that the team will gradually improve the sophistication of the engine model, which seems to be happening in small increments. I do not see any quick fix for this.

[19//Moach]

(...) why can I not just return home after thrashing  my engine and despawn and respawn and take off again with a fresh engine?  I still have my streak intact and I am less likely to lose my streak because I am not sitting on the field waiting to be vulched in between sorties.  (...)

 

 

A very valid point.  Yes, streak counting alone cannot keep you from abusing and returning to base if you're committed to always respawning anyways.  It is always possible that to some players, the mental triggers which subconsciously invalidate their perception of success when going through the respawn cycle are not as effective.   That is:  These players would not feel the same frustration that others do at having to respawn no matter what happens, and something else is needed in order to encourage them.

 

This is not an easy question, I'm sure we all understand.   But it is clear to me at least, that some progress has been made, as players would now have to indeed RETURN to base in order to preserve their streaks.   At present time, there is no incentive for some to do any more than bomb and bash until empty, then use the plane itself as one last round of ammo.   If a streak system can have these guys at least flying home to land, it has accomplished more than half its goal.

 

 

But yes, it seems that there is another piece of 'encouragement' needed.  Which I suppose must be added to this proposal.   An "R+R Bonus" of sorts.  

 

In ATAG, one has the benefit of public acknowledgement, as every player in the server gets to read the <rr100 command when it is entered into global chat.  This has an effect of announcing "There! I made it" for all to hear, be it friend or foe.  It is rather satisfying to realize that all will know it when you have not only survived, but actually get to use the plane again after a combat sortie, especially if there's been a heated dogfight.

 

This draws back to another older suggestion I had made, to openly announce safe landings by pilots for all to read over the server events feed.   Much like getting a kill, a landing then becomes a point of pride, which pilots receive as public commendations for their success.  Much the same, the game could announce "<player> is rearming..." whenever one gets to reservice his aircraft.

 

 

Yet it would indeed be unfair to have a streak reset while defenseless on the ground.   A solution which comes to mind would be: 

 

 

Award the strafer a ground kill, and do not count it as death for the victim if he is landed.   

 

 

This would make it less frustrating to be shot while unable to fight back.  Pilots on the ground are therefore 'safe', as far as their scoring is concerned, even if not invulnerable in practice.  This would be beneficial both for R+R users as well anyone who simply happened to spawn in the wrong field at the wrong time.

 

 

Another concept taken straight out of CloD, whenever a kill is made on the ground, the server should announce "<player> has destroyed <victim> while landed".   This would greatly lessen the frustration of the victim, as he would be assured that others perceive his fate as "poor luck", rather than a defeat.  It would also fairly temper the sense of accomplishment gained from vulching kills, as the shooter would not have any illusions that others are perceiving his kills as results of air-to-air combat.  All of which is surely fair.

 

 

 

 

 

Still, we must also consider the multiplayer-endedness of this proposed solution, which does leave SP in lack of proper features to properly encourage RTB and R+R.

 

A reasonable solution would be, much like in case of emergency landings, impose a small toll on score when a plane is returned with pilot-induced damage.  This would be a historically authentic element of the game, as IRL any pilot would get some heat by his superiors after landing if he needlessly trashed his plane. 

 

This would perhaps be overridden by any enemy-made damage suffered, so if 50% emergency landing is given, a possible 10% engine abuse penalty would be ignored.  Enemy cannon fire is indeed substantially worse to the upkeep of an engine than a few moments of overboost. 

 

Unlike MP, this kind of score is more prominently featured over the course of campaigns, making it certainly easier to implement with the existing scoring system alone.

 

 

Online though, this would work only under the premise of another suggestion I had made some time before, that the game ought to visibly score generic "points", as to allow it rewarding more than the mere act of killing an enemy.  (plus, kills are easily "stolen" by an overly eager teammate, or even AAA fire, very frustrating indeed)

 

In a best case scenario, where points are implemented and made top priority on ranking (without need for checking a website, that is), it would be relatively trivial to properly account the demerits of engine abuse with a 10% decrease in score for that sortie, unless combat damage is taken to justify the necessity of the abuse.

 

Then it would be just as straightforward to award an R+R Bonus of a few extra points whenever the system gets used after a sortie (provided a minimum time in flight).

 

 

 

Again, it all comes down to scoring and the need for a more comprehensive system, which would allow us to address these frustrating "merit recognition and credit bugs".   

Edited February 2, 2018 by 19//Moach

[Tuesday]

[...] What is my incentive for using R&R?      [...]

 

Now, as before,  I am failing to see how R&R encourages RTBs when I already RTB whenever possible and if I did not believe in RTBs I would not have my mind changed by the being made to sit on the field for 5 minutes between sorties.

 

1) Being able to land at the nearest friendly airfield and not losing the aircraft if it is not actually available from the field.

 

2) Not losing the aircraft due to the carelessness (or time of the map) of your team means there are none of that type left, and when you despawn somebody else spawns into your aircraft before you even make it back to the menu screen.

 

I think R&R takes something like 2 minutes max on ATAG, not sure why so many here are so against it - gives you enough time to plan the next sortie / stand up and get a beer without losing your plane.

[19//Moach]

1) Being able to land at the nearest friendly airfield and not losing the aircraft if it is not actually available from the field.

 

2) Not losing the aircraft due to the carelessness (or time of the map) of your team means there are none of that type left, and when you despawn somebody else spawns into your aircraft before you even make it back to the menu screen.

 

I think R&R takes something like 2 minutes max on ATAG, not sure why so many here are so against it - gives you enough time to plan the next sortie / stand up and get a beer without losing your plane.

 

 

These things happen more often than one would think.  And it's most unfortunate when they do, enough to massively detract from the MP experience in this series.

Edited February 2, 2018 by 19//Moach

[56RAF_Roblex]

I do accept points 1 & 2 and would find R&R useful for that .  These problems have become particularly evident in recent weeks when many of the servers are full and players are waiting to grab aircraft as soon as they appear.   I am still yet to be convinced that even a single player that is so lazy and uninterested in authenticity that he jumps out of his plane so he can respawn quicker is going to have his mind changed by being offered the chance to R&R.   I would love there to be some concrete incentive to encourage people to RTB I just don't think R&R is it.

[Gambit21]

Moach, like I've said again and again, Po-2's refueled and re-armed all night long, very rapidly.

Po-2 is coming, so why not add that as a reason?

 

That may be the only place it's valuable in single player, but it's worth including.

As before, I'm not attached to this one way or the other, but the Po-2 thing is just a fact.

[JaffaCake]

Honestly I'd believe that people try to keep their streaks going (and some indeed do). But the post is missing a reasonably sized chunk of the playerbase who do not care for the artificial scoring that the game enforces - they are just out there desperately wanting a kill at any cost.

 

Even on TAW I had a 109 chase my pe2 all the way back to my runway, shoot me up to bits and get obliterated by AAA in return. And it wasn't a single occasion of it happening. The heavy penalties for losing aircraft or life on TAW actually promotes some people to ensure the destruction of the plane and the pilot, even if it is mutual. (crash-landed aircraft get strafed, parachuting pilots get shot mid-air, seen it all happen more than once).

 

I am not sure how one would address this kind of behaviour.