Combat Box by Red Flight

[Talisman]

22 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

We're considering "airframe attrition" as a first-class mechanic on an upcoming map. Some frontal airfields would have very limited aircraft numbers, but would have repair/rearm, so it might encourage pilots to try to nurse a wounded bird back home. In addition, your side could get a victory point for destroying X many opposing aircraft. It's not an outright win just on airframes, but it would contribute to the mission. We'd make sure it was front-and-center in the mission briefing and the in-mission text hints. Just an idea but we're thinking about it.

 

 

Alonzo, pleas don't make this server unfriendly for squadrons.  Please keep this server squadron friendly.  If it starts to become difficult for a squadron of pilots to operate with the same aircraft and fly in cooperation with other squadrons, then it just becomes a complete frustration to run a squadron of pilots and joint squadron operations on a server.  We had 9 pilots cooperating as a squadron the other evening and we are about to start joint cooperation flying with another squad, which should add up to around 15 plus or so pilots trying to work in a historic way together.  Restricting airframes too much will make squad operations even more difficult than it is now and repair/rearm is not that useful when trying to operate a number of squadron pilots together either (never use it as no value for us with our numbers).

I am not asking that you prioritise squadron players on the server, just that you consider us in the wider scheme of things and help us all to help this server be the best it can be.  One other point that I would like to make is about winning maps.  I have seen a lot of posts placing a lot of emphasis on winning maps, but for me, and perhaps others too, it is not the winning of maps that matters most, rather it is good air action and a good mission sortie executed with teamwork, human interaction and a degree of success in a near as historic way as possible and getting as many pilots back to base as we can.  I find that the fun and sense of achievement is not in winning a map, the fun and sense of achievement is in a successfully executed sortie with and against other PC pilots.  I understand that winning a map is the wider goal, but I find it is far from the be all and end all and have to confess that winning a map almost never enters my mind as I am concentrated on the fun and challenge of each individual mission sortie and the air action involved.  Thank you for a great MP server.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited January 11, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[=FEW=fernando11]

I understand your concern. But maybe that could be takled by taking of as a squad , but just not from a frontal airfield...

Maybe (if admins set the server like that) you could take of from a rear airfield and "fery" the planes you need to the frontal airfield. And then respown on the frontal airfield.

Edited January 11, 2020 by =FEW=fernando11
Correction

[Talisman]

4 minutes ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

I understand your concern. But maybe that could be takled by taking of as a squad , but just not from a frontal airfield...

Maybe (if admins set the server like that) you could take of from a rear airfield and "fery" the planes you need to the frontal airfield. And then respown on the frontal airfield.

We do take of as a squad and usually not from frontal airfields.  The overall knock-on effect of restricting aircraft types too much becomes a frustration.  Moving aircraft between airfields is something we have had to resort to in the past, mostly on other servers we don't fly any more.  Keep having to move aircraft around between airfields is one of the frustrations of trying to run a squad and work with other squads.  We know all about working as a squad and the ways to work around problems as we have done it for many years, I am simply flagging up the issue to try and keep this server squadron friendly rather than not.

 

In short, "airframe attrition", depending on how it is implemented, could end up being a first class mechanic for unintended consequences. 

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[CIA_Luth]

Alonzo and the Combat Box team,

 

you have a wonderfun server, and I appreciate all your hard work. in my opinion, its the best server ive flown in the last 20 years. 

 

a lot of suggestions are being put forth about making combat box more like the old spits vs 109s, or change some things so its like TAW, or WOL.  please do not do that.  you have a unique mission concept and try to make things as immersive and historically significant as is possible.  if people want taw, wol, or Hazas spits vs 109s, let them fly there.  your late war planeset is unique.  keep it.  

 

balance, for playability, is a different issue.  german fliers are incorrect when they state that their aircraft cant compete with allied aircraft unless the allies are restricted (otto_bann, turban,others). this is simply not true.  for the last 20 years developers have favored german aircraft with better flight models.  they need to stop whining.  if their 109k has trouble against a 150 octane p51, well, too bad. allied fliers have had to deal with inferior flight models for the last 20 years.  german (blue) pilots only want to fly if their aircraft are vastly superior to their opponents.  its time the luftwhiners suck it up and deal with it.  

 

and since its now obvious that if blue pilots want to win, they can, why not see if they can do it with a little more historical accuracy thrown in.  bring back all the loadout options for allied aircraft.  

 

having said that, I just want to say again I really do believe you have a great server.  keep the focus on late war missions.  minor tweaks to missions are fine,  but turning combat box into another taw, wol, spits vs 109s would just ruin the great thing you have going right now.

 

youre doing a great job, thanks for a great server.

Edited January 11, 2020 by CIA_Luth
misspelling

[Hawk-2a]

25 minutes ago, CIA_Luth said:

this is simply not true.  for the last 20 years developers have favored german aircraft with better flight models

 

26 minutes ago, CIA_Luth said:

they need to stop whining.  if their 109k has trouble against a 150 octane p51, well, too bad. allied fliers have had to deal with inferior flight models for the last 20 years.  german (blue) pilots only want to fly if their aircraft are vastly superior to their opponents.  its time the luftwhiners suck it up and deal with it.

either you are sarcastic or that is really the dumbest shit i‘ve EVER read.

 

as if it would be in a Developers interest to make certain models better and more accurate than others?

 

also that germans only fly if their bird is vastly superior is absolute dogshit.

 

loads of the top scoring axis guys are preferring the G-14 even on 1945 maps and just as an example, i still got accused of cheating just today after wiping 2 p51 and damaging a 3rd in short succession.

 

This plane is in no way competitive with boosted superprops and only piloting errors of allied pilots let you win the dogfights; or the usual blindness tourism the allied do at 3-4k straight from spawn to the target.

 

maybe if you would actually think before flying straight and level, presenting yourself on silver plates, your planes would arrive at targets and the bombs would be delivered, resulting in more ground objects destroyed and eventually a mission win. But with 50% already dead within 5-10 min of takeoff, it’s not gonna help your side. But sure, blame blue planes.

 

have a great day my man

[Turban]

59 minutes ago, CIA_Luth said:

 

balance, for playability, is a different issue.  german fliers are incorrect when they state that their aircraft cant compete with allied aircraft unless the allies are restricted (otto_bann, turban,others). this is simply not true.  for the last 20 years developers have favored german aircraft with better flight models.  they need to stop whining.  if their 109k has trouble against a 150 octane p51, well, too bad. allied fliers have had to deal with inferior flight models for the last 20 years.  german (blue) pilots only want to fly if their aircraft are vastly superior to their opponents.  its time the luftwhiners suck it up and deal with it.  

 

and since its now obvious that if blue pilots want to win, they can, why not see if they can do it with a little more historical accuracy thrown in.  bring back all the loadout options for allied aircraft.  

 

 

 

LOL.
That's all that thing's worth.

Don't make it personal. 

 

Blues are winning because they are working harder than allies.

 

[Otto_bann]

+1 Turban, if it's the case actually, it was not the same thing a while ago.
So much bad faith read here becomes tiring and finally repulsive

[BraveSirRobin]

On 1/10/2020 at 12:29 PM, Alonzo said:

 

We're considering "airframe attrition" as a first-class mechanic on an upcoming map. Some frontal airfields would have very limited aircraft numbers, but would have repair/rearm, so it might encourage pilots to try to nurse a wounded bird back home.

 

Unless you're going to make people wait at least 15 minutes for r/r, it's just arcade silliness.  People are already rewarded for returning to base on the stats page.  If that's not enough, then it seems unlikely that r/r will change anything.

[CIA_Luth]

6 hours ago, Turban said:

Blues are winning because they are working harder than allies.

of course it doesn't help that for balance sake, the allied side has been restricted, and axis objectives have been made easier to destroy.

 

6 hours ago, IV./JG51-H_Stiglitz said:

also that germans only fly if their bird is vastly superior is absolute dogshit.

youre right, its laughable that blue fliers whine until the planeset favors them.  

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I should have added earlier - the Combat BoX Discord and voice comms is a great addition. I go to the Discord first and see who is on before I choose which side to fly. I think the active voice Comms channels add a lot to the experience in the server.

[Stu-Dh]

thank u Turban!

 

 just flew y29. blues all worked as team for a change and we blew reds away with over an hour left on the map. but mission ended probably because we Won!

[Alonzo]

6 minutes ago, Stu-Dh said:

 just flew y29. blues all worked as team for a change and we blew reds away with over an hour left on the map. but mission ended probably because we Won!

 

I was on that mission. At the start, a bunch of us on Discord wiped out the northernmost red airfield target, with zero resistance. Like, not a fighter in sight while we destroyed the target over the course of about 5 minutes. We got more resistance at the next one, but I think the momentum just kept up from that early initial objective.

 

On Operation Paravane immediately before that, it was a close match. Allies destroyed 2 out of 3 primary targets, and the Germans had destroyed 1 of their 2 primary targets. A flight of 4 x 110s and 2 x Ju88's finished off the other bomber base, and I'm pretty sure I saw "under attack" messages at the final Allied primary target at the same time. Pretty close match.

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Unless you're going to make people wait at least 15 minutes for r/r, it's just arcade silliness.  People are already rewarded for returning to base on the stats page.  If that's not enough, then it seems unlikely that r/r will change anything.

 

There are plenty of maps where my favored airframe eventually runs ou -- I'm sure if I think it's a good airframe other pilots will too. The best pilots I think would appreciate the opportunity to land intact and be able to fly again, without worrying if there are any planes left or if someone else takes "their" plane as it is added back into the pool and they're looking at the score screen.

[JG7_X-Man]

On 1/7/2020 at 12:21 PM, Y-29.Silky said:

I don't understand why there's so few P-38's, yet so many Tempests. There was a couple maps in a row where the P-38 wasn't available.

There's no reason the P-38 shouldn't be in every map and the Tempest should be fewer in numbers. I have a few friends who avoid this server because they're always running into 3-4 Tempests at a time, only 1 Tempest is a nightmare to deal with.

 

And why is 150 grade fuel only available when the Germans have K-4's and 262's?

150 fuel was used in every aircraft by July 1944, God forbid the Germans have a slight historical disadvantage.

 

I for one would like to apologize personally for not falling out of the sky with ease and not succumbing to your superior fly abilities and advanced technology like you have read in your biased books and seen on the ill informed or agenda driven docudramas.

 

As most of us here know, the reason the Allies won the war in the air was superior numbers and better leadership not the P-51D (...which as an average aircraft until it was married with the Rolls-Royce Merlin), not the superior flying skills of the USAAF fighter pilot (The RAF, VVS and Fat Autos took did most of the work already) and definitely not the G-Suit (...as this game will lead you to believe)

 

The issue you are having is we cannot simulate the lopsided battles of late '44 (unless Combat Box is having one of those periods). 

 

Silky - You are the one that needs an advantage - ask Alonzo to remove the FAKE g-LOC crap and use the Simplified physiology setting for a week and see how the Luftwaffe will make minced meat of the P-51s and P-38s 

[BraveSirRobin]

9 hours ago, Alonzo said:

There are plenty of maps where my favored airframe eventually runs ou -- I'm sure if I think it's a good airframe other pilots will too. The best pilots I think would appreciate the opportunity to land intact and be able to fly again, without worrying if there are any planes left or if someone else takes "their" plane as it is added back into the pool and they're looking at the score screen.

So you’re going to make them wait 15 minutes?  At least that would be realistic, and your server does seem to emphasize realism.

[Alonzo]

10 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So you’re going to make them wait 15 minutes?  At least that would be realistic, and your server does seem to emphasize realism.

 

You can land, then spawn in immediately in a brand new plane with a pilot that's fully fresh and never pulled a G in their life. I don't think making repairs take 15 minutes really makes sense in that context. It's a game, and as we've said repeatedly we're shooting for fun, balanced gameplay with maps that are fun, balanced and have a nod to history.

 

Honestly the main reason we haven't experimented with repair and rearm is that it's been so buggy and caused server instability for others. We were trying to nail down our own stability problems without R&R even being enabled.

[69th_Bazzer]

Really like the changes to A Bridge Too Far. Also liking the Scheldt map, feels well balanced, although forcing me outside my comfort zone with no P38 and no bombs on the Tempie.

 

Finally, I appreciate the stats update re: wins with 100+ players. Things are looking good.

 

Regarding the rearm/refuel idea, are many people not desparately trying to nurse home damaged planes as it is? It's a fun idea, but even 5 mins is precious time for most of us.

 

Re: airplane attrition as an objective, seems like a good idea in some contexts; killing off all the 262's feels like it should be an objective on every map they are available. It's a stretch to imagine it for any of the current allied planeset though...maybe high altitude AI B25's as a stand-in for strategic bombers. Would help push some combat up high, and see some of these fighters in their element.

Edited January 12, 2020 by 69th_Bazzer

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

8 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

1) You can land, then spawn in immediately in a brand new plane with a pilot that's fully fresh and never pulled a G in their life. I don't think making repairs take 15 minutes really makes sense in that context. It's a game, and as we've said repeatedly we're shooting for fun, balanced gameplay with maps that are fun, balanced and have a nod to history.

 

 2) We were trying to nail down our own stability problems without R&R even being enabled.

 

1) On a somewhat related note - and even though I hit re-fly right afterward, like everybody else:  It's always bothered me that planes that die attacking a target can re-fly immediately, which can effectively cut mission time in half if you die right after going bombs-out at a target.  This sentiment really applies to all planes, but the aforementioned example is the best example, IMO. 

 

2) (Just because it's a perfect setup if taken out of context, nothing more.)…..     Medication?  

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Mobile_BBQ

[Otto_bann]

On 1/11/2020 at 10:03 PM, CIA_Luth said:

...german fliers are incorrect when they state that their aircraft cant compete with allied aircraft unless the allies are restricted (otto_bann, turban,others). this is simply not true.  for the last 20 years developers have favored german aircraft with better flight models.  they need to stop whining....

 

Where have you seen this words from me? It's just lies. I never said I can't fight against reds with 150 octane. I said: reds are not disfavorised when they can't have 150 octane option aviable, it's so different.

If you read my stats a the end of 2019, you'll see how many kills I got with the G6 (maybe also an other ''super-uber-blue-plane" for you and few others?). Try it against a 51, Spit or Tempy (without 150 oct), just for fun...;). So with or without 150 oct. for the red side, I will shot down many of them anyway.

Whimpering is not for me but those praying for get this extra option when they just can't handel correctly what they already have. They just have so many less skills for fighting than for building comfortable theories.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Otto_bann

[adler_1]

too many clouds in every mission , we cannot bomb from high altitude , we spend 20-30mn getting to target only to abort . Could you please consider much less clouds over the Rhein map . We know in reality the difficulties the RAF and USAAf faced with bad weather but this is a game and we are wasting our time .

[69th_Bazzer]

5 hours ago, Otto_bann said:

 

Where have you seen this words from me? It's just lies. I never said I can't fight against reds with 150 octane. I said: reds are not disfavorised when they can't have 150 octane option aviable, it's so different.

If you read my stats a the end of 2019, you'll see how many kills I got with the G6 (maybe also an other ''super-uber-blue-plane" for you and few others?). Try it against a 51, Spit or Tempy (without 150 oct), just for fun...;). So with or without 150 oct. for the red side, I will shot down many of them anyway.

Whimpering is not for me but those praying for get this extra option when they just can't handel correctly what they already have. They just have so many less skills for fighting than for building comfortable theories.

 

I counted 15 out of your 134 sorties in December were in the G-6, and in these you scored 16 of your 199 kills. In November it was 3 out of 126 sorties, for 1 out of your 198 kills. You look hampered in the G-6 to me, compared to your performance in your preferred K-4, although the amount of sorties is not statistically significant. I couldn't be bothered to look back further.

 

In taking this rather tedious 10 minutes to review your performance as you requested, I also noted 0 allied sorties whatsoever in December, and 9 in P-51's in November for 8 kills. Again, well below your usual rate in your favored K-4/G-14.

 

Edit: I only looked at Combat Box stats. I'm sure you were killing it in Yak's in WoL

 

More to the point, the crux of your argument appears to be some nearly indecipherable triple negative logic ('can't say you're not disfavored'), together with basically, paraphrasing, 'I am a skilled pilot, and therefore you do not need 150 octane fuel.'

 

No one is suggesting you are not a skilled pilot, Otto.

 

However, your favorite plane appears to be the K-4, which as far as I know always has the MW 50 in this game. Barely a handful of these saw combat historically. Meanwhile, you argue red pilots shouldn't have 150 octane fuel, which powered tens of thousands of allied fighters for nearly a year. Basically, your position is absurd.

Edited January 13, 2020 by 69th_Bazzer

[Otto_bann]

1st, at the end af 2019, G14 was my favorit, not K4 like you say. And I invit you to try to do the same thing with G6, even for few sorties, you will see REALY what is to figth with lower plane.

Sure it's hampering to take this plane against 51, tempy, 38 or spit. But I shooted down those planes with G6 and his so less performances. It proves that is possible and the succes was not a question to have a best plane. I done it again few min ago with G6  against 2 51+ an other one in G14 against 2 other + 1 spit, I was alone each time. I don't say this for  brag about myself, I'm rather bad in aerobatics and bad shooter, but I think to use my planes like they have to be used, even if their performances are lower. Many time, my kills have nothing to do with the type of plane used and I am sure it's the case for many other pilots.

For my sorties in red I already writing about this but it seems you don't have read it : I just tryed red fighters few times for know what I have to do against them, not for make a score. If in future I decide to play red only, I am sure to make at least the same scores, no problem.

Maybe my words are ''indecipherable'' but sorry, I'm french and the english language is not natural and more, quite hard for me. What I say is : without 150 oct., reds are not disfavorised, I'm sure of this. Focusing on this wish (get the 150 oct.) is a mistake ... or a bad pretext . And if you finally get it, I bet you will always lose the missions if the blue side continue to do the same thing: what new pretext will you find to justify the losing missions then...? 

 

 My position is not absurd because K4 was not my favorite plane last month. And history is an other bad argument for a game simulator,  especialy on this server because it's not his goal (it's gameplay)

 

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Otto_bann

[Creep]

21 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

1) On a somewhat related note - and even though I hit re-fly right afterward, like everybody else:  It's always bothered me that planes that die attacking a target can re-fly immediately, which can effectively cut mission time in half if you die right after going bombs-out at a target.  This sentiment really applies to all planes, but the aforementioned example is the best example, IMO. 

 

I really like the idea of a "time-out" penalty for deaths. I think it could help discourage bad habits for all players and maybe even encourage some good habits.

 

Pros:

• Force players to fly in a more realistic manner where they value their aircraft (and their virtual life).
• Prevent what I consider "cheap" gameplay (flying ground attackers straight to a target on the deck as fast as possible with no cover or coordination and making pass after pass until they are out of ammunition and/or dead).
• Create a natural break for the player to reflect on their failed sortie (what went well, what went wrong, review tacview, etc). 
• A timer in between deaths would incentivize waiting for other players to complete their mission before returning to the action. For example, 4 players form up and fly to target, one dies, the others survive. Often times, the player that died will start up again right away and head out lone wolf. If they had to wait, there is a greater chance they will go out again as a group.

 

Cons (and ways to mitigate their impact):

• Some players will dislike it quite a bit, to the point that it might adversely affect server population. Since that is probably the absolute worst thing that can happen, would it be possible to only implement the death penalty during peak times? Or maybe only implement such a thing on certain maps, such as the upcoming airframe attrition map? I could see some side-benefits there... if you had a few unsavory types decide it would be fun to force one side to lose, all they would need to do is takeoff and immediately waste a plane over and over and over. A timer would prevent this.
• ???

[Turban]

53 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

 

I really like the idea of a "time-out" penalty for deaths. I think it could help discourage bad habits for all players and maybe even encourage some good habits.

 

Pros:

• Force players to fly in a more realistic manner where they value their aircraft (and their virtual life).
• Prevent what I consider "cheap" gameplay (flying ground attackers straight to a target on the deck as fast as possible with no cover or coordination and making pass after pass until they are out of ammunition and/or dead).
• Create a natural break for the player to reflect on their failed sortie (what went well, what went wrong, review tacview, etc). 
• A timer in between deaths would incentivize waiting for other players to complete their mission before returning to the action. For example, 4 players form up and fly to target, one dies, the others survive. Often times, the player that died will start up again right away and head out lone wolf. If they had to wait, there is a greater chance they will go out again as a group.

 

Cons (and ways to mitigate their impact):

• Some players will dislike it quite a bit, to the point that it might adversely affect server population. Since that is probably the absolute worst thing that can happen, would it be possible to only implement the death penalty during peak times? Or maybe only implement such a thing on certain maps, such as the upcoming airframe attrition map? I could see some side-benefits there... if you had a few unsavory types decide it would be fun to force one side to lose, all they would need to do is takeoff and immediately waste a plane over and over and over. A timer would prevent this.
• ???

In all honesty that's a bad idea.

 

Some players play it safe. Stay at 8 k for hours in hope of an easy kill. ( The Hartmanns Club) . You don't see them engaging in anything risky. 

 

They're not the best element for the servers. They take slots, and when you have 40 people in your team and 20 doing nothing at 8k.... it's pretty frustrating.

 

So now the people who actually try to play ball and "take risks" will face a double sentence.  Knowing how death can be frustrating and happen out of real bad luck....

You'll die, sometimes having not even done anything crazy, PLUS, you'd get a timer ???? 

 

And knowing you were just trying to carry the team while the "safe" players are just fine up there ? That'd get old real quick...

 

We have enough to lose already. We lose our plane , our VL, etc... it sucks already. Don't punish the majority just because of a few suicidal maniacs.

 

 

 

 

[Fern]

3 minutes ago, Turban said:

In all honesty that's a bad idea.

 

Some players play it safe. Stay at 8 k for hours in hope of an easy kill. ( The Hartmanns Club) . You don't see them engaging in anything risky. 

 

They're not the best element for the servers. They take slots, and when you have 40 people in your team and 20 doing nothing at 8k.... it's pretty frustrating.

 

So now the people who actually try to play ball and "take risks" will face a double sentence.  Knowing how death can be frustrating and happen out of real bad luck....

You'll die, sometimes having not even done anything crazy, PLUS, you'd get a timer ???? 

 

And knowing you were just trying to carry the team while the "safe" players are just fine up there ? That'd get old real quick...

 

We have enough to lose already. We lose our plane , our VL, etc... it sucks already. Don't punish the majority just because of a few suicidal maniacs.

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

No to time outs. Dont touch anything else. I don't want another TAW. The server is fine. Keep doing what you're doing. Just give the Allies their 150 octane and be done with it if it's historically accurate.

[Alonzo]

1 hour ago, QB.Creep said:

Cons (and ways to mitigate their impact):

• Some players will dislike it quite a bit, to the point that it might adversely affect server population. Since that is probably the absolute worst thing that can happen, would it be possible to only implement the death penalty during peak times? Or maybe only implement such a thing on certain maps, such as the upcoming airframe attrition map? I could see some side-benefits there... if you had a few unsavory types decide it would be fun to force one side to lose, all they would need to do is takeoff and immediately waste a plane over and over and over. A timer would prevent this.
• ???

 

Mechanically, we can only change the death penalty if we restart the server. We currently restart the server every 3 maps, so in theory we could choose to enable/disable the death timer every 3 maps. We could program in a "peak times" thing so (say) evening Europe through midnight US times could have a death penalty enabled. We could also enable it if the "3 maps to run next" contained a map that had airframe attrition enabled. We can also change the number 3 to something else, but it's nice to retain players between maps at least some of the time (if you restart the server, players lose their connection and must reselect Combat Box from the server listing screen).

 

That's just me commenting on the mechanics, I'm not for or against the idea, just listening.

 

What would we set the timer to? Given that most maps include (at least) 5 minutes flight time to get back into even defensive action, plus engine start, taxi and takeoff, would it really do much to change player behavior?

[Otto_bann]

We don't need to be infantilized by add constraints, what lot of players hate : ''don't do this, otherwise...'' :( Bad idea imo

 

[Barnacles]

18 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

We don't need to be infantilized by add constraints, what lot of players hate : ''don't do this, otherwise...'' Bad idea imo

 

I personally don't like a timeout system, but I do think encouraging desirable behaviour sometimes is ok. It's not fun imo if the people who you're flying against don't to things which weren't credible in real life. But incentives are better than constraints.

Edited January 14, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

 

I really like the idea of a "time-out" penalty for deaths. I think it could help discourage bad habits for all players and maybe even encourage some good habits.

 

Pros:

• Force players to fly in a more realistic manner where they value their aircraft (and their virtual life).
• Prevent what I consider "cheap" gameplay (flying ground attackers straight to a target on the deck as fast as possible with no cover or coordination and making pass after pass until they are out of ammunition and/or dead).
• Create a natural break for the player to reflect on their failed sortie (what went well, what went wrong, review tacview, etc). 
• A timer in between deaths would incentivize waiting for other players to complete their mission before returning to the action. For example, 4 players form up and fly to target, one dies, the others survive. Often times, the player that died will start up again right away and head out lone wolf. If they had to wait, there is a greater chance they will go out again as a group.

 

Cons (and ways to mitigate their impact):

• Some players will dislike it quite a bit, to the point that it might adversely affect server population. Since that is probably the absolute worst thing that can happen, would it be possible to only implement the death penalty during peak times? Or maybe only implement such a thing on certain maps, such as the upcoming airframe attrition map? I could see some side-benefits there... if you had a few unsavory types decide it would be fun to force one side to lose, all they would need to do is takeoff and immediately waste a plane over and over and over. A timer would prevent this.
• ???

 

21 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Mechanically, we can only change the death penalty if we restart the server. We currently restart the server every 3 maps, so in theory we could choose to enable/disable the death timer every 3 maps. We could program in a "peak times" thing so (say) evening Europe through midnight US times could have a death penalty enabled. We could also enable it if the "3 maps to run next" contained a map that had airframe attrition enabled. We can also change the number 3 to something else, but it's nice to retain players between maps at least some of the time (if you restart the server, players lose their connection and must reselect Combat Box from the server listing screen).

 

That's just me commenting on the mechanics, I'm not for or against the idea, just listening.

 

What would we set the timer to? Given that most maps include (at least) 5 minutes flight time to get back into even defensive action, plus engine start, taxi and takeoff, would it really do much to change player behavior?

 

It is, admittedly, complicated. 

Many players defending targets don't actually try to intercept potential incoming bombers.  Instead, they wait to se the explosions at the target and use them to pinpoint low level attackers. Then, they get their kills. I personally, think that's a "cheap" tactic that actually hurts one's own team more than anything.  If a bomber has already made a successful attack and is RTB, then let them or shadow them until they are almost home, then bounce them. Better yet, intercept them *before* they get to the target.  Like I said previously, it essentially cuts re-fly times in half and double bomber sortie output if the bombers are destroyed just after the complete the attack.

 

Sometimes, depending on what amount of free time during the day players have to get the most out of the game, the "conveyor belt" of planes is inevitable. 

 

As far as running straight at the target on the deck goes, it is a "tactic", albeit not a very good one. I don't know if anything is really going to change that though.  I've had more than one moment of frustration where playing the role of escort either forced me to choose between being low and slow on the deck with the "client" plane(s) or trying to S-turn at a better altitude above the target. Meanwhile, opponent planes are able to also run on the deck undetected at full speed - usually getting their attacks in on the bombers (or the escort) before the escort can really do anything at all. 

 

I know for a fact that the guys I fly with on TeamSpeak all, at the very least, try to make it back to friendly territory before ditching, if they must.  However, there are pilots that don't mind ditching or bailing right after a successful attack.   

 

I don't know how complicated it would be, but perhaps, allotments of planes per individual, instead of or along with, the airfield pools we work with currently, would be more effective than penalty timers.  Each player would get a set amount of each available plane model per mission instead of being able to burn through whatever the airfield has available as fast as they can re-fly once destroyed.  

[JG7_X-Man]

Alonzo - do what you want bro, it's your server.

• Worst case scenario - it will end up at the bottom of the Multiplayer - Dogfight list when you sort by # of players.
• Best case scenario - it will remain at the top of the Multiplayer - Dogfight list when you sort by # of players.

Edited January 14, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

30 minutes ago, Otto_bann said:

We don't need to be infantilized by add constraints, what lot of players hate : ''don't do this, otherwise...'' Bad idea imo

 

 

Yet, you want 150 octane restricted?  You know the ONLY performance it increases is manifold pressure at 100% emergency settings for 5 minutes maximum, right?  Even then, the K4 is still slightly faster with, (what is it?) up to 3 charges of MW50 for 10 minutes each? 

[Bernard_IV]

I would love to have a skins game on Combat Box somehow.  It's like poker.  Try playing poker with no money.  It isn't an honest game when there are no real stakes.  I don't know how teams would be chosen or who would be the leader but I think the game would be intense!

[Ribbon]

I don't have anything aginst death penalty timer but i don't see anything positive from it.

Some will stop flying and others will be more careful and when it happens just wait to respawn.

In my case i'll just stop doing ground objectives and go pure fighter role.

So i'd rather have some idea to encourage bombers instead to punish them cos for sure they will get killed mostly.

It will drift away bombers since many Hartmans just camp over the objectives and around spawn airfields waiting for easy kill.

 

Biggest problem is not in server (balance and loadout) it's rather in game, plane LOD's are bugged;

Allied planes with camo skin shine like christmas trees on higher distances making them easy targets while axis planes camo blends in and sometimes you can't see plane 100m up to 2km from you until it's too late....flak shooting on invisible planes.

 

[Creep]

I take back my suggestion lol.

[69th_Bazzer]

Yeah, I already cut down on ground attack a lot as I started to value my virtual lives and stats more. Introduce a death penalty and I would only want to fly high altitude CAP in my own territory. Appreciate there are servers that offer this, but much more appreciate the balance CB offers in rewarding aggressive but organized offense as well as defense.

Edited January 14, 2020 by 69th_Bazzer

[Barnacles]

2 hours ago, QB.Creep said:

I take back my suggestion lol.

It's s pity because all the benefits you listed are worth aspiring to. 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

It's s pity because all the benefits you listed are worth aspiring to. 

 

The stats system should already encourage more realistic behavior.  Kicking people out of the server for dying just causes people to move to other servers or stop taking any chances at all.

[Barnacles]

12 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

The stats system should already encourage more realistic behavior.  Kicking people out of the server for dying just causes people to move to other servers or stop taking any chances at all.

Totally agree. I wish it was possible to improve upon the stats' system's effectiveness without alienating people. Sadly it's probably not possible; is what I meant.

Edited January 14, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Otto_bann]

10 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Yet, you want 150 octane restricted?  You know the ONLY performance it increases is manifold pressure at 100% emergency settings for 5 minutes maximum, right?  Even then, the K4 is still slightly faster with, (what is it?) up to 3 charges of MW50 for 10 minutes each? 

 

Once again, I never asked to restrict 150 oct. I said reds are not disavantaged without this extra.

And never this option not avaiable has deteriorate the gameplay. With timeout the risk to be an other story is real.

 

How many time at full power for Tempy...?

Edited January 14, 2020 by Otto_bann

[Fern]

Give them 150 octane, but in exchange move tempest to a rear airfield. Or 150 octane planes to rear. Common planes on the front airbases, not so common on rear airbases. Better loadouts to the rear?

 

[Talon_]

1 hour ago, Otto_bann said:

How many time at full power for Tempy...?

 

5 minutes