ZachariasX Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 18 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said: if other guy foes not give you the room and tries to fly straight into you :). Yes, this. And fully agree. One should be careful. Most cases of "ill mannered" ramming I see in head on attacks. But anyone doing that must know that in essence it is always the chicken game.
BMA_Hellbender Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 10 hours ago, 602EAF_Puff said: I think the ramming issue stems from the attitude of players..in general, the personal stat attitude. When I was very active in RoF , this was also an issue and its sad to see it hasn't really changed. Is it really that important to show the world you got a kill in a video game? The number of times I used to just break off and leave them to it , would be nice if folks tried to replicate something of how those pilots tried to survive the odds instead of grabbing the limelight....anyways, that's just the opinion of an old flyer, feel free to disagree Is it really that important for 22 super rich guys to run around on a field and try to net a leather ball? And aren't Jedi just silly space wizards with laser swords who can move things with their mind? R.I.P. Star Wars 1977-2017 (let's pretend the prequels have some campy charm to them) I mean, you're right, of course. You may not care about stats, or pretend not to care about stats — which is an easy attitude to adopt. I personally don't care one bit about football stats, but I still wouldn't go so far as to say that they're not important. My advice about stats has always been: care about your own stats. Set your own goals, and don't look too much at what other people are doing. Take that as you will. Still, if stats are to matter to anyone at all, then we must have a level playing field. No, a Camel should never in any way be worse than an Albatros, and unless there is a tremendous skill gap between two players, the Camel pilot should be reasonably assured of his victory in a duel. The last RoF update tried the opposite and instead of making revisions of FMs based on collected data (185km/h Camel, 185km/h Albatros D.Va with 200hp engine), some planes were downright nerfed (167km/h Camel), while others were buffed (180km/h Albatros D.Va with 180hp engine) out of the blue, all in the name of appeasing the community. That's what gavagai wanted, and what I'm still told today that I was an accomplice of, and it's better left for another topic. Anyway, we need to play the hand we were dealth. We have this (literally) overpowered interceptor that can climb above and walk all over everything else, but only appeared in the late war and in small(ish) numbers. What do we do? Limit its availability. We know that every other Central scout is underpowered and slow, but is easy to fly (or turns very well) and has a parachute. Fine, let's create asymetric maps where Central plays defensively over their own side, which mimics history. Finally, we have the Camel, an excellent all-round machine with a poor reputation for killing inexperienced pilots, yet in-game, at specific low fuel settings, which are historically dubious, it's easy enough for those inexperienced pilots to cause equal harm to others. But that's where you draw the line? 11 hours ago, SeaW0lf said: I'm of the opinion that the ramming issue should be addressed in a thread, sort of Multiplayer Aircraft Guide. Post some videos of avoidable rams (I have a few), or avoidable engagements, or how to assist a fellow player in a dogfight, etc, etc. Then people might think twice before lunging in. Share some insights, some directives for novices and eager ones to start working together, not against one another. The herding part in an open server stands out pretty quickly, so it has to have some true meaning, or else I agree with Broccoli, don't go dicking with fuel loads. I love the idea of having useful resources to newcomers. They can even be gently nudged in the right direction. I just don't like to educate or force my views on anyone. The guide which Trupo and I wrote is an opinion piece, you can't claim that it's "wrong". You can even write a better guide with completely different opinions. Telling someone that they can't fly the Camel a certain way is an opinion. There is definitely behaviour that can be encouraged, especially with stats, but in the end if your mission is to ram as many people as possible without caring for your own life, then fine, that's your choice (P.S. not talking about you in particular). Whether this is easy to accomplish or not is outside the realm of opinion, and into that of verifiable historical fact. People killed themselves with Camels. A lot. More than they rammed other planes with it. I like the idea of fuel locks and limiting player's freedom about as much as everyone else here. It's not going to make my darling Halberstadt (and darling Darling) any better, either. There are also some who would love to see the Camel go the same way of the D.VIIF, and just make the problem quietly disappear. This goes against my own convictions. I still think we should experiment with fuel locks, and implement what @ZachariasX suggested with a spawn of limited low-fuel Camels and a spawn of unlimited high-fuel Camels (which could be used for ground attack), then see if it has any impact at all. If it works on Berloga, I don't see why it wouldn't work here.
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) You can't compare Berloga fuel locks ,it's airquake with one purpose not like we have in our missions (diversity). All other il2 mission based servers do not have any fuel restrictions and all ppl are fine enjoy the game and do not complain . This is not an proper argument Bender, and you can't say " I like the idea of fuel locks and limiting player's freedom about as much as everyone else here" because you do want it , and is not true anyways there are ppl who don't want it and don't want impose restrictions for others and take away freedom of choice as you want to do to us. Edited February 27, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
BMA_Hellbender Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said: This is not an proper argument Bender, and you can't say " I like the idea of fuel locks and limiting player's freedom about as much as everyone else here" because you do want it , and is not true anyways there are ppl who don't want it and don't want impose restrictions for others and take away freedom of choice as you want to do to us. Yes, I do want it, but no, I don't like it. I know I'm one of the youngest members here, but my daughter who is 7, she doesn't like to go to the dentist. Me neither. I still want us all to go and make sure we have healthy teeth. That's a bad example, actually, our dentist is breathtaking. It's like Penelope Cruz and Catherine Zeta-Jones had this genetically enhanced clone-baby. Did you know that Zeta-Jones isn't at all Spanish or Latina? She's Welsh. Like, from all sides of her family. That's kind of weird, isn't it? What the hell are we talking about again? Yes, Camels! I find this notion kind of strange that public multiplayer must be entirely unlocked. Isn't that just what leads to unrealistic AirQuake and the low fuel arms race? At least that's how I remember RoF AirQuake. Of which I have mostly good memories, for the record. Still, I agree that completely restricting something is bad. Limiting in availability is better, in the same way that some planes are limited. But if it's any consolation, I don't just want to limit fuel, I'd also really like to see some of the higher bomb loadouts on two-seaters limited. There's a simple reason for that: missions have a rather low number of maximum ground objects due to mission editor and server limitations, and it's pretty silly if one two-seater can knock out an entire map by himself.
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) Have more faith in ppl Bender , we do fly objectives not airquake. If there is one or two individual who are not like minded , let them be, why whole majority have to pay by giving up freedoms ? Edited February 27, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
BMA_Hellbender Posted February 27, 2020 Posted February 27, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said: Have more faith in ppl Bender , we do fly objectives not airquake. If there is one or two individual who are not like minded , let them be, why whole majority have to pay by giving up freedoms ? I have nothing against either flying objectives or AirQuake. In fact I think AirQuake is a misnomer: if people just want to dogfight, that's great! I go bombing tanks and trenches without completing objectives all the time. I guess we could call that GroundDoom? Seriously, I don't like imposing limits on people who know what they're doing and go for specific fuel loads tailored to their mission that supports the team. That's why I think fuel locks suck. If you give people freedom, they will test the very limits of that freedom to get an edge. Don't ask me to have faith in people, which I already don't have in myself. That's why I think fuel locks are necessary. But let's come down from the high level considerations of human nature. If I can ask you a practical question: would you feel very limited if you had access to 3x Camels with 30% fuel and unlimited Camels with 60% fuel? Bombs and other modifications at your discretion. Edited February 27, 2020 by J5_Hellbender
HagarTheHorrible Posted February 28, 2020 Author Posted February 28, 2020 Admitedly it's mostly airquake, but if given an opportunity, I'd much rather escort 1PL-Husar-1Esk with his Bristols (I do like a nice pair of Bristols, even if I do say so myself), even if there's no action, I like to think it was a good, successful escort. It would help if formations became a bit less raggardy though, it can become a bit of a bother trying to keep tabs on everything that's happening, and watch out for Fokkers, but generally it's great to see a formation of aircraft with a purpose.
yaan98 Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 2:33 AM, HagarTheHorrible said: Last night I managed to fly a Camel for over an hour on 36%, an hour is probably longer than most flights that I take part in. According to Camel data sheets, a full tank would last about 2.5 hours, so IRL half a tank would be needed to last a bit more than an hour. This brings into question how accurate fuel consumption is in this game when compared to data sheets of different planes.
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 Lock them all at 100% or don't lock them at all. 1
SeaW0lf Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 19 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: I love the idea of having useful resources to newcomers. They can even be gently nudged in the right direction. I just don't like to educate or force my views on anyone. I don't see your point. Better to open a thread to inform novices (no one is forcing anyone to nothing) than to start handicapping* planes arbitrarily. On this I'm with Broccoli. If people want to put a leash on people, lock all panes at 100%. Edited February 28, 2020 by SeaW0lf
BMA_Hellbender Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, SeaW0lf said: I don't see your point. Better to open a thread to inform novices (no one is forcing anyone to nothing) than to start handicapping* planes arbitrarily. On this I'm with Broccoli. If people want to put a leash on people, lock all panes at 100%. Alright, well let's make it this thread then! Dear novices, you can't take unrealistic fuel loads. I mean, you can. Just... don't. Please. Because I asked. Nicely. *crickets* There, consider yourself educated. Also, if you keep repeating handicap often enough, in the end it will become true! I think we all know that 100% fuel is the least desirable and least constructive way to attain realistic fuel loads given an average 20-30 minutes sortie length. I also find it highly questionable that any plane would start their combat mission topped off at 100%, with no 20-minute warmup or runup. It's certainly the best way to dismiss fuel locks as a viable option altogether and get me to shut up about it. ? In my opinion, these would be the best solutions, in order from best to worst: Having a minimum fuel load (30%), but otherwise leaving people to decide how much fuel they want for their mission (not possible in IL-2/FC) Having locked fuel loads with separate instances of planes (30%/60%/90%), which would avoid anyone taking off with 10% fuel Not having locked fuel loads at all, but in time facing the possibility of certain planes getting nerfed by limiting them in number Having locked fuel loads at 100% for all planes Edited February 28, 2020 by J5_Hellbender
SeaW0lf Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 I don't believe that rams are related to fuel loads, so that's a moot point to me. Rams are mostly due to people getting in the way of a kill, or playing chicken too late or miscalculating a bounce or just being careless (we don't die in our chairs). These are non fuel related behaviors. And I got rammed by Spads as well. So I personally don't see much to consider on the subject. 1
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 As the fuel load they were designed to carry, 100% is the most realistic fuel load.
HagarTheHorrible Posted February 28, 2020 Author Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said: As the fuel load they were designed to carry, 100% is the most realistic fuel load. No it's not.
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said: No it's not. Then don't lock it. No matter where you lock it, litres, endurance, percentage- One side in any given fight will derive an advantage by doing so due to the disparate fuel capacities between different aircraft. Locking a camel at an hour fuel load grants a massive weight reduction advantage (to an already advantaged plane) compared to a pfalz or basic D7 locked at a 1 hour load. The specs we have for these aircraft are derived from a full fuel load. So lock them where they're specced, or don't lock them at all- because every litre you deduct from a fuel load is adding to performance. You're not going to make it "fair" with anything else. Even a reduction-based approach (determine how much weight a camel saves by taking a 'realistic' fuel load, and allow, don't force, all other scouts to reduce their fuel load by that much) has its pitfalls. Edited February 28, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli
J2_Trupobaw Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 15 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said: Then don't lock it. No matter where you lock it, litres, endurance, percentage- One side in any given fight will derive an advantage by doing so due to the disparate fuel capacities between different aircraft. Locking a camel at an hour fuel load grants a massive weight reduction advantage (to an already advantaged plane) compared to a pfalz or basic D7 locked at a 1 hour load. D.VII and Pfalz barely feel the full fuel load, and taking a full tank is no-brainer for them. They are heavy planes with heavy, powerful engines to begin with. Camel and Dr.I are two light planes really sensitive to fuel mass; Dr.I designers took it into account and (knowing they are building it for Western Front missions) gave it 75 liter fuel tank. Camel, OTOH, was designed as naval fighter before being pressed into RFC service - the fuel tank is not adjusted for frontline service like Dr.Is. Anyway, the problem we encounter is pilots taking Camels with 35 minutes fuel load. Locking minimal load at an hour is not "granting them advantage".
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 Every litre less than their full fuel load, the load they are specced at, grants an advantage. But what problem is it of yours if the other side only has 35 minutes of fuel? What if their mission is only going to take 35 minutes? What if they took a 1 hour load but they've been in the air 25 minutes longer than you? Fuel load whining is just the slightly more attractive cousin of flight model whining.
HagarTheHorrible Posted February 29, 2020 Author Posted February 29, 2020 15 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said: Every litre less than their full fuel load, the load they are specced at, grants an advantage. But what problem is it of yours if the other side only has 35 minutes of fuel? What if their mission is only going to take 35 minutes? What if they took a 1 hour load but they've been in the air 25 minutes longer than you? Fuel load whining is just the slightly more attractive cousin of flight model whining. By that reasoning, every German aircraft flys with a performance advantage. A litre of fuel is a litre of fuel, it weighs the same, whatever side of the lines it comes from. If all aircraft are fuelled, sufficient for one hours flight then no aircraft is either advantaged, or disadvantaged, even if the overall percentage is higher in some aircraft than others.
HagarTheHorrible Posted February 29, 2020 Author Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, ZachariasX said: Imagine if it was leaded fuel... It can be arranged, although you have to be careful, too much lead can damage your engine, even your health.
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 6 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said: By that reasoning, every German aircraft flys with a performance advantage. A litre of fuel is a litre of fuel, it weighs the same, whatever side of the lines it comes from. If all aircraft are fuelled, sufficient for one hours flight then no aircraft is either advantaged, or disadvantaged, even if the overall percentage is higher in some aircraft than others. Okay, then however many kilograms of fuel away from a full load of fuel you end up locking the camel at, allow every other scout to deduct up to that many kilograms. Why are you so afraid to fly the camel at a full fuel load? "Anything more than my preferred fuel load is unfair. Anything less than my preferred fuel load is CHEATING!" ?
Barnacles Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 35 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said: Okay, then however many kilograms of fuel away from a full load of fuel you end up locking the camel at, allow every other scout to deduct up to that many kilograms. Why are you so afraid to fly the camel at a full fuel load? "Anything more than my preferred fuel load is unfair. Anything less than my preferred fuel load is CHEATING!" ? Is removing a full load of bombs cheating too?
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said: Is removing a full load of bombs cheating too? I don't know. Ask the people who are whining about others' fuel loads. They're dropping fuel for the same reason as the other guy. The other guy is just taking it further. Edited February 29, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli
Recommended Posts