What happened to all the players?

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

if personal stats were tailored to basically socially engineer the player base into prioritizing the campaign in engaging ways, and to take the player base away from cheese and camping.

I don’t think stats alone would change the gameplay mechanics. The reality of this game is that the maps are large and the numbers of players few. The distance they can see each other over is small. If by “camping” you mean patrolling the target area, that’s about the only tactic you can use which might result in spotting an opponent. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, I mean the target campers, they can make the game feel scripted. Most times I see no one all the way to the target, and then at the target is where I'll find people circling above ready to heroically attack me with an energy advantage after I've splattered their friends all over a factory wall below. I think having more of a cat and mouse dynamic where people are getting hunted on the way there would be more fun.

 

Currently the stats don't give people any reason to care about how they kill the attacker, but if you do something like changing the stats to reward killing attackers before they get their bombs off, or making attackers worth 0 kills for a certain amount of time after a ground kill as a punishment for letting him get his bombs off, then you could encourage more of a cat and mouse dynamic over camping. Not saying that's the only or best example, it's just one example.

 

Stats aren't the be all and end all though, yes there's other factors.

 

It's not always easy to spot the attackers, but I don't have much sympathy for people camping targets looking for easy kills on disadvantaged planes. 

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Yeah, I mean the target campers, they can make the game feel scripted.

You expect something different? It’s a perfectly reasonable tactic. And it’s fruitless to try anything else as the defender, you’ll just be searching an empty game for hours. I don’t think players care about stats so much as they just don’t want the game to be boring. 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Different is exactly what I expect. The cat and mouse game is much more interesting for both sides than just heading to the friendly icon on the map and waiting. Target camping makes it too easy, just got to adapt to predicting attacker routes getting spotting settings right.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Ok, I think I understand.  You’re saying that the mindset isn’t on defending a target, it’s just about using the target like bait?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah that's a good way to put it.  He should be trying to catch me before I attack the target and kill his friends, not after I've killed his friends and then blown my energy and am now an easy kill. 

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Yeah that's a good way to put it.  He should be trying to catch me before I attack the target and kill his friends, not after I've killed his friends and then blown my energy and am now an easy kill. 

I suppose the Japanese fighters at Midway were “camping” over their carrier group? You’re saying they should be out on a pointless search for the enemy instead of covering the one place they’d likely attack.
An air patrol is a perfectly realistic tactic. And yeah most bombers were able to actually get through to their targets. They were attacked on the way and after their run as well. 
What happens in MP is completely unlike any real combat in WWII though. Imagine what would happen to a lone bomber in the real war. 
You seem to want your opponents to engage in wasting their time flying around empty skies. Even patrolling the targets can be dull in the extreme with the low player density in this game. You might be flying around for 40 minutes without seeing a single enemy. That’s a fault of the mission designs that have plagued this game forever. 

46 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Target camping makes it too easy, just got to adapt to predicting attacker routes getting spotting settings right.

So it would be better if the enemy patrols the route from your base to the target and pounces there instead? It’s an ambush either way. Which is what WWII air combat was all about. 
Actually if you want an actual cat and mouse game, play Modern on DCS with radar and datalink and such. It does create a good “game” that’s also realistic. The players are always aware of each other so there will almost always be a fight, not an ambush. It makes for a good game. But the reality of WWII combat was just aircraft bushwhacking one another, not dogfighting or making a game out of seeking one another. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The main point I'm bringing up with the stats is they often encourage people into cheese tactics that often go against the server's objectives. If your target camping you're in a clean plane, often a better one,  you have an altitude advantage, and you know where the target will be, just not when. It's hard for things to get any easier, and not only that but killing someone this way goes against the servers objectives a lot of the time, because you'll be killing him after he's destroyed ground targets. It's cheese.

 

Catching targets before they hit their target is a defenders role. Historically pilots wouldn't waste fuel circling over a city 24/7, wait for the enemy attacker to bomb the people below as bait, and then kill the attacker after the target he's "protecting" is destroyed. Target campers in real life would be pure sociopaths. 

 

Low pop servers will always be lonely by there nature, but if you aren't finding people in a 40 minute flight on a populated server, you were looking in the wrong places, or you flew by them without spotting them. 

 

I'm not into modern, missiles ruin everything for me.

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Target campers in real life would be pure sociopaths. 

War means killing the enemy in the most effective way you can. Absolutely this could mean ambushing the enemy when you have all the advantages. Read up on real air combat. And in a game I wouldn’t expect anything different. 

11 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Historically pilots wouldn't waste fuel circling over a city 24/7, wait for the enemy attacker to bomb the people below as bait, and then kill the attacker after the target he's "protecting" is destroyed.

In reality most always the attackers would get through to a target. Even the Midway example where every one of the American torpedo planes were shot down in a suicidal attack they still managed to get their torpedoes launched. Going out and searching for the enemy isn’t as effective as guarding the point you know they’ll attack. Of course many WWII battles did indeed use radar or spotters and send intercepts. But that’s not simulated here. Maybe it could be. But don’t expect your opponents to play “fair” in any case. If you’re looking for a point system to encourage your enemy to do ineffective things that seems pretty ridiculous. 

18 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Low pop servers will always be lonely by there nature, but if you aren't finding people in a 40 minute flight on a populated server, you were looking in the wrong places, or you flew by them without spotting them. 

Even highly populated servers have such a low density it makes the game quite tedious. And it’s not just the lack of spotting them, they aren’t there at all. Funny, run a replay with the icons on to see what you missed and the sky is just empty. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

In IL2 just like in real life ground kills win the war, if you want to win the war you would intercept the attacker. What did your buddies on the ground do to deserve being used as bait?

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

In IL2 just like in real life ground kills win the war, if you want to win the war you would intercept the attacker. What did your buddies on the ground do to deserve being used as bait?

Read some more about real air combat. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Where did you read that friendlies on the ground are bait to be sacrificed for air kills?

[SharpeXB]

59 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Where did you read that friendlies on the ground are bait to be sacrificed for air kills?

Putting an air patrol or cover over your own troops isn’t using them as bait, it’s covering them. And in the game we don’t get any direction or guidance on flying an intercept to get at the attackers before they arrive. It wouldn’t work because the players are just randomly all over the map. So the messages you get only tell you they’re already at the target. It’s pretty useless in the game to randomly fly around looking when you can patrol the area you know the enemy will show up. 
It’s funny that you want a point system to encourage players to do ineffective tactics. 

None of this is why the servers seem less active. Like was said earlier, it’s summer time. 

Edited June 4, 2023 by SharpeXB

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It's a textbook example of using something as bait, and it's not effective objective wise to camp the target. If I get my bombs off and then you kill me each time for 10 sorties then I'll have done 10 flights worth of damage, and I dont have to worry about flying back to my base so you're making my flights faster. If you're trying to intercept me instead, even if you only get me once out of those 10 times, then I only did 9 sorties worth of damage and had to spend more time flying back at least partway to my airfield. The ground kills I get in one pass are worth more than killing me on any server I'm aware of, so letting me get ground kills so you can kill me after is never effective objective wise. It is effective however for your personal stats to get those 10 kills.

 

There's no radar or anything like that for guidance, but with experience you can look at the map and make educated guesses on what routes ground attackers will take. You wont stop them every time, but even a small success rate is better than target camping.

 

These changes wont work a miracle on player numbers, and these changes arent likely to happen any ways, but target camping is detering at least a portion of the ground attacking player base. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

The ideal when defending a target is that you're scanning around the target to intercept attackers before they can do any damage.

If not then hopefully you get them before they can do all the damage they're capable of doing.

One can be on a server with 40 players, circling a target and not see anybody for long enough.. if I was randomly flying around the map looking for an engagement I'd be lucky to ever see anyone. Even trying to guess the route you'd have to be lucky. I don't find spotting over certain terrain particularly easy even when there's something to see !

 

IRL you die, in-game you can re-spawn, and yes the denial of the return trip means the attacker can get back to the same or another target quicker.

It's just how it is, and there's always the attackers option of bailing out and re-spawning quickly anyway.

Of course they suffer the penalty of losing points.

 

Defending targets or not can be the difference between winning the map, or not.

So for nobody to be defending them is almost like trying to lose.. which doesn't happen often in human nature unless there's betting involved !

 

I feel your pain Junkie, as normally a lone-wolf ground attacker myself.

But my situations would improve if I had cover with me.. flying alone into enemy territory probably wouldn't have worked out too well IRL either.

And as previously suggested, if gunners were improved to be even 'half-decent' - that would help a lot.

 

People are going to do what they do, within the game parameters.

And if winning maps involves stopping the other side destroying your stuff - there will always be people who want to defend their stuff.

I'm not sure how you could change that ?

 

S!

 

[NiiranenVR]

Maybe course I'm an older man now , not so many testosterone hormons anymore - but - I have met the enemy - kind of fight or score - but the best feeling for me is when I land the plane again 

[LuftManu]

Hey guys!
Interesting topic about players and servers vs real life flying. Not sure if would be good to have separare topics for this, but there might be a relation.

 

Been around here and other sims many, many years and I can think of summer and new things now drying off. But I think there are several key factors on both themes:

 

1. We can’t replicate real number of planes in the air. An Airfield raid of 30-40 aircraft would take half a server in any flying sim in the market right now. This also happens with AAA and defences. If we had for example a high number of AAA on the 262 airfields (come to mind), nobody could come close with normal player numbers.

 

I think this is were AI could help. If a player could spawn as a flight lead, then numbers could add up. This would also be important for bombers as would impact their survival ratio. I hope we get more AI in the new project or options like these  

 

2. On the other part, and adding to the  singeplayer base, there is also a good amount of Squad members flying coop or their own missions in their own servers. Some people might want to have a coordinated mission with their squadmates and maybe, they might not be able to enter in a server as they all exceed the max. empty slots.

 

3. As the sim matures there is also some advances and knowing its limitations, just like any other sim. In this case I want to give a thumps up to @haluter @Alonzoand the team of Combat Box with Apollo.

With SRS and people who want to coordinate with eachother, its a great idea to try it out.

 

Kind regards! 

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

There's no radar or anything like that for guidance, but with experience you can look at the map and make educated guesses on what routes ground attackers will take. You wont stop them every time, but even a small success rate is better than target camping.

Odds are you won’t find the attacker this way so they’ll get through regardless. This seems to be what you want, to encourage ineffectiveness on the part of your opponent. Defending a target doesn’t always mean not getting the attacker before they hit it. 
 

4 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

One can be on a server with 40 players, circling a target and not see anybody for long enough.. if I was randomly flying around the map looking for an engagement I'd be lucky to ever see anyone. Even trying to guess the route you'd have to be lucky. I don't find spotting over certain terrain particularly easy even when there's something to see !

This ^

 

Intercepting an attacker is a good tactic if you know their whereabouts, otherwise you’re just leaving the target undefended while searching for them. 

Edited June 4, 2023 by SharpeXB

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

7 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The ideal when defending a target is that you're scanning around the target to intercept attackers before they can do any damage.

If not then hopefully you get them before they can do all the damage they're capable of doing.

One can be on a server with 40 players, circling a target and not see anybody for long enough.. if I was randomly flying around the map looking for an engagement I'd be lucky to ever see anyone. Even trying to guess the route you'd have to be lucky. I don't find spotting over certain terrain particularly easy even when there's something to see !

 

IRL you die, in-game you can re-spawn, and yes the denial of the return trip means the attacker can get back to the same or another target quicker.

It's just how it is, and there's always the attackers option of bailing out and re-spawning quickly anyway.

Of course they suffer the penalty of losing points.

 

Defending targets or not can be the difference between winning the map, or not.

So for nobody to be defending them is almost like trying to lose.. which doesn't happen often in human nature unless there's betting involved !

 

I feel your pain Junkie, as normally a lone-wolf ground attacker myself.

But my situations would improve if I had cover with me.. flying alone into enemy territory probably wouldn't have worked out too well IRL either.

And as previously suggested, if gunners were improved to be even 'half-decent' - that would help a lot.

 

People are going to do what they do, within the game parameters.

And if winning maps involves stopping the other side destroying your stuff - there will always be people who want to defend their stuff.

I'm not sure how you could change that ?

 

S!

 

As I've been saying from what I'm seeing, they're not getting me before I do my damage, and they're not being effective at winning the map. They're just out for personal score. I know lone wolf ground attack is signing up for hard mode, but going against target camping isn't a fun challenge, it's repetitive cheese. More of a cat and mouse thing would be.

 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Odds are you won’t find the attacker this way so they’ll get through regardless. This seems to be what you want, to encourage ineffectiveness on the part of your opponent. Defending a target doesn’t always mean not getting the attacker before they hit it. 
 

This ^

 

Intercepting an attacker is a good tactic if you know their whereabouts, otherwise you’re just leaving the target undefended while searching for them. 

We're going round and round, just saying the same things again. You're not changing your mind that target camping is your only option as a defender, and I'm not changing my mind that it's ineffective at winning the map and it's cheese. I don't think it's too much to ask people to move on from doing one of the easiest things possible in the game. Skills that are never practiced will never be developed, so if people are only target camping, then they'll never learn any other methods.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I hear what you’ve been saying, but it really sounds like lone bomber pilots want more milk runs.  If the gank squad of enemy fighters intercepted you 10 miles out from the target would it be ok then?  If they knew where you were, then they probably would.  Spotting can be hard, and sometimes the first indication that an attack is happening is the ground fire and the explosions.  Ultimately the role of a fighter is to shoot down enemy planes!

 

I get that the MP environment can be arcade like, and that’s a turnoff, but it seems there are multiple reasons, not just stats and how points are allocated.  I also doubt that handicapping fighters is going to make the servers more populated, more realistic, or more fun for the majority of players.  

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Catching me 10 miles out is good, the defender did his job. Normally they're using the target as bait by waiting for the explosions and AA to do there spotting for them, and by that time I've already done my damage, so they're not defending, they're just out for personal stats.

If I was a target camper I would welcome some more depth to my gameplay, but some people just like ripping the wings off flys I guess.

[[CPT]Crunch]

No airplane dives like we can in the real world without a high risk of damage and death, and nobody ever pulled the nose through out the entire envelope without any consequences as we do.  Kill bots, not airplanes, hand the keys over to the kids and see what happens. 

[CountZero]

What game lacks in stats department is bomber player selecting who will be tied as his escort, then in stats that escort gets extra points if his bomber guy gets to target ok, gets back ok, hits the target and so on... then you would have more ppl escorting ground attackers. 

How its now, that frendly bomber is just bait for me to get an easy kill on guys who attack him, stats dont care if i kill enemy after he destroy my bomber guy or before, stats just give me bigger reward when i get kill and get back to base safe, no mather if i defended my ground units or frendly airplanes.

So players will do what stats tells them is best, get kill dont get killed, how is easy to do so, camp frendly base or frendly ground units. WHen is best to attack enemy to get kill, when that enemy is preocupied with attacking my ground units or my team mates, again stats do not care if i kill guy before he destroyed my objectives i have task to defend or if he destroyed my tm8s i used as bait. They just care if i get kill and land back.

What stats tells me to never do is to go over enemy side and risk getting captured or killed by defending my ground attackers, stats wonts me to stay alive as long as posible and keep geting kills, you do not do so by escorting frendly bombers to enemy side. So camp frendly base or objective, use other frends as bait, DO NOT go over to enemy side, and get kill from time to time, this is how MP stats are set up.

 

So no suprise servers are full of fighter types who do not cooperate, or care about who wins war, mission or what not...

Edited June 4, 2023 by CountZero

[BraveSirRobin]

50 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Catching me 10 miles out is good, the defender did his job. Normally they're using the target as bait by waiting for the explosions and AA to do there spotting for them, and by that time I've already done my damage, so they're not defending, they're just out for personal stats.

If I was a target camper I would welcome some more depth to my gameplay, but some people just like ripping the wings off flys I guess.

Do you drop your bombs in a large formation in 1 pass from 4,000 meters?  
 

If not, then you really can’t complain about other people using the most effective tactics available to shoot you down.  

[SharpeXB]

I don’t think stats have as much effect on the numbers of people online. And mostly what people want to do is have the game be interesting. I actually like doing lone wolf ground attack too. At least it’s guaranteed excitement

57 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Catching me 10 miles out is good, the defender did his job.

So you’re telling your enemy which way it’s ok to kill you? ?

If you get tired of the same results every time consider asking for Fighter cover. Combat Box has a very cool SRS AI GCI where you can request this and coordinate missions etc. 

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Do you drop your bombs in a large formation in 1 pass from 4,000 meters?  
 

If not, then you really can’t complain about other people using the most effective tactics available to shoot you down.  

I don't fly level bombers. I divebomb with fighters or attackers. Yes I can complain, it's already been discussed above. They're just hunting personal kills at the expense of the server's objectives. Stats should encourage following the servers objectives.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think stats have as much effect on the numbers of people online. And mostly what people want to do is have the game be interesting. I actually like doing lone wolf ground attack too. At least it’s guaranteed excitement

So you’re telling your enemy which way it’s ok to kill you? ?

If you get tired of the same results every time consider asking for Fighter cover. Combat Box has a very cool SRS AI GCI where you can request this and coordinate missions etc. 

 

The fighter should already know it's his job to kill me before I get my bombs off, or he needs to do some homework before playing the server.  Fighter cover would still lead to the same gameplay loop, peace and quiet until I drop my bombs, then suddenly the heroic "defenders" show up to protect the corpses and rubble. I did do some ground attack SRS missions on combat box, it is a very cool mechanic, I like it.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

23 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I don't fly level bombers. I divebomb with fighters or attackers. Yes I can complain, it's already been discussed above. They're just hunting personal kills at the expense of the server's objectives. Stats should encourage following the servers objectives.

 

So shooting down enemy aircraft isn’t a server objective?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Again, you want to kill them before they kill your friends on the ground. The ground targets are worth more than the air kill. Using the more valuable ground targets as bait so you can score a personal kill goes against the servers in-game goals, and is sociopathic from a historical perspective.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Again, you want to kill them before they kill your friends on the ground. The ground targets are worth more than the air kill. Using the more valuable ground targets as bait so you can score a personal kill goes against the servers in-game goals, and is sociopathic from a historical perspective.

ok, let’s try this again.

 

Is it better for them to kill you at the target than it is to try to kill you 10k from the target, not see you, see in the chat that the target is destroyed, and still be too far from the target to get you while you escape?

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

If they catch me 1/10 times 10 miles away from the objective, then that's better then target camping 10 times. Me doing damage 9/10 times is better than me doing damage 10/10 times. Ideally you stop me every time before I get my bombs off, but realistically a good goal is to stop me as many times as possible.

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Again, you want to kill them before they kill your friends on the ground.

Ideally sure. But that’s not always the easiest or best thing to do. If the defender goes out searching and leaves the target undefended, it’s going to get destroyed anyways. Again look at the Midway example. Did the Japanese fighter cover leave their carriers unprotected and go out on risky searches for incoming planes? No. Intercepting only makes sense if you’ve located the enemy. If their whereabouts are unknown you’d better stay over what you’re protecting. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

So if the fighters patrol too close to your home airfield, they are called Spawn Campers, or Vulchers.  If they patrol too close to your target, they are Target Campers.  Out of curiosity, what do ya call a Camper that flies halfway in between the two?  

[SharpeXB]

Patrolling the target area doesn’t always mean destroying an enemy after they’ve made their attack. That’s a rather false assumption. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Ideally sure. But that’s not always the easiest or best thing to do. If the defender goes out searching and leaves the target undefended, it’s going to get destroyed anyways. Again look at the Midway example. Did the Japanese fighter cover leave their carriers unprotected and go out on risky searches for incoming planes? No. Intercepting only makes sense if you’ve located the enemy. If their whereabouts are unknown you’d better stay over what you’re protecting. 

When the defenders bomb the target you've failed your mission, killing him afterwards is a consolation prize. Better to think of this on the macro level, rather than just one sortie. Think of it like you have a family member in every building that gets bombed. Killing the attacker after your family member was murdered is not a victory. Ideally you'd save your family members 10/10 times, but saving your family members 1/10 times by intercepting the attacker some of the time is better than them all dying. You'll get more kills by target camping, but you'll save less family members that way, which should be your real priority.

 

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

So if the fighters patrol too close to your home airfield, they are called Spawn Campers, or Vulchers.  If they patrol too close to your target, they are Target Campers.  Out of curiosity, what do ya call a Camper that flies halfway in between the two?  

It objectively is camping, but when they're patrolling away from the target trying to get the attackers before their bombs are off then they are defending properly because they are trying to intercept the attacker before he gets his bombs off, and aren't using the ground targets as bait. Vulching will vary from server to server, it's always a cheesy kill, but whether it's also a valid tactic, that depends.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Patrolling the target area doesn’t always mean destroying an enemy after they’ve made their attack. That’s a rather false assumption. 

I see it as targets being used as bait, but I guess well just agree to disagree.

[BraveSirRobin]

44 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

If they catch me 1/10 times

‘What if it’s 1 in 50?  Because that is much more likely than 1 in 10.

 

In any case, bring an escort.  And just make 1 pass at the target.  Then you won’t need the help of mission designers to improve your chances of surviving.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Saving 1/50 people is still better than 0/50, but the more you practice intercepting, the better your intercept rates will be.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Saving 1/50 people is still better than 0/50, but the more you practice intercepting, the better your intercept rates will be.

I played for years and my intercept ratio was never very good.  Strike aircraft low on the deck are nearly impossible to spot.  That’s why people camp.  They know the odds are better of killing some clown making repeated low attacks on a ground target than trying to spot him by random luck 10 k from the target.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

It shouldn't be nearly impossible unless your graphic settings aren't set up optimally. We're going way off topic now, but there are many guides out there, and graphics settings can make it much more difficult than it should be if they're wrong. I've spent many hours tweaking mine, it's a necessary pain, but very nice when you get them sorted.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

It shouldn't be nearly impossible unless your graphic settings aren't set up optimally. We're going way off topic now, but there are many guides out there, and graphics settings can make it much more difficult than it should be if they're wrong. I've spent many hours tweaking mine, it's a necessary pain, but very nice when you get them sorted.

lol. Yes, my graphics settings are why lots of people in the game have figured out that their odds of protecting a target are much better near the target than they are 10k away. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

They've figured out it's easier to get a kill camping over the target, not easier to protect the target.  If your struggling with spotting, checking your graphics settings is good advice.