• IDEA!: Establish a Respawn Delay •

[CAP1]

Hey, here's another idea I just thought of.

Thanks to your posts I've discovered a flaw with the
idea that I had not envisioned...and its based on what
players in the current unlimited-planeset would do in
response to such a change.

I neglected to account for the relative strengths of the
aircraft in any engagement.

To work, the delay would have to be varied by type of
plane flown and adjusted for the type of plane engaged.
For example, you fly a Spit 16 (or another
uber aircraft) and you die against another Spit 16, your delay
would be shorter than if you die in a P-40B, for example.  

However, if you fly a P-51D and get killed by a P-39D, you're delay
could be much longer as you have been bested by an inferior plane
flown by a superior pilot.

Still, the more I think about it within the game's context the more
I can see that this idea, within the current AHII format,
would not be workable.  The only way that it might be
adoptable, would be if the planes were limited based on
year of introduction or some other way of leveling the
playing field...which isn't likely to happen.

As I consider the insights I have gained from reading
some of these posts, I can readily see that this idea would
just encourage all players to fly the best planes that compensate
a pilot for their limited skills while simultaneously discouraging the
use of "inferior" planes by pilots who thrive on the challenge
of besting their opponents in earliy war aircraft.

Not something I would like to see.

And on that basis, I withdrawal my idea from consideration
and further discussion.

I'd like to thank those of you who took the time to post
your thoughts about this proposal and who labored to
post an argument for or against the idea.  My intention was
to solicit ideas and promote a dialogue about the idea and aside from
a couple of exceptions, you have not let me down.

Thank you for allowing me to discuss this idea with you. <S>  

if i were forced to wait in the tower, after loosing a fihgt, i would immediatly cancel my subscription. i hightly doubt i'd be the only one.

this is an absolutely horrible idea.

[Joker2]

I don't think you should be forced to wait in the tower at all i think u should not be allowed to up from the same base imediately a different base is is ok and i also think 1 fighter 1 bomber 1 gv theoretically thats 3 ups same base.

If you get killed all three times then u must up from further back base no sitting in the tower at all.

[96Delta]

Quoting HiTech is moot because we
don't know what kind of death "penalty"
he was talking about when citing his examples.

Was it 10 minutes, was it 5 minutes, was it
a score deduction, a ranking reduction, ??

That little piece of information is vital to having an
understanding of what he experienced and cited.

My bet is that the "penalty" he spoke of is more
significant than the 1-2 minute delay we are speaking
of here.  The delay being spoken of here is hardly a
delay at all, especially if you can launch immediately from
another base.

While I already posted that I don't think this
is workable because of the disparate planesets,
a 1-2 minute delay from launching from the same
base you launched your "death" sortie from will:

1) not force people to wait in the tower because they can still
launch from another base.

2) not make players more timid because a 2 minute,
same-base-launch penalty is miniscule.

3) promote the advancement of gameplay out of the
arcade mindset into something
more challenging.

It would also:

1) ruin the vulchfests and those that depend on them for,
well, for whatever reason. The 'wack-a-mole" would be essentially shelved.

2) perhaps make base capture more difficult if the VH is left up because
vehicles would be exempt from the "death" penalty.  And while in some
situations base capture would be easier, the same would apply to all teams,
thereby leveling the playing field.  It would apply to all.  Tactics might have
to change but the same level of difficulty for base capture would be universal.

3) force players to fight smarter and in a more realistic way; a stark contrast to
the reckless arcade style of gameplay we see now.

4) make "cherry picking" more difficult because the cherries will be flying
together for mutual protection.

5) promote a tighter sense of community among players who will need to
depend on and look after each other for survival and victories.

[FiLtH]

   Well its not like it would ever happen anyways. Im sure HTC wants to pack in as many people as it can, and if it aint broke dont fix it. Well, it may not be broke, warped a bit, but not so much as they'd risk losing people. But it would be fun to try.

   WW2OL had attrition. However they went at it wrong. They attritted the airfileds rather than the player. You'd come on and your bonehead countrymen had depleted the forward bases and it would take a 1/2 hour to get to the front.

   If you attritted the player in here, many of us would enjoy because as it is now, we kill a bunch and as we are killing off the 4th guy, the first guy we killed is back for vengence. With attrition we could kill off that 4th guy and the guy who wanted vengence would have to up the next base back giving you time.

   That said, theres alot of "those guys" and Im sure they would tire of the flying further because they dont fight as well as others do, and may leave the game out of frustration.

  Thats why I dont think it would ever be used. But Ive often asked about using another arena as a test map to try different settings and stuff, and it would be fun just to see how this would be received.

  Mainly Id like to see a Plane Factory that produces the mostused planes, P51D,Spit16, and a few others, that if bombed, those planes arent available for a certain amount of time. This would require a large mission sized bombload to destroy.

[Crash Orange]

the actions in the game that are too timid have nothing to do with anything except either score, or lack of ability.. some people fly very timid to keep a high K/D  others do nothing but pick and run because they dont know how to do anything else..

putting in a respawn delay would not make this activity any wores, no bearing. 

Sorry, but your logic is incorrect.

Yes, it is true that under the current circumstances people who fly timidly do so for the reasons you give. It is also true that those people wouldn't become more timid with a respawn delay. But that isn't the point - the point is that people who don't fly timidly now, because those reasons don't motivate them, would be confronted with new circumstances giving them a new incentive, separate from the above, to fly timidly. People who are reasonably skilled and don't care solely about score will still not enjoy sitting in the tower for 5 minutes or having to re-up at a more distant field.

And I'm not sure HOing would diminish much. The simple fact is, if your k/d ratio is less than 1:1, HOing makes sense if you care more about score or k/d than anything else. If your flying skills are poor or mediocre, you're going to die anyway, probably fairly quickly, so you might as well take someone with you. That won't change with a respawn delay; below average pilots will still die quickly whether they HO or not, so they have little to lose. And the reasons not to HO even if it gives you better odds than you'd have in a fight - learning to fly better, having more interesting fights even if you lose, and good sportsmanship - are the same with or without a respawn delay.

[Ack-Ack]

Quoting HiTech is moot because we
don't know what kind of death "penalty"
he was talking about when citing his examples.

It's only a moot point to you because you choose to ignore what HiTech said because it doesn't jive with what you want.  He was referring to any type of death penalty and why he doesn't like having a death penalty in the game.


ack-ack

[96Delta]

It's only a moot point to you because you choose to ignore what HiTech said because it doesn't jive with what you want.  He was referring to any type of death penalty and why he doesn't like having a death penalty in the game.


ack-ack

Of course the quotes are moot because they are too vague to
pose an argument against the current topic under discussion.
The only example he cited was to be dead for the whole day.

I'm not proposing anything close to that.

[Murdr]

Quoting HiTech is moot because we
don't know what kind of death "penalty"
he was talking about when citing his examples.

What?  Is your browser broke?  It takes one click to follow a quote back to it's source post.  "we don't know"  Geesh.  Yea, it's a big freaking secret.

[Getback]

This is getting very technical.

[grizz441]

How is someone taking damage from flying into another AC unrealistic?

Heh Bronk, the only bad thing about the collision model is when someone rams you or you ram someone but only the guy who got rammed *sees* it.  For example, yesterday I was pulling up hard on a spit climbing and I was just too fast and I zoomed underneath him by like 50 yds but he got the collision and was in pieces. 

[Bronk]

Heh Bronk, the only bad thing about the collision model is when someone rams you or you ram someone but only the guy who got rammed *sees* it.  For example, yesterday I was pulling up hard on a spit climbing and I was just too fast and I zoomed underneath him by like 50 yds but he got the collision and was in pieces. 

On your end.. On his, he let you fly up his back side. Works fine.

[hammer]

Most of the objections I have read have to do with wasting valuable flying time. I think Slate has a reasonable addendum that addresses this concern.

  Your suggestion has merit and I would only modify it by allowing the player to up from a different field while the time limit was in effect for the field he had upped from. With the maps we now have it would allow continuous play for even the least skilled player.  

Overall, I like the idea. It would make vulching less profitable, and those times you get caught low and slow by an enemy base may be survivable if you can take on all comers once instead of over and over. Not to mention the suicide tactics mentioned earlier.

Regards,

Hammer

[Lusche]

Same here. A small time limit just for the field you took off from sounds acceptable to me.
And there is even another big plus to this idea: It seriously hampers perk & rank boosting by killing shade accounts over and over again. 

[96Delta]

Most of the objections I have read have to do with wasting valuable flying time. I think Slate has a reasonable addendum that addresses this concern.

Overall, I like the idea. It would make vulching less profitable, and those times you get caught low and slow by an enemy base may be survivable if you can take on all comers once instead of over and over. Not to mention the suicide tactics mentioned earlier.

Regards,

Hammer

I like slate's insight as well.  I think it strikes a
balance between all the views expressed on this thread.

[Anaxogoras]

I've been lurking in this thread.

It's funny how ideas like this are perennial.  I remember the same idea being suggested in back in Warbirds 2.0, and it was probably suggested in AW before Warbirds existed.

Anyway, the probability of an idea like this being implemented by HTC is about .001.