"You have landed successfully."

[Krusty]

What you suggest penalizes player A for player B's actions. Might as well roll a dice on landing and randomly remove points for no reason.

You cannot police thought patterns Grizz.

[grizz441]

What you suggest penalizes player A for player B's actions. Might as well roll a dice on landing and randomly remove points for no reason.

You cannot police thought patterns Grizz.

How does it penalize Player A for Player B's actions?  Who is Player A and who is Player B?  Please elaborate.

The rest of your post does not compute.

[Krusty]

It computes just fine. You're trying to enforce ways of thinking. You can't do that.

Player B shoots player A, all of a sudden player A loses points because they are damaged? It's as ludicrous as penalizing players for flying lower than 20k, or penalizing players for running out of ammo (or landing without firing any ammo at all).

[grizz441]

It computes just fine. You're trying to enforce ways of thinking. You can't do that.

Player B shoots player A, all of a sudden player A loses points because they are damaged? It's as ludicrous as penalizing players for flying lower than 20k, or penalizing players for running out of ammo (or landing without firing any ammo at all).

If Player B shoots down Player A, preventing him from landing, Player A loses points because he was shot down all the same.  I am baffled that you are struggling with this.

[MarineUS]

I know no once cares but +1 to OP

[PFactorDave]

Rewarding a player for landing kills with less damage to his aircraft will promote timid pick tactics.  Don't we have enough of that already?

[grizz441]

Rewarding a player for landing kills with less damage to his aircraft will promote timid pick tactics.  Don't we have enough of that already?

No it won't.  More kills with damage would be much more valuable then fewer kills with no damage.

If you plan on flying a sortie to survive and rtb, how would this change the mindset of that player at all?  Are you suggesting that a player who is simply trying to survive without regard to accrued damage will allow himself to get shot to hell versus the player that knows he will get more points for landing with no damage whom of which will not allow himself to get shot to hell?  lol.  If you let the enemy put guns on you are risking death.  This would not change player behavior at all other than those who wanted a few extra points would land their plane the correct way to avoid the subsequent damage.

[SlapShot]

I would say that it would only encourage proper landings with a slight incentive.  It certainly would not penalize those who did not properly land, which semp, Del, and SlapShot tried to spin it as.

Please show me the post where I tried to "spin it".

[grizz441]

Please show me the post where I tried to "spin it".

Right here:

The snobbery and the worrying about what others are doing in this game and how they are doing it is getting ludicrous.

[SlapShot]

Right here:

 

[A8TOOL]

No it won't.  More kills with damage would be much more valuable then fewer kills with no damage.

Agree!

But it's  a hypothetical argument and will never happen. Why are you guys putting so much effort into this?

Worked my way back to 6 kills and still don't care to land them. Getting 6 or more while incurring damage because you don't run from a fight is way more enjoyable than landing 2 keeping my little cartoon life safe. If I got fuel, Ammo and most of my plane parts, I"M STAYING In the Fight.

If I do make it hm .....sumpton got blowed up,  planes went down and it wasn't as easy as you might think.  


Thats the way I like it, ................now where's my heart medication  

[SlapShot]

No it won't.  More kills with damage would be much more valuable then fewer kills with no damage.

Yes it will ... That logic may work for you and me and a hand full of others, but the amount of people who wouldn't think that way, IMHO, would be far greater.

[DeadStik]

I still like my original idea to add wheels incentive. Sadly there is a large divide here which means it could not be implemented as the HTC staff would never add a feature which risks losing subscribers but merely enhances some others' experience.

It seems there are a lot of players on this community which are afraid of change. Afraid of change even if the change itself has no direct or even indirect effect on their experience. I'm trying to understand why people would be so strongly opposed to this idea. The only answer which I can understand fully is that they are of the belly landing culture and would dislike the thought of others getting a fractional bonus for demonstrating good airmanship and landing properly. It is similar to the crowd of people who hate smart phones because they don't have one. I don't know what more to say about it at this point.

I grow weary and am tired from a long night of flying on the real world. Be assured, I landed with the gear down. I don't think my company would agree with me had I landed on the belly and called it a "successful landing."

[ink]

I still like my original idea to add wheels incentive. Sadly there is a large divide here which means it could not be implemented as the HTC staff would never add a feature which risks losing subscribers but merely enhances some others' experience.

It seems there are a lot of players on this community which are afraid of change. Afraid of change even if the change itself has no direct or even indirect effect on their experience. I'm trying to understand why people would be so strongly opposed to this idea. The only answer which I can understand fully is that they are of the belly landing culture and would dislike the thought of others getting a fractional bonus for demonstrating good airmanship and landing properly. It is similar to the crowd of people who hate smart phones because they don't have one. I don't know what more to say about it at this point.

I grow weary and am tired from a long night of flying on the real world. Be assured, I landed with the gear down. I don't think my company would agree with me had I landed on the belly and called it a "successful landing."

 


no they wouldn't

it wouldn't make a difference to me, unlike the 12 hour change,that's only "change" htc has ever done, since Ive been here I didn't agree with.

[guncrasher]

I still like my original idea to add wheels incentive. Sadly there is a large divide here which means it could not be implemented as the HTC staff would never add a feature which risks losing subscribers but merely enhances some others' experience.

nobody is going to quit because you get less points for landing wheels up.  and getting more points for landing wheels down doesnt enhance anybody's experience.

It seems there are a lot of players on this community which are afraid of change. Afraid of change even if the change itself has no direct or even indirect effect on their experience. I'm trying to understand why people would be so strongly opposed to this idea.  because it is stupid to get points for doing nothing The only answer which I can understand fully is that they are of the belly landing culture and would dislike the thought of others getting a fractional bonus for demonstrating good airmanship and landing properly. most people land wheels down, people who land wheels up like me are a tiny minority It is similar to the crowd of people who hate smart phones because they don't have one. I don't know what more to say about it at this point.  we have smart phones, because most phones now are smart phones.

I grow weary and am tired from a long night of flying on the real world. Be assured, I landed with the gear down. I don't think my company would agree with me had I landed on the belly and called it a "successful landing."

we are not pilots and we are not in the real world, this is still a game.  pretty sure your company doesnt give you a high five when you lose several planes a day. or for having a drink and flying, dont even mention about going to the can and leaving your plane on auto pilot