Another Possible Bomb and Bailer Solution

[guncrasher]

Works for me. 

ever flown a bomber or a fighter?  go on a dive then pull stick up really fast.  you will lose both wings.  actually dont even pull the stick if you are at altitude, you will lose the wings anyway and if you arent well you cant go past the ground.


semp

[Arlo]

ever flown a bomber or a fighter?  go on a dive then pull stick up really fast.  you will lose both wings.  actually dont even pull the stick if you are at altitude, you will lose the wings anyway and if you arent well you cant go past the ground.

semp

Nope. I've never played Aces High. Even once. Never snapped a wing.

Still works for me, for all the reasons you apparently missed in the thread. 

[guncrasher]

Nope. I've never played Aces High. Even once. Never snapped a wing.

Still works for me, for all the reasons you apparently missed in the thread. 

well since you only highlighted two points of the op and I cant read your mind.  please do point out what else you meant?  .


semp

[Arlo]

well since you only highlighted two points of the op and I cant read your mind.  please do point out what else you meant?  .


semp

Semp, those aren't my highlights. I merely quoted my squadie's original post in it's entirety. I won't be held liable for any confusion on your part. 

[FLOOB]

What a bunch of RTBers. What's next, propose penalties against fighters who auger when they get bored or run out of ammo?

[guncrasher]

Semp, those aren't my highlights. I merely quoted my squadie's original post in it's entirety. I won't be held liable for any confusion on your part. 

no, you quoted and highlighted two points only.  I am just curious as for anything that he tried to ban in his post can easily be overwritten just by doing some hard  stick stirring and bailing out.

for example the bailing over town.  you already know how easy it is to rip wings off, then the bailing is allowed.  as for "the count as a death", anything other than landing on runway counts as a death for scoring purposes.  the only difference is in the perks you get.  which isnt a big deal for some.

so not sure what exactly you are trying to tell me that I missed.


semp

[FLOOB]

Before players were able to .ef from a parachute I don't think I ever heard of bombing and bailing. 

[Kingpin]

no, you quoted and highlighted two points only.  I am just curious as for anything that he tried to ban in his post can easily be overwritten just by doing some hard  stick stirring and bailing out. for example the bailing over town.  you already know how easy it is to rip wings off, then the bailing is allowed.  as for "the count as a death", anything other than landing on runway counts as a death for scoring purposes.  the only difference is in the perks you get.  which isnt a big deal for some. so not sure what exactly you are trying to tell me that I missed.

semp

@Arlo: Please do me a favor and don't reply to Semp.  I don't want this to turn into another posting war like the other thread on the topic of bomb-and-bailing.

@Semp: If you don't get it Semp, try reading the thread again.  You've just contradicted Lusche's description of the score system (who I believe knows it quite well) and you've completely misunderstood Arlo's original post, who just quoted me and didn't highlight anything himself.  If you can't read and comprehend a simple forum thread, there is no point in conversing with you.

Ryno

[guncrasher]

@Arlo: Please do me a favor and don't reply to Semp.  I don't want this to turn into another posting war like the other thread on the topic of bomb-and-bailing.

@Semp: If you don't get it Semp, try reading the thread again.  You've just contradicted Lusche's description of the score system (who I believe knows it quite well) and you've completely misunderstood Arlo's original post, who just quoted me and didn't highlight anything himself.  If you can't read and comprehend a simple forum thread, there is no point in conversing with you.

Ryno

kingpin how in the heck can you say that arlo didnt highlight anything when everybody can see that he did in big bold letters.

why do you even lie when everybody can see it?  are you that blind and would you like me to take a picture?

as for luche's explanation, he said the same thing I said.  bailing out is bad for your score.  bailing out wihout hitting anything makes it even worst.


semp

[guncrasher]

kingpin on a side note, I totally understand your frustration.  I am not the best in a fighter anywhere around, but it still upsets me when I try to engage some guy just to see him move away because he's too worried about his score.  so he only engages when he's 100 percent of a sure kill.

you cannot control what other players do.  you never have and you never will. and once you accept that then some of your frustration will go away.

if you want to play smart in this game is that you will engage when you have the advantage, or think you will get the upper hand.  otherwise you just end up dead.  the choice is fricking yours.

a bomber bailing out is not different in my opinion than a fighter who engages and gets his donut handed back to him then dives to get a ditch and thus deny the bomber of an earned kill.

what is right is right.  if you want to fix bombers bailing out, then you must also ask for fighters bailing out of a fight.


semp

[Kingpin]

kingpin how in the heck can you say that arlo didnt highlight anything when everybody can see that he did in big bold letters.

why do you even lie when everybody can see it?  are you that blind and would you like me to take a picture?

as for luche's explanation, he said the same thing I said.  bailing out is bad for your score.  bailing out wihout hitting anything makes it even worst.

semp

Let's try this one last time, Semp.  (Please READ CAREFULLY.)

1) Arlo didn't highlight (put in bold text) anything -- I did. Go look at my original post.  The lines are in bold in my post, so when he quoted it, it was also bold.  He didn't edit, highlight or bold anything.  He just quoted and agreed with my whole post.  It's a fairly simple concept. 

2) If you can comprehend that, let's compare what Lusche said to what you said about the scoring system.  You said:

anything other than landing on runway counts as a death for scoring purposes.  the only difference is in the perks you get. 

Now, here Lusche's comment:

"Death" vs "captured" means 0.25x instead of 0.4x for score points, and in terms of damage/death or earned perks it's exactly the same.

Now, can you comprehend how he said the OPPOSITE of what you did?

Please try to wrap your head around this before you say I am lying again or need a picture, since I just took the time to draw you one.

[Kingpin]

a bomber bailing out is not different in my opinion than a fighter who engages and gets his donut handed back to him then dives to get a ditch and thus deny the bomber of an earned kill.

semp

These are not the same thing. 

A fighter trying to disengage when damaged is completely realistic.  When a fighter does this, I do not begrudge him flying that way.  When a bomber turns away and climbs to make me attack from dead 6, I also do not begrudge him that move.  That is just flying smart. 

On the other hand, bailing out of an undamaged plane so you don't have to RTB or bailing out at first sight of the enemy to avoid contact is exploiting game design, not using a valid combat tactic. 

I think it's sad that you believe bomb-and-bailing is a valid tactic and acceptable in the game design.  I couldn't disagree with you more.

[Drane]

Make bailing (enter 3x) only work when an aircraft has critical damage.

For example, enable the ability to bail only when: on fire; dead-stick; part of a wing missing; both horiz-stabs, both elevators or both ailerons missing; vert stab(s) missing; or pilot-wounded.  (Did I miss something?)

Respectfully submitted,

<S>
Ryno

I would also like to bail if plane is compressing and cant pull out. Many times the ground comes up before plane starts to break apart.

[guncrasher]

Let's try this one last time, Semp.  (Please READ CAREFULLY.)

1) Arlo didn't highlight (put in bold text) anything -- I did. Go look at my original post.  The lines are in bold in my post, so when he quoted it, it was also bold.  He didn't edit, highlight or bold anything.  He just quoted and agreed with my whole post.  It's a fairly simple concept. 

2) If you can comprehend that, let's compare what Lusche said to what you said about the scoring system.  You said:

Now, here Lusche's comment:

Now, can you comprehend how he said the OPPOSITE of what you did?

Please try to wrap your head around this before you say I am lying again or need a picture, since I just took the time to draw you one.

you are right' apologize for that, he didn't highlight anything.



semp

[SmokinLoon]

Now, more than ever before I believe the Lancasters, B24's, and B17's need to be perked.  There are a number of reasons, none of which are more important, but they all certainly tie in.

Bomber perks are very easily earned and not easily spent.  No, I dont advocate nose diving in to a fleet in Ar234's and no I don't advocate using B29's for NOE uses.  In other words, make people think twice about just throwing perks away.

The amount of destruction those three set of heavy bombers can lay upon any enemy target is well documented.  Why on earth should any of that ability be taken for granted is beyond me.

Defensive capability is great for the B17, good for the B24's and adequate at best for the Lancs.  The perk cost should reflect that.  Then again, a fighter escort should almost be SOP.

Bomb-n-bail players are misunderstood. They are the ones who truly care about one thing: action.  They don't care about points, rank, etc.  They care about damaging enemy property and they'll do it time and time again as long as they're able.  Ultimately, I say that is fine.  HOWEVER, being able to do so time and time again in the heaviest if hitters should not be as easily done.  A few trips in the G4M's, Bostons, and B25's should be done to earn those perk points in order to have the privilege to bomb-n-bail in the heavy hitters.

I'm not of the exact [bomb load = points able to be earned] formulas, but I think starting with the following would be good (per bomber):

Lancs: 4
B24: 3
B17: 3

I base that on bombs able to be dropped (Lanc, B24, B17), speeds at typical bombing alts (15-25k), climb rates, defensive capabilities (B17, B24, Lancs), structural strength (B17 is best, then Lanc, then B24).  Ultimately, the Lancaster wins the ability to "let loose the dogs of war" (14k vs 8k and 6k bomb weight), the B24 wins the speed/climb, and the B17 wins the defensive and structural strength.

Technically, I think the scale could be broadened out a bit to include the B26's as well with a perk cost of 1 or 2.  Of course, there are some that would knee jerk the Ju88 in to the list, but until those same people actually look at the range, the speeds, the climb rate, and the usable ordnance on the Ju88 they may just realize why I have not included it in my suggestion to perk.  (Range is lacking compared to other heavy bombers and so is a high alt capability; 4/500kg bombs is the most viable bomb load, it can bring 20/50kg but they need a special breed of player to be used worth while; defensive armament is rather lacking). 

But for now, I'd be giggity if HTC would just add the perk cost to those three bombers.