A way to discourage Bomb'N'bail/Suicide jabos.

[Wiley]

Please tell me what is daft or illogical about my idea as a way to discourage bomb'n'bail and suicide jabo'ing.

It doesn't differentiate intentional jabocide from incompetence.  You're penalizing anybody who dies on an attack sortie by not allowing them to reup and try again for 15 minutes.  Most people learn best through immediate repetition, and your solution slows down that process.

Wiley.

[DubiousKB]

You wrote : 15 delay for someone bailing with ords still on board.
So this does not apply to bomb and bailers. They would  not get a delay at all

Seems like that would only discourage the pilot trying to get ords on target by getting jumped by fighters....  I like flying bombers, but I also enjoy the gunnery part as much if not more than putting ords on target.  (learned that from 999's  )

Now, if there was a way to have a limited number of this type of attempt, like say, after a bailout with no damage, player X cannot up an identical sortie type. A message of the sort: "Due to Limited Airframes and Crew, Bomber/Attack Sortie type are unavailable for X minutes...  Simulating that the aircraft inventory is gone for Y minutes because of the wasted air frames... 

This may cut down on re-upping identical load out and heading back, yeah he/she could up something else, but at least there is a deterrent without such a harsh penalty.  Not sure on this one, as OP seems to be more interested in affecting other's gameplay than to enrich the game overall... (just my opinion, no flaming so don't  )

- a sideways 8

[BnZs]

The problem is that your change doesn't just target the kamikazes.  It targets anybody who used to bomb and then fight.  It actively punishes them for dying after carrying bombs.  My concern isn't the kamikazes, it is the guys who used to fight and would be pushed to being runners.

Ah. A perfectly good objection, pointing out a way in which this could reduce combat rather than promote it. It only took two pages of ad hominem for someone to get there.   

I could respond that the current bomb'n'bailers/kamikaze jabos don't seem to be interested in fighter combat anyway, and that forcing to them to rtb at a dead run would at least slow don their antics...but I must admit YOUR objection, out of all I've heard, holds some merit. So how then to encourage actually trying to RTB on attack runs without adding to the no-fighting problem? Perhaps a certain perk cost for ordnance, repayable upon RTB, as is the case with perk planes?

[Wiley]

Perhaps a certain perk cost for ordnance, repayable upon RTB, as is the case with perk planes?

Y'know, you could really just cut down on the pages and pages of text that you write by just saying, "I would like HTC to remove bombs from the game, as they don't promote combat."

Wiley.

[caldera]

Another daft thread, good grief, when will it end?

At the "Great Wall of PNG". 

[BnZs]

Y'know, you could really just cut down on the pages and pages of text that you write by just saying, "I would like HTC to remove bombs from the game, as they don't promote combat."

Wiley.

But having things with bombs strapped on them to shoot at adds variety to the combat. So the trick is to leave them useful in the game without letting them be a factor that detracts from the some total of player versus player shootings going on.

[Wiley]

But having things with bombs strapped on them to shoot at adds variety to the combat. So the trick is to leave them useful in the game without letting them be a factor that detracts from the some total of player versus player shootings going on.

And your idea does that how exactly?  They either jabocide and wait their 15 minutes before they can up again, or they're running home on the deck.  How is either sitting in the tower or running home on the deck an improvement?

Wiley.

[Scca]

Please tell me what is daft or illogical about my idea as a way to discourage bomb'n'bail and suicide jabo'ing.

Perhaps it's because it's also a penalty that will discourage play.  IMHO the faster he reups, the sooner I can shoot him down. 

If you don't like suicide JABO's, interdict them before they can get to their target and shoot them down. 

[Wiley]

Perhaps it's because it's also a penalty that will discourage play.  IMHO the faster he reups, the sooner I can shoot him down. 

If you don't like suicide JABO's, interdict them before they can get to their target and shoot them down. 

But when he's upped and headed for the nearest red aircraft and begun fighting them, the jabocider or bomber comes over him at alt and continues on to the base.  They are therefore impossible to stop.

[Scca]

But when he's upped and headed for the nearest red aircraft and begun fighting them, the jabocider or bomber comes over him at alt and continues on to the base.  They are therefore impossible to stop.

Not if you are waiting for them at alt 

[Xavier]

Not if you are waiting for them at alt 

That concept is considered cheating by BnZ.

[BnZs]

And your idea does that how exactly?  They either jabocide and wait their 15 minutes before they can up again, or they're running home on the deck.  How is either sitting in the tower or running home on the deck an improvement?

Wiley.

1. If they are running in a jabo, then they are still a bird in the air and can be run down and shot. And bombers aren't going to run from much over an extended period of time.

2. I doubt they would simply sit in the the tower. They might do something crazy up a light fighter for a little revenge.

[BnZs]

That concept is considered cheating by BnZ.

Not cheating. Merely a mind-numbing exercise in score-padding. What these people are saying is "You should totally bypass engaging with other fighters (if they will let you) to climb to 20K to wait for bombers that may or may not come in. If you don't do this then toolshedding is YOUR fault." Like that pic I posted, wherein I got in a fighter, got in a fight, got shot down, and when I landed, every base and CV near the contested area could not be upped from. I suck for not intercepting bombers I never knew existed, for engaging other players in fighters?  I thought most people on this board considered players refusing to engage in dogfights a problem and general bad thing. 

[EagleDNY]

How could you differentiate between someone who bombed & bailed for no reason vs someone who bailed out after dropping his ord due to a flak hit?  
Further, IF you made an exception for someone hit by flak who bails, then the bomb l& bailers just have to level out over the field and take a flak hit before they ditch.

No help at all.  

[BnZs]

How could you differentiate between someone who bombed & bailed for no reason vs someone who bailed out after dropping his ord due to a flak hit?  

No help at all.  

The differentiation is unimportant. Whether intended or not, the guy who gets shot down on a bomb run actually get to make a second, third, fourth bomb run faster than the guy who manages to survive and RTB. Thus in reality he is more effective for his side than a guy actually attempting to survive, which I think is an odd distortion to have in game that deserves to be addressed. Karnak's objection remains the only valid objection.