Cost for Bomber Bailing Epidemic

[LilMak]

Still think adding a perk price to the drones on heavy bombers would help.

[bustr]

Our community has distilled down to a population point that we now cannot easily avoid noticing things other players do that irritate us. Players have always done those things. With a higher population density your chances of running into repugnant behavior to your perspective was less frequent. While your chances of involvement in activities that you enjoy was much higher.

So now that you are stuck with those players doing what they have always done that you didn't have smeared in your face as often. You want Hitech to horse whip them for doing what they have always done.

So next month it will be a new request for Hitech to horse whip players over things they have always done up until now, where you cannot avoid interacting with them as easily as before.

It's kind of obvious there have always been some delicate sensibilities just waiting to be offended. I doubt anyone recently came down with this terminal case of thin skin.

[Vinkman]

Still think adding a perk price to the drones on heavy bombers would help.

Agreed it would help with this situation, but I think it has the potential to reduce buff use in general which I don't think would be a good thing. 

In the end, the if he bails...the buffs are down...mission accomplished! 

[Wiley]

Analysis: So your logic is that under the New Plan the buff pilot will fight it out to deny the attacker three kills.

Nope.  There's no incentive for him not to bail.  It is impossible to change the behavior without penalizing legit buff players.  No matter what he's going to bail, I just don't think he should deny the defender the points.  In an ideal world, the fact that he's not getting to deny the fighter the kill and points *might* encourage him to try to shoot down the fighter, because it's all about making something bad happen to the other guy.

Conclusion: this rule is not about ensuring combat, it's about ensuring kill credit.

Result: -1

The only reason he exists other than the fight itself is to provide me with perks.  If he's going to deny me one, explain in detail what it harms to prevent him from denying the other?

Wiley.

[kvuo75]

Increasing proxy range isn't going to change anything, because it changes nothing for the Buff pilot.

Currently when he bails:
Down side 1 = he loses three buffs, gets three deaths.
Up side 1     = he saves time not having to continue a mission that is essentially over due to bombs are dropped already or he will be shot down shortly
Up side 2     = he denies someone credit for his three deaths. [no in game benefit for Buff pilot]


New plan [you change icon blah blah blah whatever thingy]
Down side 1  = he loses three buffs, gets three deaths.
Down side 2  = someone may get 3 kills for his three deaths. [no in game benefit for Buff pilot]
Up side 1      = he saves time not having to continue a mission that is essentially over due to bombs are dropped already or he will be shot down shortly

Analysis: So your logic is that under the New Plan the buff pilot will fight it out to deny the attacker three kills. But the buff pilot knows he's going to died if he fights it out...that's why he's bailing. Hence the attacker gets three kills either way, so the buff pilot is still going to bail to save time.

Conclusion: this rule is not about ensuring combat, it's about ensuring kill credit.

Result: -1

i dont think it would ensure combat, i think it might help discourage one specific type of griefing mentioned in this thread..  and at least the guy who wasted 20 minutes intercepting gets something (kill credit) to show for it.. and it doesn't take huge changes in the game.. just changing an arena parameter.

[guncrasher]

The only reason he exists other than the fight itself is to provide me with perks.  If he's going to deny me one, explain in detail what it harms to prevent him from denying the other?

Wiley.

we'll every time somebody kills you he denies you the perks, so would you also like to change the code so nobody can kill you?  but if you dont have enough perks to fly whichever airplane you want, then you should rethink how you play the game.  the fault is yours not the guy bailing out.  whatever 1 or 2 perks you would have earned arent gonna help you if you waste them faster than you earn them.

semp

[Cjpedrido]

Some much negativity against the buff players. 

Just because they do not play by your self-perceived set of rules does not mean you have the right to force penalization on anyone.

It's their money that pays for their game.

Why not just leave them alone?

[Zimme83]

Too bad the bomb n bailers dont realize what they miss. to have a guy spending 20 mins to get up to u and then u shoot him down as soon as he goes within gun range. Buff pilot =  Fighter stick =

Again: With a little practice u can make the fighters pay a heavy prize for every bomber they kill. the best buff pilots kills more fighters than they loose bombers...

[Wiley]

we'll every time somebody kills you he denies you the perks, so would you also like to change the code so nobody can kill you?  but if you dont have enough perks to fly whichever airplane you want, then you should rethink how you play the game.  the fault is yours not the guy bailing out.  whatever 1 or 2 perks you would have earned arent gonna help you if you waste them faster than you earn them.

semp

Er... the guy killing me is part of "the fight itself" part of what I said?  I know you're devil's advocating, but c'mon now.

So what you're saying is, you'd be happy if you were in a furball and half the guys you got a shot on bailed before you could pull the trigger?  The fault would be yours, not the guy bailing out right?  That would be some awesomely fun gameplay right there, wouldn't it?

Nobody's said anything about how increasing the proxy range affects anything negatively yet.  I wonder why that is?

Too bad the bomb n bailers dont realize what they miss. to have a guy spending 20 mins to get up to u and then u shoot him down as soon as he goes within gun range. Buff pilot =  Fighter stick =

Again: With a little practice u can make the fighters pay a heavy prize for every bomber they kill. the best buff pilots kills more fighters than they loose bombers...

This too.  Both sides have invested a fair bit of time and prep to get to the point of the fighting.  Seems a shame to waste it all.

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

Er... the guy killing me is part of "the fight itself" part of what I said?  I know you're devil's advocating, but c'mon now.

So what you're saying is, you'd be happy if you were in a furball and half the guys you got a shot on bailed before you could pull the trigger?  The fault would be yours, not the guy bailing out right?  That would be some awesomely fun gameplay right there, wouldn't it?

no wiley I am not playing devil's advocate but stating a fact.  fighter pilots have the choice of when or how to attack a bomber while the bomber has no choice at all.  for example yesterday I upped bombers to sink a cv, the cv was gone so I went in to bomb a base.  found an la7 and a ki8.  ki84 attacked and hit one of my bombers pretty good while I was in the bomb site.  I dropped bombs then turned to guns.  ki84 attacked again and got one of my bombers while I was busy watching the la7 come straight up my six.  the la7 disco'd and I got a proxy, which is an unearned kill to me.  ki 84 made another pass and got my main bomber while I hit him again.  I was down to my last bomber when he made a pass by then I had taken out almost every part of his plane, including pw, I swear that guy was wearing just one of those hats with a propeller on top.  he broke off and went to land.

I made it back to base but I felt that while he earned his 2 kills, i was robbed of the second one.  now to be fair do you see me coming here and post a thread that if a fighter engages a bomber he must stay till either he kills all 3 or he dies?

to me bailing out or avoiding combat or rtb's because of damage to land is the same thing while I am in bombers. you robbed me of a kill while you glided back to ditch or if lucky landed on the base.

to be fair shouldnt you also ask the code be changed to give bombers the kills they deserve when they damage an airplane and the fighter stop attacking because they dont want to die?

see the fairness of asking code be change for one but not for the other?


semp

[Wiley]

no wiley I am not playing devil's advocate but stating a fact.  fighter pilots have the choice of when or how to attack a bomber while the bomber has no choice at all.

Um... Ok.  Upping a bomber is a choice.  It's the conscious choice to trade speed and maneuverability for firepower, durability, and ordnance.  It's no different than the choice to up an early war plane that everything can run from, or to fly your fighter close to the ground where wirbles can get it..  You chose what you're going to do, you live with the consequences.

I made it back to base but I felt that while he earned his 2 kills, i was robbed of the second one.  now to be fair do you see me coming here and post a thread that if a fighter engages a bomber he must stay till either he kills all 3 or he dies?

Nope.  You chose to up a plane that can't run him down when he disengages.  Same as if you were in a GV or a slower fighter.

to me bailing out or avoiding combat or rtb's because of damage to land is the same thing while I am in bombers. you robbed me of a kill while you glided back to ditch or if lucky landed on the base.

Then you should've killed his plane.  Same as if you'd been in a fighter or a GV.  You didn't do enough damage to prevent him RTBing.  That's on you.

to be fair shouldnt you also ask the code be changed to give bombers the kills they deserve when they damage an airplane and the fighter stop attacking because they dont want to die?

By that logic, all aircraft should have the same speed in the game.

see the fairness of asking code be change for one but not for the other?
semp

What part of my desire to have all undamaged proxies go to the closest player regardless of what either of them may be flying is unfair?  They conceded the fight, the victor should get their just reward.  You STILL haven't given a reason why it's harmful.

Wiley.

[kvuo75]

to be fair shouldnt you also ask the code be changed to give bombers the kills they deserve when they damage an airplane and the fighter stop attacking because they dont want to die?

no change needed.. as it currently exists, if you put one ping on the fighter and he doesn't land successfully you get a kill.

my suggestion of extending proxy range works both ways.. if a fighter slowly climbs up your 6 and bails out at 2k yds you'd get the proxy too.

[Tilt]

I have been thinking about the AI thing a bit more.

If we disconnect AI takes over for 5 minutes flying straight on the heading at the moment of disconnect

Why not use this mechanism when bailing from a "bomber" over enemy territory.......... simply he bails but the co pilot or navigator takes over flying straight.

It would be easier for HTC to implement than an RTB.

The only thing different is that the player is limited to only having one (one set) of these abandoned AI driven bombers (formations) in flight at any time.

The interceptor has 5 minutes to catch up or get in range of the abandoned bomber(s) and earns the kills appropriately
The bomber pilot gets back to base PDQ (captured scoring applies)

[Vinkman]

Nope.  There's no incentive for him not to bail.  It is impossible to change the behavior without penalizing legit buff players.  No matter what he's going to bail, I just don't think he should deny the defender the points.  In an ideal world, the fact that he's not getting to deny the fighter the kill and points *might* encourage him to try to shoot down the fighter, because it's all about making something bad happen to the other guy.

The only reason he exists other than the fight itself is to provide me with perks.  If he's going to deny me one, explain in detail what it harms to prevent him from denying the other?

Wiley.

Hmmm...I feel bad defending this because I'm always the fighter not the buff, but...If investing time in climbing to buffs has less pay off due to Bailing, then fewer fighters will attempt it, lowering the risk for Buff pilots.  It's a strategy to reduce threats to the buffs. 

[Wiley]

Hmmm...I feel bad defending this because I'm always the fighter not the buff, but...If investing time in climbing to buffs has less pay off due to Bailing, then fewer fighters will attempt it, lowering the risk for Buff pilots.  It's a strategy to reduce threats to the buffs. 

That make sense.  I really don't think the game should do anything to encourage undamaged bailing or augering in any way though.  Bailing over enemy territory should not be part of the game's strategy.

Wiley.