Of Dweebs and Perks

[AKcurly]

Originally posted by Toad


Agree. You might even say they're going to fly what they want to fly the way they want to fly it.

Toad, I'm not sure that's correct for the majority of the arena.  To be sure, it describes Eskimo and you, but perk points (or the lack of them) can drastically change the composition of the arena.

Recall the days when we had no perks.  You encountered large numbers of F4U1Cs and yet today, they're relatively rare.

Let's suppose the F4U1C was perked at 1 point.  Would the average joe (the proud owner of 7 perk points) try to land his kills?  I think so.  So yes, I think Saud's idea has merit --- provided HTC takes a more active role in adjusting perk points.

I think HTC needs to spend more time thinking about perk costs and eny values.  I think they need to try some drastic changes just to see the immediate effect.  

For example, if HTC thinks x points is probably too high for a particular airplane, I think they should change it to x/4 and observe the effect rather than subtracting a small amount.

curly

[MadBirdCZ]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
2.  This topic is not about the ram but since you seem so set on this issue - how is a ram not two-sided?  Two planes collide - where did I state that one survived and the other didnt?  Far as I can tell you lack the information required to make such assumptions about me wondering about the collission system.

Oh come on! I really wan to go to bed!

In a commons sense when 2 planes ramm in RL they both suffer damage right? OK so when I stated that ramming in AH is just single bladed sword well... It is! Let me put it this way: You are closing on a plane at 300 closure speed thats quite fast... Im not the developer but acording to what HiTech said (several times and he repeated it evenmore times again) and from what I have found out while trying to fly over the LAN is that when YOU colide (on your front end) you might be d100 away on the other guy's front end. So basicaly thats why YOU colide and get damage and he keeps on flying... Please dont ask me why the system works like this. I would trust to HiTech on that this is the best way to do it right now. So actually there is NO WAY the enemy pilot can willingly ramm you all is just a bad luck.

Why Im making such assumption?

N1k points his nose skyward, we ram...

Its not me whos making asumptions its you stating it as a solid fact. Im just trying to tell you that its highly unlikely (i dont say its impossible because Im not HiTech so I dont know much about it) for 2 planes in AH to colide in such way for both of them to take damage. At least for the lenght of the time Im flying it always was just on 1 end. And trust me I have seen it from both ends (either me coliding with someone - me taking catastrophic damage and him flying like if nothing happened and of course I have seem many enemy planes trying to get me and then a saw them going down in flames mising parts crashing into ground and no kill awarded -> they colided with me because I was not shooting at them).

Real dweebs will stay 'dweebs' (even now I wonder what does it really mean although I looked this up in my dictionary so I know the expression in my language) as long as there are perk free rides available. And since you can NOT distinguish whether the player is a hardcore dweeb or just a newbie all this is just a hypotetical debate anyway...

In some other thread someone else put up an idea where death would give you 0 perks, capture would give you some, ditch some more and successful landing would give you 100... Well basicaly it is a good idea and I have nothing against puting it into the AH but as for your original question: I dont think it would eliminate the problems you are adressing...

And now If you dont mind il try to rest in piece... err in my bed

ZZZzzzz......

[Cherlie]

OK

to put it simple (for those who aren't getting the questions asked by mazz)

Do you think it is a good idea to not to award perk points when you don't land a sortie?


And also, if you notice it's Mazz asking the question, not Lev.....

Oh btw pass along the beer please.

CharlieB

[Karnak]

The problem with this kind of system is that there is nothing forcing people to engage in AH.  In reality you had a job to do and you couldn't simply "bug out" if you didn't like the odds.

There are plenty of accounts of British, German, Japanese, American, Russian, et al, pilots climbing into vastly superior forces.  They were doing so to try to save their nations.

In AH there is no such motivation, so if there is too large a death penalty, people will fly in a manner that is just as unrealistic as they do now, but with less action.

[Kieran]

I'm flying what I want, when I want, how I want. I may dive in kamikaze or I may run, I may re-up on that vultched field over and over, I never know until I do it. I am a wuss, a coward, a dweeb, a fool, or any other attendant appellation you care to apply.

The points don't have a darn thing to do with me or the way I fly, so speaking for myself, no, it won't be a good idea if you want to control what I do. OTOH, you start controlling what I do, I leave.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by Karnak
The problem with this kind of system is that there is nothing forcing people to engage in AH.  In reality you had a job to do and you couldn't simply "bug out" if you didn't like the odds.

There are plenty of accounts of British, German, Japanese, American, Russian, et al, pilots climbing into vastly superior forces.  They were doing so to try to save their nations.

In AH there is no such motivation, so if there is too large a death penalty, people will fly in a manner that is just as unrealistic as they do now, but with less action.

First of all Cherlie, thank you.  

Secondly... Karnak, I wont pretend to be an tenured dean of aviation history and Im sure your statement has some merit however... I was always of the impression that the reason fights (bomber escort aside) lasted all of about 90 seconds was because it took you about 5 seconds to realize whether or not you had the advantage, 5 seconds to deciede to press the advantage or bug out, and 80 seconds to act on one or the other before you had a kill or were killed.  In other words, fighter vs. fighter combat happened rarely after 1941 in the ETO, by that I mean without bombers to protect/attack, for a reason - if you were at a disadvantage, you went straight for the deck, that simple.  Why risk an $80,000 aircraft and your life for a 20% chance of success?  It also needs to be considered that "stall/turnfighting" wasnt really the norm in the ETO - the reason "better" planes are "faster" is because thats how they fought - stay fast, get in, get out - again I might be wrong, but I dont think extended fights lasted any more than 2 minutes before the 2 groups in question completely lost sight of eachother and regrouped to RTB - minimum exposure was pretty much the norm from what Ive read - the only reason you stayed engaged was if a buddy needed help.  Death is a pretty big demotivator if you ask me, the absence of death in this game encourages fighting IMO.  

[Karnak]

Saurdaukar,

You misunderstand me, or I misunderstand you.

The thing I'm talking about is AH players who won't engage if there is the slightest risk of them losing.  They only go for the fights they've already won.  Its boring.

I'm not talking about staying fast or getting out of Dodge when it looks bad.  I do those things.

I'm talking about the willingness to actually have a fight.

[Saurdaukar]

Ok - I see what you mean.  =)  Yes, your point is a good one - lots of good points here - I havent had the time to sort everytihng out - just kindof shot this idea out in the dark.

[Lizard3]

RAM? RAM???

Is RAM back? Did he quit again or both?

Would people stop posting about RAM and just ignore him!