It's time to give perk value for missions

[Preon1]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
I saw a squad that hit an undefended field with about 4 planes.  They quickly took down the ack and the VH and proceded to vulch the field.  They didn't destroy a single other structure and no attempt was made to capture the base in any way shape or form.

Are you saying they should get 5x the perk points for this if they decide to do it by creating a mission first?

I completely agree.  Originally I was thinking that just a 5% overall bonus would work (.05x not 5x).  However, it would probably be better if the percentage went up based on accomplishments instead of kills.  I mean, the purpose of war is not to kill the enemy, but to put him in a position where he can't kill you and is more likely to negotiate right?


So what if the bonus went up a certain (very small) percentage for total structural damage, more for strategic targets than tactical, and also went up a little more for every base captured.  It would all still work essentially the same way.  The perk bonus would be a percentage of total perks earned by the mission when a pilot lands.

[Preon1]

Originally posted by SKurj
ok here's an idea +)  i doubt it could be coded though....


Perks granted to DEFENSIVE missions only.  CAPping a friendly field for X amount of time, popping X amount of enemy planes within an assigned (friendly)area.

I'm by no means advanced when it comes to computer programming, but maybe it could be done if the kill (where the pilot bails, crashes, explodes) occurs within, say, 25 miles of a friendly base or strategic target.

Maybe that's easy, maybe it's not, but it does add the concept of defensive missions into the perked mission idea.

[AKDejaVu]

So what if the bonus went up a certain (very small) percentage for total structural damage, more for strategic targets than tactical, and also went up a little more for every base captured. It would all still work essentially the same way. The perk bonus would be a percentage of total perks earned by the mission when a pilot lands.

You do more structural damage when you attack with an organized attack.  That is one of the reasons to organize.  The important thing is, people are getting credit solely for the damage that they do.

Now, take a group of people... the more the merrier... because now... everyone gets credit for the damage done.  It simply promotes larger numbers... not better cooperation.

The one thing that seems to be missing in this thread is answering this simple question: "Why do people choose not to fly missions?"  Does it have anything to do with perks?  I don't think it does.

AKDejaVu

[SKurj]

I don't fly mishuns... why??  i login to fly... and not sit in the tower waitin for people to join.  I just ignore them.

When your mission fits MY schedule (i just happen to be upping at the same time otw to the same target) i might tag along, otherwise shaddup +)


SKurj

[AKDejaVu]

Originally posted by SKurj
I don't fly mishuns... why??  i login to fly... and not sit in the tower waitin for people to join.  I just ignore them.

When your mission fits MY schedule (i just happen to be upping at the same time otw to the same target) i might tag along, otherwise shaddup +)

I suppose alot of people feel this same way.  I know I do.

So the question is... would more perk points affect your choice?

AKDejaVu

[bozon]

giving more perks for a mission would encourage vulch missions, but I could be mistaken.
the idea I liked was sharing perkpoints. collecting the perks earned to a common pool and dividing amoung all pilots in the mission. that way guys who do boring work like driving goons and dying 30 sec from the drop zone, or guys providing hi cap will earn something.
this is not a must, but it would be nice.

Bozon

[Preon1]

Deja,
One of the things I'm going to try to start doing is organizing my missions into actual 4 ship flights by splitting up the roster.  If that starts working would you be more interested in flying missions?

[AKDejaVu]

I can honestly say.... not at all preon.

The main drawback to missions is the delay in starting... the fact that you could end up with someone asking how to start their engine as a wingman and all sorts of stuff I'd just rather avoid.

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've watched missions to hit a base turn into some kind of vulch competition while nobody even takes the time to get the vh.  All the fighters eventually die to an Ostwind or two that spawn.

Combine that with the simple fact that 75% of all missions I see are based on the milkrun philosophy and I'll stick with my own style.  You want to start a trend... make meaningful missions that do something other than send 1/3 of your forces against 3 people.  Diversions... planned attacks... whatever.

THE KEY TO MAKING MISSIONS BETTER FOR EVERYONE IS MAKING THEM RELEVANT, CHALLENGING AND EFFECTIVE.

Perks aint got nothing to do with them.  All increasing the incentive to go on missions in their current form will do is to promote more missions in their current form.

btw... Not saying your missions are/aren't anything preon... just a general observation there.

Anyways... off the current status (actually status quo) of missions rant.  

AKDejaVu

[Nefarious]

CO designates a target for each flight within the mission

example:

8xP-51D's-Mission Objective, Escort B17's to target and destroy Town Ack and Town.
8xB17's-Mission Objective, Destroy All FH's, VH, and destroy town.


If all 8 B17's return to base sucessfully, a multiplier would adjust points. If Town ack is destroyed another multiplier would adjust points. and so on and so on.

So what it boils down to is selectable targets in the Mission builder to recognize and the ability for the mission builder to adjust the multipliers. Sounds like hard work.

[Preon1]

Originally posted by Nefarious
So what it boils down to is selectable targets in the Mission builder to recognize and the ability for the mission builder to adjust the multipliers. Sounds like hard work.

The problem with that is that battle is a highly fluid situation and flight leads need to have the flexibility to change orders in the middle of combat.  You can't script a battle.

[Nefarious]

Then the Mission planner would assign Primary, Secondary, and tertiary targets. If the primary was hit and then Secondary, then two multipliers would come into play, If only the tertiary target was hit then the lowest multiplier would take effect.

If the mission planner doesnt give a secondary target or even a tertiary target then its not a very good mission anyway.

[MadBirdCZ]

Originally posted by bozon
giving more perks for a mission would encourage vulch missions

ehm... you mean Fighter-sweeps ?

[Sandman]

Now... if a fit of extreme dweebishness hit me I'd do this:

1. Create a mission with 8 of each of the uber planes. For example... Spit9, La-7, N1K2, F4U-1C.

2. Set the start time at 0600 and the end time of 1200 for the mission.

3. Set no waypoints. Enable no goons. Enable no bombers.

4. Announce to the country channel, that the perk multiplyer is open and invite anyone/everyone to join.

RESULT
Bonus points for flying as part of a mission with no real mission at all.

END RESULT
Me262 and Tempests all over the place as dweebs bankroll pantloads of perk points.

[lazs2]

preon.. deja hit it.  There will be a lot more perk planes around.   The same mentality that would allow someone to fly a perk plane will cause him to milkrun at 3 in the AM....  The CT is proof.

madbird loves to fly with a huge advantage.   That is fine.   people who want to have a huge advantage over other players seem a little odd to me in a GAME but... the perk system is working.   madbird has never shot me down in a tempest but... more importantly.... he hasn't ruined most (if any) of the fights that I was in.   As it is, I can watch his cowardly bellybutton way up there and avoid him... he is barely annoying.   If there were more perk rides in the game then there would be more of the wussies up there perched and waiting for us poor "SA less" dweebs who can't keep track of B&Zing heroes once we are engagedd with 3 or four enemies.     They would ruin more fights....

So when do you not deserve to fly the way you like?   Duh... when you are given a huge advantage over the other players.   When your plane choice makes it way more difficult for the others to have fun.    

madbird... how much "SA" does flying a tempest in the MA require?
lazs

[MadBirdCZ]

Lazs2! LMAO

Originally posted by lazs2
madbird... how much "SA" does flying a tempest in the MA require?
lazs

Since you  are in general against all perkrides and do not fly them and you do not climb higher than 500ft AGL  you dont have to care much for SA right? Anyway to answer your question quoted above: You would know how much it takes if you would fly them... Try flying Tempest in MA and mix it up against JG54 guys in their 262s And since in perkplane you are tagged with a 'gang-bang icon' your SA has to be apropriate to it.... If you happen to be lower you can be sure that every Pony, La7 or NIK will break its wings off just to dive on you and zoom you.... And high in tempest is (for me) up to 20k. Its about E management but this kind of discussion is not supposed to be in this thread.... Start a new toppic and lets talk...