Dot command for Attack or Fighter

[Kratzer]

But then the problem would be, as I understand it, that people would take off and immediately jettison all ordinance and fly as a fighter...

...but I don't know how that would affect anything, because then any air-to-air points wouldn't be scored properly, so there would be no advantage.

how are air-to-air kills scored when you have said to score the sortie as attack?

[Westy]

"Can anyone see a reason why there exists a *need* to choose between attack and fighter"

Players asked. They received.

-Westy

[Westy]

"Can anyone see a reason why there exists a *need* to choose between attack and fighter"

 Many players asked to be able to choose to score thier missions seperately. HTC delivered.

-Westy

[Nash]

Really Westy? Hmm..  I didn't see that. What was the reasoning behind it?

"Instead of automatically getting our attack points when we hit ground targets - we want to be able to go through a process whereby we get to select a button indicating that we will, indeed, be hitting ground targets."

Did it go something like that? And again, why was this asked for? Sincerely pleading ignorance on this one.

[AKDejaVu]

The main reasons for the requested change to distinguish between fighter and attack was how hit percentages were tallied.  If you are flying as a fighter and shoot at a hangar, the hits aren't counted.  Thus your hit percentage goes all to hell.

Another reason was because of the low survivability (experienced by many of us) as far as base attacks go.  It was felt the adverse affect on fighter statistics were disuading people from trying to attack.

Yet another reason cited was how do you rank someone that would rather be bombing a base against someone that would rather be dogfighting.  There really isn't a good way.. separating the two seemed logical.

It still seems logical in my oppinion.

So.. the identification between sorties still needs to exist.  What really needs to be adressed is how simple it is to take off with the wrong type of sortie in mind.

If you get kills during an attack sortie, those kills are still tracked.  They are still logged on your stats page.  They just don't help your fighter stats.  But then again.. they are just stats.

AKDejaVu

[Raubvogel]

Damn DejaVu, in case you didn't notice I was agreeing with you, that wouldn't work. I'd hate to see how you respond to people who disagree with you. Lighten up for kerists sake.

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[AKDejaVu]

 

You think everything is about you? This had nothing to do with my previous post, which is why I didn't include it with that post. This had to do with my apparent ignorance of the implications of the system, and as an explanation for my curiousity.

So.. is it safe for me to assume this one is about me? Just checking.

You posted a question.. the question was answered.. why justify it again?

You felt the need based on what?

Couldn't have been my response to anything.. nah.. not that.. musta been something else.

Find this:  Where did I criticize you for asking the question that was answered.  Did I blow you off and not even bother to answer?  Did my answer imply that you were an imbisile for asking it in the first place?

If it seems I went into a tad bit more clarification than you would have liked, it is only because I said as much 2 posts before you asked the question.. only I kept it short and sweet:

 

BTW... having it switchable in flight via dot command is a very manipulative feature. Look like a bogey is going to get you.. use dot command to switch to attack. Only the kills are registered as fighter, the deaths as attack. I am very much against that option.

AKDejaVu

[AKDejaVu]

 

Damn DejaVu, in case you didn't notice I was agreeing with you, that wouldn't work. I'd hate to see how you respond to people who disagree with you. Lighten up for kerists sake.

Sorry Raub, people like me who's mind works in manipulative ways have trouble interpreting the pure of heart.

AKDejaVu

[Nash]

Ah - thanks Deja - makes complete sense to me now. Good points.

And so yer right - we need this distinction. And... " What really needs to be adressed is how simple it is to take off with the wrong type of sortie in mind."  

I agree. I'm pretty uncomfortable with that button. I can live with it, of course, but Duckwing's "if bombs are selected - it's an attack sortie" would be fantastic.

That still doesn't address all the issues though... Namely, that I don't have the faintest idea what role I'll be in when I get to an enemy base.

Something is starting to make sense to me during this discussion. Ya know all those circling friendlies over an nme field a couple of you are trying to disable? I've just now figured out why they aint helpin'... and why they'll only come down to vulch when the ack gets cleared. They're worried about their hit %. I hadn't even contemplated that. Meanwhile, me and a couple of people's hit % is taking a bath trying to clear the way for an M3 I had no idea was en route back when I upped.

I'm not a real score dweeb nor statician, and last night was the first time I selected "Attack" in ages (even though my ack kills have got to be in the thousands). This thread has been perty enlightening, I gotta say. And I can't help feeling like the system we have in place is a little nuts (yes, realizing that appearently it was *us* who asked for it).

[AKDejaVu]

I determine if I'm going to fly in attack or escort mode simply by plane selection these days.  I fly a Yak in fighter and a Typhoon in attack (F4u-1D if launching from CV).  When in the Yak, my squad knows what my contribution will be... when in an attack plane, they expect something else.

If it seems confusing, you may simply want to consider where you are flying to.  If you expect to be able to reach the enemy base without any problem, go for attack.  If you expect to only make it halfway to the enemy base, select fighter.

Its really not that complex.. not nearly as bad as trying to combine all these features into some kind of game code that actually understands the intentions of the pilots.

AKDejaVu

[Nash]

Yeah - imposible to decide a pilot's intentions....

Or is it?

I've had another look at your explanations, and I'm gonna counter 'em.

 

The main reasons for the requested change to distinguish between fighter and attack was how hit percentages were tallied. If you are flying as a fighter and shoot at a hangar, the hits aren't counted. Thus your hit percentage goes all to hell.

The whole premise there is that "the hits arent counted". That's it in a nutshell. All things resulting from this (such as lousy hit %) is because the hits aren't counted.

 

Another reason was because of the low survivability (experienced by many of us) as far as base attacks go. It was felt the adverse affect on fighter statistics were disuading people from trying to attack.

As I pointed out in my last post, it still dissuades people from trying to attack.  Didn't select attack? Better *not* attack. Seen it.

 

Yet another reason cited was how do you rank someone that would rather be bombing a base against someone that would rather be dogfighting. There really isn't a good way.. separating the two seemed logical.

How do you seperate the 'attackers' from the 'fighters'? Like we do now - ground points go into attack category, A2A points go into the fighter category. Yer point here doesn't relate to *how* those points get seperated. Currently we use a button for this. You like it, I don't... but this doesn't help in supporting the *reason* for the button in the first place.

But that's cool becuase you've already answered that question further up - namely: "The main reasons for the requested change to distinguish between fighter and attack was how hit percentages were tallied."

Hit percentages. Now - these ground targets certainly seem like they register hits to me, do they not? So sensetive in fact that it records cummulative damage.

Why then do they need to be looked at any differently than aircraft wrt hit percentage?

I'm flying along - I shoot 4 bullets. 1 hits a plane, the other hits a ground vehicle, 2 miss. That's should be a .500 hit percentage, right?

Why does that become a .25 hit percentage (in either category) with the system we have now?

So as for trying to create a system whereby it can deduce your intentions... Well - that's simple; if I fire on something - I intend to hit it. Accordingly it records my bullets as being fired, and it records those bullets as either hitting or missing. So theres my intentions - all currently recorded.

In summary -  the system is already set up to record ground damage as ground damage without you having to literally tell it to record it that way.

Don't get me wrong here - I can live with anything... but I have just never been able to grasp this fighter/attack system.

[Kratzer]

Deja -

You are a wigwam and a teepee.

I never said you insulted me.

I stand by my earlier comment:

 

Ease up tiger.

*sigh*

[AKDejaVu]

 

As I pointed out in my last post, it still dissuades people from trying to attack. Didn't select attack? Better *not* attack. Seen it.

You are seeing what happens when people don't select attack.  Now image what would happen if nobody were allowed to select attack.  It was worse.

 

How do you seperate the 'attackers' from the 'fighters'? Like we do now - ground points go into attack category, A2A points go into the fighter category. Yer point here doesn't relate to *how* those points get seperated. Currently we use a button for this. You like it, I don't... but this doesn't help in supporting the *reason* for the button in the first place.

The problem isn't tracking what you've destroyed.. its tracking how you died.  JABO is a pretty high-risk mission and the chance of death is admitedly different than pure fighter to fighter.

How about rating the guys that take the chance to go in and take out the ack vs the guys that hang out high and wait for the ack to go down so they can go down and straff fuel tanks or hangars.  Basically, the attack setting assumes a higher risk.

Also remember, that if a JABO pilot survives, he often has to face the same challenges as the fighter pilot.  So, the JABO sees the same as the fighter and then some.

I'm all for the differentiation.  Once again, I think tools should be implimented to minimize the chance of accidental wrong mode takeoff.

AKDejaVu

[Nash]

Yup Deja - you continue to make some great points.

Btw - my angle here isn't born out of trying to defend or attack any system, it's two-fold; I'm trying to explore if there may be a better option, and I'm learning about the existing system in the process. The issues you've raised have been great. As someone who does *alot* of JABO (as well as a healthy amount of A2A) - this thing interests me. In order though for me to address why the exploration of a system change would be warranted, I have to point out what I think are its flaws.

That said...

   

You are seeing what happens when people don't select attack. Now image what would happen if nobody were allowed to select attack. It was worse.

Well to be honest, even though I brought this up, I haven't noticed *that* much difference. Seems there's always been a strong percentage of guys willing to let their countrymate's do the work so they can come in and profit from the vulch kills.

I think the salient part of your point here is that scoring is now used to dictate behavior, where once it was merely a measurement. Fine. But as a player that's forced to switch between A2A and attack on a moments notice (and I know there are a toejamload of guys out there like me), this system falls short. *Our* behavior hasn't changed, yet where once the stats were a static display of numbers (or so-called "rank"), they now reward or penalize (perks) for behavior... So the issue is now a bit different to me/us. Fine - offer perks for a certain behavior... but make sure that behavior is properly measured.

   

The problem isn't tracking what you've destroyed.. its tracking how you died. JABO is a pretty high-risk mission and the chance of death is admittedly different than pure fighter to fighter.

Ok - then the Attack hit percentage and target destruction argument is off the table (even though currently trackable still *anyways*)... and we're now looking at the risk factor, ie. K/D suffers. To this I say - so? A death is a death, be it by plane or Osty or ack. One should assume that when one engages another plane, one risks dying. The same can be said for deciding to engage ack.

Ahhh... but you say, essentially, "if people know that they won't be given some kind of cushion by selecting 'Attack', then they won't risk attacking". Well, that's their prerogative. They can still choose not to. They haven't in the past and they certainly do not now. However, the ones who always have, are the ones gettin', well, ripped off by a system put in place to seemingly support them. Damage inflicted as a result of their effort is being brushed off as "sorry - doesn't count, you didn't hit the attack button". And the hit percentage reflects that of a "fighter" who might as well be spraying at cons 2k away.

You may say that HTC can't deduce what's in a pilot's head. I say it surely can. If ya shoot at a target it deduces the fact that ammo was spent and some hits were made. Be it ground or air - yes, it is actually is able to differentiate between ground and air targets. So deduction of intentions is not an issue - the system is able to do that.

Conversely, it is *I* who cannot be clairvoyant - with the ability to know in advance that what should have been a mere field cap has turned into heavy A/G on account of a respawned VH spittin' out osty replete with regenin' field ack.

The guys who take care of a situation like that are gettin' penalized, while the guys who hold off are getting rewarded (subsequent vulches). So you say this system rewards/penalizes certain behavior. I have a few qualms about which behavior this system is rewarding/penalizing.

 

Also remember, that if a JABO pilot survives, he often has to face the same challenges as the fighter pilot. So, the JABO sees the same as the fighter and then some.

Exactly. If he lives taking out the last ack, he's *still* got a bunch of problems to deal with. Those at 15k, with hit percentage and K/D nicely intact, also face those problems. Mind you, they are at 15k with with hit percentage and K/D nicely intact. Oh, I left out the fact that their vulch kills are seemingly worth more than those who provided the opportunity to vulch in the very first place.

 

I'm all for the differentiation. Once again, I think tools should be implemented to minimize the chance of accidental wrong mode takeoff.

As you've guessed by now - I'm a complete victim of "wrong mode takeoff". But... see... what I'm trying to say is that 'Mode' is decided in the air here, in the MA, practically all of the time - certainly most of the time. You never know, really, what you'll be up against.

Again:
 
If AH knows what ya hit, be it ground, be it aircraft, it should be noted as such, without distinction made by you on a button 1/2 hour before the situation, whatever it is, presents itself.


*...edited sloppy quote html


[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 03-14-2001).]