Dot command for Attack or Fighter

[BigGun]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
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

I agree with this & would be against a dot command.

BgMAW

[Raubvogel]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:

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

Sorry, my mind doesn't really work in manipulative ways , and I never really thought of that. You're right, that wouldn't work.



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

[AKDejaVu]

 

Sorry, my mind doesn't really work in manipulative ways , and I never really thought of that. You're right, that wouldn't work.

Erm.. huh?  I guess you've never had to make a decision regarding any kind of change then.  If you have, and did so assuming everything would go exactly as you planned? Then you were either very lucky or totally suprised when it didn't work.

Where I work, we need to look at things from every possible angle.. in installation (what could go wrong).. procedural (what could be done wrong) or unexpected (learn to expect it) and so on.

The main things that always need to be considered when proposing a change:

• What is the potential improvement the change offers
• What are the potential side effects of the change
• Does the cost of the change outweigh both the current cost and the risk cost
• If the change doesn't work, what is impacted and who is impacted

From experience, the seemingly simplest changes have caused the most problems.  Assumptions that simple changes mean little risk usually meant that little cause-effect study was done.  Thus, millions (even billions) of lost revenue.  Ever see the look on someone's face when they find out a decision they arbitrarily made 4 months ago just cost the company over 1 billion dollars?  I have.. and usually its the last expression I remember the person by.  It really changes your perspective.

AKDejaVu

[Furious]

I posted this solution to the fighter/attack mission selection in the gameplay forum.

Why not prior to spawning have the "How would you like to score this mission?" screen pop-up as it does for missions.  You could answer the question right there and never forget to assign the correct mission type.  And it already in the code.

F.

[Kratzer]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Erm.. huh?  I guess you've never had to make a decision regarding any kind of change then.  

AKDejaVu

We're talking about a game here - not our careers.

Why is your automatic inclination to be rude?  Is that part of your job too?  Jesus... take a couple deep breaths before you start typing.

You had some valid points, which he was agreeing with if you didn't notice, but people are just going to discount anything you say if you come at them like this.

News: where everyone works they have to make decisions that way.

[Kratzer]

BTW - My earlier question "Why would it be bad?" was posted with quite a bit of ignorance about the attack vs. fighter scoring system... which is why I asked it...

[AKDejaVu]

 

We're talking about a game here - not our careers.

What we are talking about is a change.  A decision to make a change.  A decision based on what kind of thought?

 

Why is your automatic inclination to be rude? Is that part of your job too? Jesus... take a couple deep breaths before you start typing.

Its usually reactionary.. especially when someone says they didn't see something because their "mind doesn't really work in manipulative ways".. as if that's only how OTHER people think.

 

You had some valid points, which he was agreeing with if you didn't notice, but people are just going to discount anything you say if you come at them like this.

No, agreeing is saying "good point, thanks".. not offering an offending excuse as to why it didn't occur to him.  "I'm sorry, but I'm pure... I'll leave those considerations to those less pure".

 

News: where everyone works they have to make decisions that way.

I know it does... that's why it suprises me when someone doesn't realize that.

AKDejaVu

[AKDejaVu]

 

BTW - My earlier question "Why would it be bad?" was posted with quite a bit of ignorance about the attack vs. fighter scoring system... which is why I asked it...

And an answer was given.  I didn't see any insults there.

AKDejaVu

[Moose11]

Well...

I thought about the idea of being able to switch in flight and what I came up with was that there was most likely a reason why it wasn't already a feature.

<--- too naive to think people would game the game.


But to just assume that he has no experience in making decisions is pretty damn rude, I agree. I didn't think of the point-gaming either, and my position is to manage technical support as well make decisions regarding those clients.

Just my .02c

[Westy]

<--- too naive to think people would game the game.

Nah. You just haven't been around long enough to see enough of it.  I kind of envy  you for that. Right now is usually the Golden age of online simming for someone like you. But now that you knwo about gaming-the-game from here on out it's all down hill and you become cynical.  

-Westy

[Moose11]

I've seen it, but when I was thinking of why having the option inflight wouldn't work the idea of people switching back and forth never popped up.

Guess i'm just too slow.  

[Kratzer]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
No, agreeing is saying "good point, thanks".. not offering an offending excuse as to why it didn't occur to him. "I'm sorry, but I'm pure... I'll leave those considerations to those less pure".

A little sensitive?

[Kratzer]

 

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
And an answer was given.  I didn't see any insults there.

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.

Ease up tiger.

[Nash]

When Funked said ya couldn't switch in mid-flight for obvious reasons, I also had no idea why that would matter. Guess I aint too bright in the decision makin' process either. Makes sense to me now tho...

Anyways - back to the point here...

Can anyone see a reason why there exists a *need* to choose between attack and fighter? I must be missing something.... Why can't the points from GVs and targets killed fall into yer 'attack' column automatically? Why are we made to choose at the outset?


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

[Nash]

er...and for what it's worth...

Duckwing's solution: "if you load A2G weapons it's a Attack sortie, if not well then it's a fighter sortie." is the most elegant one I've seen yet.