Incentive to live in Flight sims?

[Ara]

Something that is quite lacking as of yet in flight sims IMHO is a decent reason to fly smart.. we all know that protecting a bomber is near impossible in a game, because for many the penalties for dying are less than the advantages of killing a bomber.  

I've messed with Shockforce a bit, and they have a 30 second "wait in the tower" period while your hovertank rebuilds.. people still play the dickens out of that game despite all the kids playing it... <G>

I know that making people twiddle their thumbs for 30 seconds is not the best from an "online hours paid for" point of view, because that 30 seconds will be a great time to log off... and you will see it..

But why not make any destroyed plane default to a standard loadout/convergance/fuel state.. so that people will have to re- configure the plane if they die or bail?  They would be busy in the game for the 20 to 30 seconds.. and if they are in a "field defense and die 100 times" mentality, they will be slowed down a tiny bit having to set the fuel down to a minimum state for instant E.

Just a thought..

------------------

Ara--- 401 RCAF Rams

[-ik-]

it's still a death penalty, which I know we'll never see. Perhaps if scoring was only by streaks, well wouldn't that be interesting? You die your score resets to 0. poof!

well, maybe that's a death penalty too, but I'm tired of playing games with suicidals.

[This message has been edited by -ik- (edited 07-27-1999).]

[delta]

I agree,

Our squad both planed and executed a 4 base capture scenario in the NG arena.  While we ultimately captured all four bases, it took several hours. If memory serves me right, about 2+ hours.  

One problem was that word spread that some allies were invading an ignored area of the arena.  Another was that the opposition was able to regenerate at will, even after we kept pounding them both on the ground and in the air.

If we didn't have to dealt with "9 lives cats" taking off again and again, we probably would have accomplished our mission in less than one hours.

Would be an interesting and a welcome aspect of a new flight combat sim.

One possible suggestion:

Have several (2 to 3 would probably suffice) arenas linked in a circular fashion.  If a sim pilot "dies" in the first arena, he "pops up" in a different arena.  Now if he really wanted to return to the original arena, he would have to pay a price of 2 more "deaths".

delta

[This message has been edited by delta (edited 07-27-1999).]

[Trips]

Delta writes:

>Now if he really wanted to return to the >original arena, he would have to pay a >price of 2 more "deaths".

That sounds like more of an incentive to die than to live...

How about something simpler... like you lose all rank and medals whenever you die. (Assuming, of course, a scoring system with ranks and medals in the first place, and suitable rewards/privs for higher ranks)

Trips

[glars]

Trips I think we can make it even easier than that!

1 death = $US0.10

------------------
Glars
RNZAF
 glarsmaps.warbirds.org

[bigred]

how about this....

forget rates based on time... just charge 50cents per plane... there... now you have monetary incentive to live

-bigred.

(ps yes i know it screws newbies...maybe a choice of which plan you want to sign up for...time or per plane)

[popeye]

A lot of people don't care about score, and would need a "real" incentive to fly to survive.  How about an RPS that restricts the latest uberplane to rear fields, EXCEPT for planes landed safely at any field.  How about a strategy system that limits uberplanes/fuel/ammo/ordinance, based on damage to production facilities, EXCEPT for "aces" with a streak of N kills, who get full loadouts and the latest planes.

A couple of "real" reasons to survive.

popeye

[Rattler]

Old Air Warrior Dos: Nice strat system,but didn't belong in a Main (furball)Arena setting.
Warbirds: Learned off Air Warrior's mistakes but never really dabbled heavy in strat, gave the pilot no true reason to fly with true incentive.

Strategy can't be placed into a Main Confusion Arena any way you try to fit it IMO.
Reasons are many,listed are but a few.
Unbalanced Sides.
Too many independant directions of squads.
Too many score monkeys.
Too many Unrealistic Behavior Pilots.
.......... Over and over, time tested and constantly griped about.Some 10 years running.
No one yet has successfully addressed this issue and come out of beta with it running.

Its actually quite simple.Strategy and a true
reason to fly with realistic penalties that make sense can be summed up rather easily.

A Limited Resource Engagement Arena for Squadron's.Of which Limited Planes per pilot/team is imparitive. Also toss in an Air Warrior Style Dependancey Infrostructure that
DOESN'T RESPAWN.

Once your fuel,ordinance,ammo,repair shed's,
planes are depleted your out or grounded.
A clear-cut winner and looser with closure.

A host of CM style commands for the Arena creator with a Locked Password to keep out unwanted guests.

The 2 AeroSquadrons facing off can pre-arrange the settings.

Problems Solved are many.............

To much alt (above the clouds!) and your enemy slips by beneath you in a low level sinking of your fleet. Yer outta planes!

Fly to dangerously low,and get jumped in a low Energy situation...........loose yer rides.

Do you split your squad up 50/50? half defend
your assets and the other half take out the fuel supplies?

Do you all go up in a deep full 360 degree long range scouting excursion to locate the other guys fleet? (kingfisher required!)

Decisions and lots of them.Too numerous to list here.Possibilities, seemingly endless. All very important and with lots of meaning.Everything is riding on them,with time being of the essence. Wasted time and bad decisions = premature loss of match.

Think about it.

Rattler
The Outlaws (Since 1992)of..

OLD Air Warrior off Genie
Warbirds
Confirmed Kill beta
and now in limbo..............

[THECat]

The beauty of good squads is that they educate, protect and organize their newer members.  Thus, new players could go more or less directly to a "try to stay alive" environment without being confined to a main arena situation until they 'qualified' or jumped some other hurdle.  And with an open route to a passworded arena, nobody paying their precious hourly dibs could claim they were being excluded.  Pass the simple test of squad discipline and sociability and welcome aboard.  

[fats]

I've suggested it before, I'll suggest it again. Quite simple sollution for 'endless field furballs'/'reason to live' is not to allow the pilot to take off from a field he took off the last time, in case he died that sortie.

That means you can effectivly run a country out of defenders at given field, not to mention you wouldn't have people ack starring there more than once.

It might have the cool effect of rising the combat altitude as well. Okay as long as the jabo is the most effective way of delivering bombs to an enemy field it's going to drag the fights lower. But with the system in effect you couldn't do more than 1 fast sortie in a fighter if you die. After that a level bomber might bring more tonnage/minute to target.

Oh well, why should there be a reason to grab alt, fly bombers or anything other than just fly at 1km in a Spitfire IX.


~/fats

[Ozymandias_KoK]

One problem with a lot of these theories: they won't help a damn to generate revenue.  If you make it too hard / confusing / time-consuming for the newbies (or hell, everybody really) then they will stop coming.  Having to re-do the loadout on yer plane each and every time? What a pain in the ass, and what for?  You DO have to keep in mind that for every die hard pilot who wants engine management, preflight checklists, and the like, there are 10 or more who want to play, but without the extra added learning curve.  Maybe some of these features could be added as some extra realism level with some sort of incentive for mastering them, but you can't penalize people for not doing so (aside from not having as good performance as possible, etc.).  Sort of like the old dweeb mode flight vs regular.

Like Pyro's article re: games v sims, you have to make compromises for playability.  The model you choose has to reflect a workable business model, otherwise it won't be around very long.  Oz glad he doesn't have to make that sort of call either.

------------------
Please help Oz find his sig, he lost it!

[Jinx]

Right Oz,
But didn’t you answer your own question? If you are given the option with an incentive to use advanced systems of some sort, but not forced to use them, I can’t see the problem?

How much the penalty should be for not using some advanced option is a gameplay question, but I think engine management should work well on auto in a normal dogfighting situation to not make it harder then it has to be for a newbee. I see the manual systems as something that can give you a bit better top speed and rate of climb, and a lot better range for example.

Forcing the cooling flaps closed, cleaning up the aerodynamics and giving you less parasitic drag, will overheat the engine fast, but giving an extra boost in top speed and acceleration. Manually opening the cooling flaps might give you more time at full power for a climb and so on.

I would love to have a depth of simulation that took me months to master if I could just fly and fight while learning.

I also like the idea of having the option to refuel and rearm your plane at a forward base, but having to pick up a new ride in the rear. That would make the planes more valuable.

  -Jinx

[roblex]

I agree with the idea of not being able to use the same field twice in succession.  It is a good incentive to stay alive but not a bad enough penalty to stop you going up again. This is a solution that helps (not solves) the 'suicide' problem but does not impact on the profit margin.  I am not so sure about bringing in the concept of 'rear' & 'front-line' fields.  If your country is well on the way to taking the enemies furtherest fields and you die and get sent to the other side of the map then you will log off and the company loses money. I would also resist any strategy based on restricting 'Uber Planes' as this only leads to heated debates about just where in the ranking each plane lies. What you can do though is apply the 'no field twice' rule to planes ie  If you die you must take a different aircraft up next time. This would also have to include a clause to stop people deliberately wrecking a plane on the runway just so they can get back their Spitfire/FW190 etc.  Maybe the rule will not apply unless you have climbed above 500 feet before dying.

Roblex

[Bad Omen]

How about as a 'death penalty' you cannot fly a combat plane for 5 or 10 min but can fly transport, man AAA or man a ground vehicle?

Other than that, I like the idea of not being able of going up from the same airfield you were shot down at.

Of course, another solution is a strat element that causes most of the battles to be away from the airfield, like supporting troops, shooting up transport sytems, bombing factories. All which affect what or how many a/c and defenses your airfield can support.

[Jinx]

You don’t want folks to log off when they die, so a no fly penalty probably wouldn’t work. I thought a lot about this a few years back (I love to have this pioneering spirit back   ) and only came up with the main field/staging field concept where you could only pick up a new plane at a main base and refuel/rearm, maybe repair, on the staging fields at the front line.

That would add like 4 minutes flight time to get back in the fight again if you die, and make it possible to gain local air superiority in an area for a while. Not taking off from the same field again if you die would serve the same purpose of course.
 
  -Jinx




[This message has been edited by Jinx (edited 07-29-1999).]