Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Kingpin on October 03, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
-
Another Possible Bomb and Bailer Solution
I agree with the others who say that bomb-and-bailing detracts from game-play. I too have seen a dramatic increase in the number of players bomb-and-bailing in the MA or simply bailing on first sight of the enemy. One squad in particular seems to encourage this and has made it SOP.
So, I think it’s long past time it was addressed, and want to put forward a specific suggestion that isn’t a “punishment” approach, but rather a way to simply eliminate the ability to bomb-and-bail.
Make bailing (enter 3x) only work when an aircraft has critical damage.
For example, enable the ability to bail only when: on fire; dead-stick; part of a wing missing; both horiz-stabs, both elevators or both ailerons missing; vert stab(s) missing; or pilot-wounded. (Did I miss something?)
Side effects:
1) Bomb-and-bailers could (and likely will) just auger their planes instead, but I’m OK with them taking a death over a capture or safe bail. Diving to tear off parts might be another method, but again that's better than just enter 3 times for a free pass.
2) You can’t bail to change planes or to instantly be somewhere else. I’ve always felt that bailing out of a good plane is gamey and lame, even in this case. Just land or ditch if you want to change aircraft or be somewhere else. If you are that eager, then auger and take the death for your impatience.
3) No more bailing over a field (or from the storch hanger) to guard a map-room with a pilot. IMO, this is gamey too. Do you really think a single pilot with a pistol could stop paratroopers from taking a field? If this element of game play is so important, then allow bailing on the runway/ground (add that to the conditions list). Personally, I could do without it.
Bottom line: Bailing should only be an option for someone needing to bail due to damage.
With all the bomb and bailing I’ve seen lately, I can honestly say my interest in the game is waning. There is plenty of gamey-ness about bombers in AH already, without seeing bomb-and-bailers all the time. Good riddance to this flaw in AH game play, I say.
Respectfully submitted,
<S>
Ryno
-
While i think, bomb n bail is something lame, please consider that it might be necessery to shut down the game quickly. Heck, even had to bail from an uninjured 262 for some reasons :lol
A minute (or so) of delay sounds like a better option, at least for me.
-
1) Bomb-and-bailers could (and likely will) just auger their planes instead, but I’m OK with them taking a death over a capture or safe bail.
Would not make any difference, practically. "Death" vs "captured" means 0.25x instead of 0.4x for score points, and in terms of damage/death or earned perks it's exactly the same. Someone even remotely interested in his score would not bomb'n'bail in the first place.
-
Would not make any difference, practically. "Death" vs "captured" means 0.25x instead of 0.4x for score points, and in terms of damage/death or earned perks it's exactly the same. Someone even remotely interested in his score would not bomb'n'bail in the first place.
An increase to .4 of your points from .25 (for a death) is still a benefit of bailing.
Somehow there are bomb and bailers who maintain good scores. There is a particular player on the Bish side who I run into quite frequently during my time, even though he does his best to avoid contact. Over 2/3's of his sorties are bails. He bombs towns and then bails so he can sneak bases on his own. Then he grabs a deacking plane and bails if you find him inbound (before he reaches target) and then reups hoping you will go away. Then he bails after deacking. Then he grabs a goon and bails if you find him.
I'd much rather see a few more deaths, or any kind of additional discouragement, going to this type of game play instead of the way it is now with safe bails allowed to get out of fighting. Sneaking a base is one thing (and I'm fine with it if nobody defends). Exploiting flaws in the game design to avoid resistance in order to sneak a base is another thing entirely.
Oh, and Debrody, can't you just Alt F4 if you need to close the game quickly? Or force quit it? Why bail first?
<S>
Ryno
-
I failed to mention the bomber pilot in my example who bails all the time after dropping usually has a bomber score in the teens. Either we don't have very many decent bomber pilots, or bailing doesn't hurt score as much as you seem to think it does.
<S>
Ryno
-
Another Possible Bomb and Bailer Solution
I too have seen a dramatic increase in the number of players bomb-and-bailing in the MA or simply bailing on first sight of the enemy.
I dont know what game you play but I havent seen this dramatic increase. actually the last time I recall seeing somebody bombing and bailing out was a vtard and that was many months ago.
I just played for several hours today and the only bomb and bailing I saw was me and that was because i deciced to ditch one of the bombers and me and my gunner were gonna go fighter hunting after we sank the cv. we eneded up dying.
semp
-
1) Bomb-and-bailers could (and likely will) just auger their planes instead, but I’m OK with them taking a death over a capture or safe bail. Diving to tear off parts might be another method, but again that's better than just enter 3 times for a free pass.
capture/bail/death all count the same towards score. I even think a ditch also counts as a death.
semp
-
who cares what someone else does ingame.......its lame for sure.....just laugh and move on. :aok
-
Bomb 'n bailers are annoying, but somewhat understandable and predictable. The ones that really irritate me are the "Bail before the fighter that laboriously climbed to my altitude is close enough to get even a proxy kill and I haven't even dropped my bombs yet." guys.
-
Bomb 'n bailers are annoying, but somewhat understandable and predictable. The ones that really irritate me are the "Bail before the fighter that laboriously climbed to my altitude is close enough to get even a proxy kill and I haven't even dropped my bombs yet." guys.
Yep, this solution is intended to address that as well. I have seen that done quite a bit as well. And not just from high alt bombers. From bombers at all alts, goons and even fighters. People would rather bail than have to fight, I guess.
Anyway, I think it is well past time that this issue is addresses.
<S>
Ryno
-
I always get a kick out of the fighter jocks who attack a bomber and bite of more then they can chew,then they either run or call for backup.
something should be done about these types too :rolleyes:
-
1) Bomb-and-bailers could (and likely will) just auger their planes instead, but I’m OK with them taking a death over a capture or safe bail. Diving to tear off parts might be another method, but again that's better than just enter 3 times for a free pass.
In what meaningful way? In situations where you're not going to get the kill/proxy because he bails, it's pretty unlikely it will be any different if he just heads for the dirt. How does your suggestion modify the behavior in any way other than the details?
Wiley.
-
Seems like a waste of coding time when the following will take care of it:
"meh"
-
Another Possible Bomb and Bailer Solution
I agree with the others who say that bomb-and-bailing detracts from game-play. I too have seen a dramatic increase in the number of players bomb-and-bailing in the MA or simply bailing on first sight of the enemy. One squad in particular seems to encourage this and has made it SOP.
So, I think it’s long past time it was addressed, and want to put forward a specific suggestion that isn’t a “punishment” approach, but rather a way to simply eliminate the ability to bomb-and-bail.
Make bailing (enter 3x) only work when an aircraft has critical damage.
For example, enable the ability to bail only when: on fire; dead-stick; part of a wing missing; both horiz-stabs, both elevators or both ailerons missing; vert stab(s) missing; or pilot-wounded. (Did I miss something?)
Side effects:
1) Bomb-and-bailers could (and likely will) just auger their planes instead, but I’m OK with them taking a death over a capture or safe bail. Diving to tear off parts might be another method, but again that's better than just enter 3 times for a free pass.
2) You can’t bail to change planes or to instantly be somewhere else. I’ve always felt that bailing out of a good plane is gamey and lame, even in this case. Just land or ditch if you want to change aircraft or be somewhere else. If you are that eager, then auger and take the death for your impatience.
3) No more bailing over a field (or from the storch hanger) to guard a map-room with a pilot. IMO, this is gamey too. Do you really think a single pilot with a pistol could stop paratroopers from taking a field? If this element of game play is so important, then allow bailing on the runway/ground (add that to the conditions list). Personally, I could do without it.
Bottom line: Bailing should only be an option for someone needing to bail due to damage.
With all the bomb and bailing I’ve seen lately, I can honestly say my interest in the game is waning. There is plenty of gamey-ness about bombers in AH already, without seeing bomb-and-bailers all the time. Good riddance to this flaw in AH game play, I say.
Respectfully submitted,
<S>
Ryno
Works for me. :D
-
In what meaningful way? In situations where you're not going to get the kill/proxy because he bails, it's pretty unlikely it will be any different if he just heads for the dirt. How does your suggestion modify the behavior in any way other than the details?
Wiley.
In cases like you are talking about, with nobody in proximity, it's still a death rather than a bail. As Lusche pointed out, there is a difference (albeit small) in the points for that. More importantly, I think it psychologically makes a difference being a death rather than a bail.
The case that affects other players more, the case of someone at alt simply trying to avoid contact as soon as they see you -- they would not be able to bail in a fraction of a second. You may be able to close the distance before they can auger or destroy their plane (if they still try to). I think that too will make a positive difference and significantly reduce the "I bailed, ha ha, you didn't get me" style of play.
I try to think out my suggestions in order to focus on not "taking away" anything positive from the game. Other suggestions addressing bomb-and-bail have been for a "time out" penalty approach. Instead I believe this idea just closes the loophole that is being exploited without taking away anything from game play.
<S>
Ryno
-
Works for me. :D
ever flown a bomber or a fighter? go on a dive then pull stick up really fast. you will lose both wings. actually dont even pull the stick if you are at altitude, you will lose the wings anyway and if you arent well you cant go past the ground.
semp
-
ever flown a bomber or a fighter? go on a dive then pull stick up really fast. you will lose both wings. actually dont even pull the stick if you are at altitude, you will lose the wings anyway and if you arent well you cant go past the ground.
semp
Nope. I've never played Aces High. Even once. Never snapped a wing.
Still works for me, for all the reasons you apparently missed in the thread. :cool: :cheers:
-
Nope. I've never played Aces High. Even once. Never snapped a wing.
Still works for me, for all the reasons you apparently missed in the thread. :cool: :cheers:
well since you only highlighted two points of the op and I cant read your mind. please do point out what else you meant? :salute.
semp
-
well since you only highlighted two points of the op and I cant read your mind. please do point out what else you meant? :salute.
semp
Semp, those aren't my highlights. I merely quoted my squadie's original post in it's entirety. I won't be held liable for any confusion on your part. :salute :cheers:
-
What a bunch of RTBers. What's next, propose penalties against fighters who auger when they get bored or run out of ammo?
-
Semp, those aren't my highlights. I merely quoted my squadie's original post in it's entirety. I won't be held liable for any confusion on your part. :salute :cheers:
no, you quoted and highlighted two points only. I am just curious as for anything that he tried to ban in his post can easily be overwritten just by doing some hard stick stirring and bailing out.
for example the bailing over town. you already know how easy it is to rip wings off, then the bailing is allowed. as for "the count as a death", anything other than landing on runway counts as a death for scoring purposes. the only difference is in the perks you get. which isnt a big deal for some.
so not sure what exactly you are trying to tell me that I missed.
semp
-
Before players were able to .ef from a parachute I don't think I ever heard of bombing and bailing. :pray
-
no, you quoted and highlighted two points only. I am just curious as for anything that he tried to ban in his post can easily be overwritten just by doing some hard stick stirring and bailing out. for example the bailing over town. you already know how easy it is to rip wings off, then the bailing is allowed. as for "the count as a death", anything other than landing on runway counts as a death for scoring purposes. the only difference is in the perks you get. which isnt a big deal for some. so not sure what exactly you are trying to tell me that I missed.
semp
@Arlo: Please do me a favor and don't reply to Semp. I don't want this to turn into another posting war like the other thread on the topic of bomb-and-bailing.
@Semp: If you don't get it Semp, try reading the thread again. You've just contradicted Lusche's description of the score system (who I believe knows it quite well) and you've completely misunderstood Arlo's original post, who just quoted me and didn't highlight anything himself. If you can't read and comprehend a simple forum thread, there is no point in conversing with you.
Ryno
-
@Arlo: Please do me a favor and don't reply to Semp. I don't want this to turn into another posting war like the other thread on the topic of bomb-and-bailing.
@Semp: If you don't get it Semp, try reading the thread again. You've just contradicted Lusche's description of the score system (who I believe knows it quite well) and you've completely misunderstood Arlo's original post, who just quoted me and didn't highlight anything himself. If you can't read and comprehend a simple forum thread, there is no point in conversing with you.
Ryno
kingpin how in the heck can you say that arlo didnt highlight anything when everybody can see that he did in big bold letters.
why do you even lie when everybody can see it? are you that blind and would you like me to take a picture?
as for luche's explanation, he said the same thing I said. bailing out is bad for your score. bailing out wihout hitting anything makes it even worst.
semp
-
kingpin on a side note, I totally understand your frustration. I am not the best in a fighter anywhere around, but it still upsets me when I try to engage some guy just to see him move away because he's too worried about his score. so he only engages when he's 100 percent of a sure kill.
you cannot control what other players do. you never have and you never will. and once you accept that then some of your frustration will go away.
if you want to play smart in this game is that you will engage when you have the advantage, or think you will get the upper hand. otherwise you just end up dead. the choice is fricking yours.
a bomber bailing out is not different in my opinion than a fighter who engages and gets his donut handed back to him then dives to get a ditch and thus deny the bomber of an earned kill.
what is right is right. if you want to fix bombers bailing out, then you must also ask for fighters bailing out of a fight.
semp
-
kingpin how in the heck can you say that arlo didnt highlight anything when everybody can see that he did in big bold letters.
why do you even lie when everybody can see it? are you that blind and would you like me to take a picture?
as for luche's explanation, he said the same thing I said. bailing out is bad for your score. bailing out wihout hitting anything makes it even worst.
semp
Let's try this one last time, Semp. (Please READ CAREFULLY.)
1) Arlo didn't highlight (put in bold text) anything -- I did. Go look at my original post. The lines are in bold in my post, so when he quoted it, it was also bold. He didn't edit, highlight or bold anything. He just quoted and agreed with my whole post. It's a fairly simple concept.
2) If you can comprehend that, let's compare what Lusche said to what you said about the scoring system. You said:
anything other than landing on runway counts as a death for scoring purposes. the only difference is in the perks you get.
Now, here Lusche's comment:
"Death" vs "captured" means 0.25x instead of 0.4x for score points, and in terms of damage/death or earned perks it's exactly the same.
Now, can you comprehend how he said the OPPOSITE of what you did?
Please try to wrap your head around this before you say I am lying again or need a picture, since I just took the time to draw you one.
-
a bomber bailing out is not different in my opinion than a fighter who engages and gets his donut handed back to him then dives to get a ditch and thus deny the bomber of an earned kill.
semp
These are not the same thing.
A fighter trying to disengage when damaged is completely realistic. When a fighter does this, I do not begrudge him flying that way. When a bomber turns away and climbs to make me attack from dead 6, I also do not begrudge him that move. That is just flying smart.
On the other hand, bailing out of an undamaged plane so you don't have to RTB or bailing out at first sight of the enemy to avoid contact is exploiting game design, not using a valid combat tactic.
I think it's sad that you believe bomb-and-bailing is a valid tactic and acceptable in the game design. I couldn't disagree with you more.
-
Make bailing (enter 3x) only work when an aircraft has critical damage.
For example, enable the ability to bail only when: on fire; dead-stick; part of a wing missing; both horiz-stabs, both elevators or both ailerons missing; vert stab(s) missing; or pilot-wounded. (Did I miss something?)
Respectfully submitted,
<S>
Ryno
I would also like to bail if plane is compressing and cant pull out. Many times the ground comes up before plane starts to break apart.
-
Let's try this one last time, Semp. (Please READ CAREFULLY.)
1) Arlo didn't highlight (put in bold text) anything -- I did. Go look at my original post. The lines are in bold in my post, so when he quoted it, it was also bold. He didn't edit, highlight or bold anything. He just quoted and agreed with my whole post. It's a fairly simple concept.
2) If you can comprehend that, let's compare what Lusche said to what you said about the scoring system. You said:
Now, here Lusche's comment:
Now, can you comprehend how he said the OPPOSITE of what you did?
Please try to wrap your head around this before you say I am lying again or need a picture, since I just took the time to draw you one.
you are right' apologize for that, he didn't highlight anything.
semp
-
Now, more than ever before I believe the Lancasters, B24's, and B17's need to be perked. There are a number of reasons, none of which are more important, but they all certainly tie in.
Bomber perks are very easily earned and not easily spent. No, I dont advocate nose diving in to a fleet in Ar234's and no I don't advocate using B29's for NOE uses. In other words, make people think twice about just throwing perks away.
The amount of destruction those three set of heavy bombers can lay upon any enemy target is well documented. Why on earth should any of that ability be taken for granted is beyond me.
Defensive capability is great for the B17, good for the B24's and adequate at best for the Lancs. The perk cost should reflect that. Then again, a fighter escort should almost be SOP.
Bomb-n-bail players are misunderstood. They are the ones who truly care about one thing: action. They don't care about points, rank, etc. They care about damaging enemy property and they'll do it time and time again as long as they're able. Ultimately, I say that is fine. HOWEVER, being able to do so time and time again in the heaviest if hitters should not be as easily done. A few trips in the G4M's, Bostons, and B25's should be done to earn those perk points in order to have the privilege to bomb-n-bail in the heavy hitters.
I'm not of the exact [bomb load = points able to be earned] formulas, but I think starting with the following would be good (per bomber):
Lancs: 4
B24: 3
B17: 3
I base that on bombs able to be dropped (Lanc, B24, B17), speeds at typical bombing alts (15-25k), climb rates, defensive capabilities (B17, B24, Lancs), structural strength (B17 is best, then Lanc, then B24). Ultimately, the Lancaster wins the ability to "let loose the dogs of war" (14k vs 8k and 6k bomb weight), the B24 wins the speed/climb, and the B17 wins the defensive and structural strength.
Technically, I think the scale could be broadened out a bit to include the B26's as well with a perk cost of 1 or 2. Of course, there are some that would knee jerk the Ju88 in to the list, but until those same people actually look at the range, the speeds, the climb rate, and the usable ordnance on the Ju88 they may just realize why I have not included it in my suggestion to perk. (Range is lacking compared to other heavy bombers and so is a high alt capability; 4/500kg bombs is the most viable bomb load, it can bring 20/50kg but they need a special breed of player to be used worth while; defensive armament is rather lacking).
But for now, I'd be giggity if HTC would just add the perk cost to those three bombers.
-
Now, more than ever before I believe the Lancasters, B24's, and B17's need to be perked.
<rest snipped>
My prediction is that this would lead to more kamikaze P-51s, P-47s, P-38s and Typhoons and far fewer bombers used. I think your hope and expectation that people would then use Bostons, G4Ms and He111s to earn perks to gain access to the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster is extremely optimistic.
As supporting evidence I submit what happened when the bombsight was redone for the first time, where you had to select the target's altitude and hold the crosshairs steady to calibrate. Many players stopped using the bombsight and just used the B-17 and Lancaster as dive bombers, or abandoned bombers for ordnance laden fighters.
-
The solution is so simple, go back to the old way when you couldn't end sortie while in a chute.
-
Wouldn't it just be easier to just eliminate ordinance if the crew is not aboard the launching
aircraft?
-
kingpin on a side note, I totally understand your frustration. I am not the best in a fighter anywhere around, but it still upsets me when I try to engage some guy just to see him move away because he's too worried about his score. so he only engages when he's 100 percent of a sure kill.
you cannot control what other players do. you never have and you never will. and once you accept that then some of your frustration will go away.
if you want to play smart in this game is that you will engage when you have the advantage, or think you will get the upper hand. otherwise you just end up dead. the choice is fricking yours.
a bomber bailing out is not different in my opinion than a fighter who engages and gets his donut handed back to him then dives to get a ditch and thus deny the bomber of an earned kill.
what is right is right. if you want to fix bombers bailing out, then you must also ask for fighters bailing out of a fight.
semp
I completely agree Semp.
Another thing I read in the other thread was for a public embarrassment for bomber pilots who bail. If this is implemented then fair is fair and any fighter pilot who gets raked by defensive fire and breaks off the fight to deny the bomber a kill or save his own embarrassment from getting owned by a tail gunner should also get public notice: "player was repelled by "player" of "squadron" or something to that effect. I did this yet again late last nite as some one in an N1K2 came after my B-17s and I raked him with my top turret. I watched him dive for home trailing white smoke. :joystick:
And if we're gonna perk all 4 engined bombers in the late war then once again fair is fair. All high performance fighters should be perked to such as the P-51D, the P-47D, N & M, the 190F & Dora-9, the C205, the 109G & K, the later Mark Spits, the P-38L, N1K2, the Yak 7 & 9s and possibly the Typhoon.
We'll plod around in 88s, 111s, and Bostons while you fighter jocks come and get us in Airacobras, Warhawks and Hurricanes. It ought to be a real hoot and a half!
-
I completely agree Semp.
Another thing I read in the other thread was for a public embarrassment for bomber pilots who bail. If this is implemented then fair is fair and any fighter pilot who gets raked by defensive fire and breaks off the fight to deny the bomber a kill or save his own embarrassment from getting owned by a tail gunner should also get public notice: "player was repelled by "player" of "squadron" or something to that effect. I did this yet again late last nite as some one in an N1K2 came after my B-17s and I raked him with my top turret. I watched him dive for home trailing white smoke. :joystick:
And if we're gonna perk all 4 engined bombers in the late war then once again fair is fair. All high performance fighters should be perked to such as the P-51D, the P-47D, N & M, the 190F & Dora-9, the C205, the 109G & K, the later Mark Spits, the P-38L, N1K2, the Yak 7 & 9s and possibly the Typhoon.
We'll plod around in 88s, 111s, and Bostons while you fighter jocks come and get us in Airacobras, Warhawks and Hurricanes. It ought to be a real hoot and a half!
Blinder, please read my reply to Semp about why disengaging when damaged is NOT the same thing as someone bailing out of an undamaged plane.
I am also not suggesting perking anything here, so let's stay on point. I'm talking about simply closing a loophole in the game design that allows people to bail out of undamaged planes. The reason I suggested "critical" damage is that one ping from ack hit shouldn't allow bailing, IMO.
As far as Floob's idea of having to ride the chute down, I agree that might cut down on bomb-and-bailing, but it is a solution that I think has a bigger negative impact on the game for legitimate bail outs, especially to anyone who fights at higher alts (like in FSO).
-
Wouldn't it just be easier to just eliminate ordinance if the crew is not aboard the launching
aircraft?
I think the universal solution to all problems of AH is the elimination of all players.
We need the AI vs AI arena! :old:
-
Blinder, please read my reply to Semp about why disengaging when damaged is NOT the same thing as someone bailing out of an undamaged plane.
I am also not suggesting perking anything here, so let's stay on point. I'm talking about simply closing a loophole in the game design that allows people to bail out of undamaged planes. The reason I suggested "critical" damage is that one ping from ack hit shouldn't allow bailing, IMO.
As far as Floob's idea of having to ride the chute down, I agree that might cut down on bomb-and-bailing, but it is a solution that I think has a bigger negative impact on the game for legitimate bail outs, especially to anyone who fights at higher alts (like in FSO).
And all I am saying is fair is fair. It's bad enough that we don't get otto weenies in this game. That is one option I find makes Warbirds better than AH. How do you think I feel when I labor to climb to 28k since altitude is perhaps my only true defense only to have the whole effort scrubbed by a few passed of a 190? It works both ways. You wanna talk realism? No pilot should need to run all over his plane to man guns from every port. The otto simulates those crack gunners that should be there already. The players should have the option to man those guns but if he want to stay in the cockpit and maneuver defensively then those gunners should very much be at their stations shooting. And if the otto shoots the fighter down than the otto gets the credit and not the player. I am very cool with that. And as a reward, the more missions a player survives in that particular model, the more deadlier a shot their otto weenies become to simulate gained experience by the gunners.
And I never said it was your idea to perk 4 engined heavies. I was addressing SmokinLoon there.
The lack of adequate bomber defense is more than likely the whole root cause for bomb n bail. The bomber pilot is at the distinct disadvantage from the get go. I do not bail but I lose far more aerial fights for life than I win. The three ship formation should have automatic defenses that simulate a full crew. This is to simulate the effectiveness of the combat box which makes those easy pick'ins you guys enjoy a lot harder. But since they don't why stop there? Make all the bases triple A inert unless we all jump into those positions and start firing. But when it comes right down to it, it's just a game that is far from perfect. Frustrated bomber pilots are gonna bail cuz they have no effective combat box, fighter jocks are gonna keep getting pissed and threads like this are gonna continue. But then what do you expect from a game where a 26 ton T-34/85 gets its butt stopped cold by a flimsy little tree.
-
increase proxy range to the full 10k yds
-
:salute
-
And all I am saying is fair is fair. It's bad enough that we don't get otto weenies in this game. That is one option I find makes Warbirds better than AH. How do you think I feel when I labor to climb to 28k since altitude is perhaps my only true defense only to have the whole effort scrubbed by a few passed of a 190? It works both ways. You wanna talk realism? No pilot should need to run all over his plane to man guns from every port. The otto simulates those crack gunners that should be there already. The players should have the option to man those guns but if he want to stay in the cockpit and maneuver defensively then those gunners should very much be at their stations shooting. And if the otto shoots the fighter down than the otto gets the credit and not the player. I am very cool with that. And as a reward, the more missions a player survives in that particular model, the more deadlier a shot their otto weenies become to simulate gained experience by the gunners.
And I never said it was your idea to perk 4 engined heavies. I was addressing SmokinLoon there.
The lack of adequate bomber defense is more than likely the whole root cause for bomb n bail. The bomber pilot is at the distinct disadvantage from the get go. I do not bail but I lose far more aerial fights for life than I win. The three ship formation should have automatic defenses that simulate a full crew. This is to simulate the effectiveness of the combat box which makes those easy pick'ins you guys enjoy a lot harder. But since they don't why stop there? Make all the bases triple A inert unless we all jump into those positions and start firing. But when it comes right down to it, it's just a game that is far from perfect. Frustrated bomber pilots are gonna bail cuz they have no effective combat box, fighter jocks are gonna keep getting pissed and threads like this are gonna continue. But then what do you expect from a game where a 26 ton T-34/85 gets its butt stopped cold by a flimsy little tree.
I find it hard to agree with your notion that the "whole root cause of bomb n bail" is the "lack of adequate bomber defense" because bombers are at "a distinct disadvantage from the get go". That is a bit off topic, but I would argue that bombers shoot down more fighters in AH than they did in real life. Bomber formations already fire all guns that can bear from all 3 bombers simultaneously at a single target regardless of which gun position you are shooting from. That alone probably simulates more closely the weight of fire of a full combat box. And the notion that AI gunners should be used and get more accurate over time to simulate experience is just silly. Experience should come from PLAYERS actually playing, practicing and getting better. Should a fighter's gunnery artificially become more accurate as a result of more sorties, as opposed to the player just getting better at gunnery? That notion is absurd, IMO. Remember, plenty of fighters also climb to 28K just to lose their engine to the first burst from a bomber formation and that is just as frustrating for the fighter guy.
But what we are really talking about here is not who has advantage, who is better or who should win. The topic is BAILING OUT of UNDAMAGED planes to avoid having to RTB or to avoid contact with the enemy. That is what I am suggesting a fix for.
Your argument seems to suggest that bombers have the right to bail out simply because they are (or feel they are) at a disadvantage. By that logic, every plane at a disadvantage should just bail out whenever they see an enemy with advantage. Should someone in a lone P40 with an enemy 190 5K above him just bail because he feels he is at a disadvantage? No? Because he can fight it out and actually win some times, right? Well, so can the bombers.
I hope you are not defending the act of bomb-and-bailing based on what you said above. If you aren't defending bomb and bailing, and simply feel bombers can't defend themselves, I suggest you go start a separate wishlist thread for that issue.
Thanks for the comments!
<S>
Ryno
-
I find it hard to agree with your notion that the "whole root cause of bomb n bail" is the "lack of adequate bomber defense" because bombers are at "a distinct disadvantage from the get go". That is a bit off topic, but I would argue that bombers shoot down more fighters in AH than they did in real life. Bomber formations already fire all guns that can bear from all 3 bombers simultaneously at a single target regardless of which gun position you are shooting from. That alone probably simulates more closely the weight of fire of a full combat box. And the notion that AI gunners should be used and get more accurate over time to simulate experience is just silly. Experience should come from PLAYERS actually playing, practicing and getting better. Should a fighter's gunnery artificially become more accurate as a result of more sorties, as opposed to the player just getting better at gunnery? That notion is absurd, IMO. Remember, plenty of fighters also climb to 28K just to lose their engine to the first burst from a bomber formation and that is just as frustrating for the fighter guy.
But what we are really talking about here is not who has advantage, who is better or who should win. The topic is BAILING OUT of UNDAMAGED planes to avoid having to RTB or to avoid contact with the enemy. That is what I am suggesting a fix for.
Your argument seems to suggest that bombers have the right to bail out simply because they are (or feel they are) at a disadvantage. By that logic, every plane at a disadvantage should just bail out whenever they see an enemy with advantage. Should someone in a lone P40 with an enemy 190 5K above him just bail because he feels he is at a disadvantage? No? Because he can fight it out and actually win some times, right? Well, so can the bombers.
I hope you are not defending the act of bomb-and-bailing based on what you said above. If you aren't defending bomb and bailing, and simply feel bombers can't defend themselves, I suggest you go start a separate wishlist thread for that issue.
Thanks for the comments!
<S>
Ryno
You said : Bomber formations already fire all guns that can bear from all 3 bombers simultaneously at a single target regardless of which gun position you are shooting from. :huh
I must have the base model version of the game then. Cuz every time I man the tail gun of any of my heavies I only see tracers from my guns. I have not yet seen tracers coming from my other two ships, let alone any of the other guns from my ship that can bear on the target. From my experience, all other guns are silent until I jump in them. Is there some setting I'm not clicking for this multiple station shooting that you described above? Cuz mine don't do this.
-
You said : Bomber formations already fire all guns that can bear from all 3 bombers simultaneously at a single target regardless of which gun position you are shooting from. :huh
I must have the base model version of the game then. Cuz every time I man the tail gun of any of my heavies I only see tracers from my guns. I have not yet seen tracers coming from my other two ships, let alone any of the other guns from my ship that can bear on the target.
You are using "fire primary". Push "fire all" instead.
All guns with a line of fire will now send bullets, converging at D500.
-
I think the universal solution to all problems of AH is the elimination of all players.
We need the AI vs AI arena! :old:
Yeah, that's exactly the same thing Lusche. :D Dang those rotten other people messing up
a MMOG like that!
-
You are using "fire primary". Push "fire all" instead.
All guns with a line of fire will now send bullets, converging at D500.
Well, son of a ....... :bhead
Forget everything I just said ....I flamed two of you Tom Cruises just this week with just one set of tail guns.
Ya'll just wait till I get another plane! :x
-
increase proxy range to the full 10k yds
Only above 20k. :D
-
Well, son of a ....... :bhead
Forget everything I just said ....I flamed two of you Tom Cruises just this week with just one set of tail guns.
Ya'll just wait till I get another plane! :x
Not bad for bombers that are indefensible. ;)
<S>
Ryno
-
As far as Floob's idea of having to ride the chute down, I agree that might cut down on bomb-and-bailing, but it is a solution that I think has a bigger negative impact on the game for legitimate bail outs, especially to anyone who fights at higher alts (like in FSO).
Nobody says you've got to deploy your chute at high alt. And it's a solution that doesn't introduce more supernatural magic into the game, ie. bombs magically disappearing when the pilot bails.
Don't forget a bomb and bailer is often bailing out over enemy ack. He's using the .ef to save his bacon from the ack.
-
Nobody says you've got to deploy your chute at high alt. And it's a solution that doesn't introduce more supernatural magic into the game, ie. bombs magically disappearing when the pilot bails.
Don't forget a bomb and bailer is often bailing out over enemy ack. He's using the .ef to save his bacon from the ack.
Good point about deploying the chute. I think Warbirds worked that way too, but there were still plenty of low alt bomb and bailers. Most of them I see in AH are below 10K, and yes, they often are in ack (which is why I was suggesting critical damage as the bail criteria, as opposed to just any damage or a ping).
I agree your solution may be simpler, but I think I'd rather see the ability to bail without critical damage removed, as this "exploit" is what allows bomb-n-bailers, and those trying to bail to avoid combat, to do it.
Thanks for the feedback.
<S>