|
Team Balancing Discussion
One multiplayer problem that has not really being discussed at any great length is the balance of teams... Take last night for example I joined the ATAG server and found that there were 24 Blues Vs 10 Red, now as you can guess I am a Blue pilot but when I see a unbalanced game I join the team that has the least players (unless they are quite balanced already). I jumped in a spit at hawkinge and predictable within 5 seconds a 110 had shot me before I could even start my engine I jumped in another and the same 110 strafed me again... Yes it was predictable so I jumped to Ramsgate only to find a few 109 are already trying to dominate the skies.
Now this is not a uncommon occurance and I have occasionally being know to strafe but as I fly red now and again I know how annoying it can be so I now only use bombs. Anyway my point is that there is a real problem online on that when you have a server that has no team balancing and pilots not willing to jump in an a aircraft they are not accustomed to for obvious reason and the server allows strafing the team that is down on players has a big problem. Now other games have a team balance ability but I do not believe this is a workable solution to CoDs problems as a player that is forced onto a team they are not used to flying will probably just quit and look for another server... So what's the solution lets discuss! |
Without forced team-balance you have no chance to balance the numbers on public servers, visited by more than 20 players randomly.
I don´t mind unbalanced teams generally if the missions are designed well. Strafing as result of unbalanced teams is a typical syndrom of bored players. If you do not have any objective but to shoot at other other planes wich appear randomly and you do not find any plane to shoot at, you go for the place where you can be sure you find what you are looking for - the oppfor airfields. So, give the players an objective, a feeling for the objective and an award for achieving this objective. At the same time penalize them for not achieving their objective and doing something stupid, like strafing enemy airfields with guns. This usually works to a certain degree. But so far on the DF servers you can simply leave your plane if it has a scratch on the canopy or you just put your plane and your v-life into the next hill, without any consequenzes - it too easy to follow the temptation of the quicky-airquake and besides you mostly have nothing else to do anyway. If you stop the AI Bombers or not, if bomb the train/ship/tank or not, so what? Teamplay? What for? Any formations you meet are usually AI bombers, no fighters, so... Therefore you simply end up with the situation of take-off, head to the next enemy airfield, if you do not find anything flying to shoot at, look on the ground, strafe a little, get shot down by the one above the airfield you didn´t see and repeat... ;) So far I have seen, we only have this kind of dogfight servers, for CloD, maybe that will change someday... sorry not time for a spell-check... |
Thats why I fly RED too now. Lot of people seems do dislike RED planes, like SpitI-Ia etc....Or the 109 lobby is just bigger I dont know. It got not interresting for me to fly with 3x109`s against a single Spitfire, now since I am RED I have the issue on my side, that you get jumbed by 3-5 109`s at the same time at 15.000ft.
And even with 4-5 109 turning around you, and you see, now its time to go, for a tactical "extend", the call you runner lol...anyway...:rolleyes: Thx to ATAG lol, for atleast 5x SpitII`s otherwise this heavy outnumbering of one side is getting boring. With the SpitII you can get out of it if you keep the eyes up, and not getting target fixed. Had good fights against ALOT of enemys in the last days on the ATAG server against good (russian :) ) players, without a SpitII you just dont need to take off, with this poor Spitys. Soo in this case, I try to keep the RED numbers up....:grin: |
Agreed I now think the spit 2 is okay in small numbers and helps alleviate the problem, but now we have the problem of the Manston airfield been targeted due to the spit 2s I have done this myself got 4 sc 50 and attempted to get them but just got jumped by three spits XD, but this is why Ramsgate is no longer safe as ppl come to Manston so now all red airfields are targeted lol. Luckily the spit 2 is so good it can deal with 109s even shortly after take off.
The problem is not entirely the blues fault, reds should head out to the channel a bit more. |
If the team is very imbalanced, I will just take a bomber or a "heavy fighter" (ME110) and go for ground targets practice (this does not mean ground Huris/Spits, lol).
~S~ |
Hm strafing could be prevent via script, make a area around an airfield if a enemy plane enter it, you can destroy him or disable his weapons. You can also only enable this "shield" if the balancing is to bad. But it's not historical :rolleyes:
|
Quote:
Ofcourse it is not always the case, that ALL RED fields are been under fire by BLUE at the same time, but if you would get strafed ones on one field, you need to take a other one right away. I see players getting vulched by the enemy two times in a row, and he starts to pitch via chat, sorry, this is youre own fault, I mean a good indicator that you are in danger is the mass of AAA around the base lol! |
Yes but all airfield can be dominated if the teams are not balanced that's the problem I raised.
|
if there is only one base available to fly 'the' red bomber, if it takes some minutes till you can move it because you need time to warm up.......
time will tell. |
Quote:
yes sure... I see the trend too, that BLUE covers Manston (SpitII base) more, besides the H14 zone, what means Ramsgate too... |
Take off from Maidstone and head for Manston/Ramsgate, gaining altitude on the way.
You'll soon see messages in your chatbox saying 'such-a-body in a 109/110 killed whoever in a spit I/Ia/IIa before it could take off'. By the time you get there you'll have a good altitude advantage so go get 'em. ;) And as Klem says below, do it in teams! :) |
I always fly Red. We're often outnumbered but I consider that to be just a 'bad day' and also 'target rich'. I've never seen an outrageous imbalance but I'm usually on when there are 50+ on the server and it seems to settle into a moderate imbalance, say 30:20 worst case, which is ok. Not to mention historical if more blues would fly bombers.
We sometimes takeoff from Eastchurch, especially if Manston and/or Hawkinge are being vulched. The vulchers are too lazy to fly that far and work out which fields are being actively used and it doesn't take us long to get to the coastal fields from there by which time we are formed up at combat altitude and usually at an advantage over the vulchers. I'm afraid that if you want to jump up at Hawkinge/Manston for a quick fight you are exposing yourself if vulchers are active. Also if you fight alone you are asking for trouble. You don't need to be in a squad, just get on TS and talk to the other guys, throw a 'unit' together and think before you launch. I do think the SpitIIa's should be moved to an inland field to avoid making Manston an obvious target and reduce to some extent the impact of the IIa which the blues don't like. If you want to fly the "Uber Spit" you should have to work for it. Also, all inland fields should have either the Spit1s or Hurricanes available (maybe they do?) to encourage people away from their death-wish takeoffs on the coast. Any other ideas requiring tactics over quick kills will prevent the server becoming a "dogfight server". |
I don't think team balancing was a very prominent feature during the Battle of Britain.
I've often wondered, why is there always such a burning need to place online opponents on an identical footing? Always with the new rules to do this, new rules to forbid that. It tends to loose sight of real historical context and stamp out individuality of creativity in the player. |
Quote:
24 vs 10 is no fun for one side and vulchering is not very 'historic' and certainly not a 'creative' tactic... Actually, let me clarify: Some cheap tactics are okay in light amounts, but if it's a chronic problem then we should be looking into it. |
To be honest that 24 v 10 is the worst I have seen but it is usual for one side to have 3 to 4 players more which is fine by me.
|
The team imbalances go both ways, during the time I was on last night (20:00 to 22:30 EST) the teams were between 2:1 and 3:2, advantage RED.
Since the ATAG server made available the Spit IIa I have found that my only chance to defeat them is to grab a Stuka and hit them on the ground. If I'm in a 109 and I get a IIa on my six I'm as good as dead. The Spit IIa has left a bad taste in the mouth of many BLUE pilots and that has caused them to jump to the top of the most wanted list. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Maybe we can just increase the accuracy of the AAs at low attitudes?
I fly Blue 99% of the time and I've been strafed more times than I can count. A 109 caught with no alt advantage is much vulnerable than the the brits in the same scenario. |
We just need more online players so we can have dedicated airbase patrols :)
|
Quote:
On the rare times that I do play online, I enjoy being on the outnumbered team. The higher the odds the better. It is exciting to take off, knowing that the odds are against you. You need to fly smart and skirt around the edges, hit and run and do your best to fulfill your mission goals and return alive. It is more enjoyable than just plowing on into the fray every single time, then showing up here to complain that all variables haven't been removed from the equation for you. |
You can easily run into three or more even with even teams, what your talking about has nothing to do with balance.
Judging by what you say I don't think you play online much |
[
Quote:
I think that if red follows Klems advise there really isn’t much of an issue even when outnumbered. The real issue is balanced numbers of blue bombers compared to blue fighters. I think that blue can outnumber red 2/1 all the time with half bombers half fighters and red could still do well with motivated tactics/teamwork/coms. Getting the bombers to affect the objectives is something that will come with time but it wouldn’t hurt if the developers make it a little easier for the mission builders to create. Big on my wish list also is for a bomber to bomb buildings and score/affect objectives, we need a big carrot for more people to fly bombers and what better then a industrial complex or train station that gets a score on the netstats and affects a airfields ordinance/ammo/fuel for instance or airfield hangers that when destroyed block the spawn or quality if plane type maybe. The possibilities are endless and the strategy limitless all we need is a push from the developers to help us make this the Battle of Britain and not the dogfight of Britain. Even all that wont help players want to bomb more if they don’t have escort, I find that even as the lone blue bomber much of the time, getting escort is a hit or miss situation and escorts will happily leave to shoot at bomber formations passing by. Of course the game freezes and crashes when flying formation with virtualy any twin engine aircraft will need to be fixed before any of this matters and last but not least working horizontal stablizer/gyro compass/auto pilot/gunner posistions for all the bombers in game Klem's observations of the airfield balance are good as well and I am sure Bliss will enjoy the read. Thanks Klem ASUS Sabertooth MB--Intel 2600k@4.7--EVGA GTX580 3GB--Corasir 1200 watt psu--Corsair 8gb 1833--Corsair H70 cooler--Corsair 650d case--OCZ Vertex 3--Track IR5--CH Eclipse Yoke--CH Trottle Quadrant--CH MFP--CH Rudders |
I agree with klem except for the death wish take off, normally you can get off the ground at hawkinge and normally you can find a 109 that has lost all his e and can be tempted into a dogfight. Only with a out of balance number does this become a problem.
|
Quote:
That's erm..five. At Manston. Out of a possible 60 a/c on the server. And if numbers on each side are even, against a possible 30 109's. If not, 55 109's against 5 Spit II's. When server numbers are low, five is a big number. When it's full it's not. But please let's not have yet another Spit II debate. Personally I don't wish to see any server governed numerical evening of the team numbers, or even any insistance by server admins that you join the lower numbered side. By and large, the numerical bias is generally speaking more blue than red, which as Klem says, is a target rich environment for the reds. For the history buffs, it's also more true to life. I say we leave it as it is, then we get some good days, some bad days on both sides. I always fly red, just as some players only fly blue. I've no idea of how to fly any of the blue 'planes, so if there was any numerically based insistance that I did, I'd exit the server and go bomb targets on server 2. Or play RoF. We don't want people to exit the server, we want them to stay and have a good time. Without any stifling 'rules'. ;) |
No one here is complaining about the spit 2 yet, makes a nice change though ;) 5 is the perfect number.
Btw one of the reds highest scorer is a guy that only flies spit mk 1a ;) |
During the battle of Britain the downed German pilots statements of being shot down by spits led to the term "spitfire snobbery" in ATAG we have "spit 2a snobbery" :lol:
|
I know.
They only ever get shot down by the IIa those blue guys. ;) I never even bother trying to get a IIa anymore. Leave them for the good guys like Sniper. :D |
Seriously, Krupi ... If you want fairness and equality go play a sports game. I totally agree with Feathered_IV - adpot any kind of "equality rules" or any other gamey crutch to create a perceived equality you take away what interests me in historical flightsims in the first place - the historical setting. Actually that one is among the top 5 reasons why I greatly prefer offline.
|
Why don't the airfields have enough AAA to crush single vulchers?
|
Quote:
It's nothing to do with historical accuracy. |
Quote:
I usually leave the IIa's for the others; the other night when I actually did grab one Kellar sent me into the drink after I was wheels up. Figured that was "a sign". LOL Although the Rotol is faster than the Ia (how historical is THAT??), I make the mistake of flying it like a Spit......and find out over and over that a Rotol stalls out real good.... The Ia definitely needs a little more ooooomph in the engine dept, but it does fly sweet. The IIa is just such a temptation! |
I usually only Fly Red but, as Bliss and others pointed out, you miss half of the game potential.
So, I have been cutting my teeth in the E3B and now moved on to the E4B with Auto PP - it's great fun (though I have yet to fly it to its full potential). If the teams are unbalanced I can now switch which I couldn't do before. The big + is that I can select a great fighter with bombing capability to widen my enjoyment. As for the low level ground attacks (Vulching) problem - I see that both Blue and Reds have bases that are too far for many opposing players to bother with. - Low level attacks are within the server rules so I use these unless told otherwise on TS. MP is too fluid to have anything other than what we already have - the team balance is changing all the time as players log in and out. |
I agree SEE none of the conventional methods would work in cod but whose to say we can't come up with a new system that would work.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
P.S. Everyone please wait for Blackdogs wall of text which should be arriving shortly ;) |
I think the only thing that can be done is waiting. For what you'll say. Well, for scripting and mission design to move forward.
I too prefer incentives to smoothly convince players into a certain style, rather than hard and fast rules. Of course, the players should also have a sense of sportsmanship. I mean, it's not necessary to have completely equal teams and in the case of BoB a blue numerical advantage is also historically accurate to an extent. That means if i want to fly blue and the numbers are 30:20 in my favor i'll probably do it, but if they are 30:10 or 20:10 in my favor i'll probably switch to red, since numerical imbalance is more pronounced at smaller server populations. It's easier to get 5 people going in a group and survive if you have 20 on your team, than if you have just 10 (especially with the size of the map), so a 20:10 is more lopsided than a 30:20 even if the numerical gap is the same. A supply system as already mentioned would be good, but that's part of extensive scripting. Maybe we could strip it down to bare essentials and have a planes/pilots counter like we had in IL2 servers, along with a simplified fuel supply model on a per-airfield basis. Eg, if target X gets destroyed (a fuel dump on the field or a nearby storage tank) then airfield Y doesn't have high quality fuel and people spawning there will get the 87 octane version to fly (or equivalent for blue team). But that means we'll first have to get the appropriate FMs too, either as part of a loadout fuel type selection, or as copies of existing 3d models with two different FMs (low and high octane versions). Overall, the solution is not too complicated, it will just take some time. In the meantime, upping the flak coverage around airfields (low level flak mainly, like 20mm, Bofors, etc, the short range but quick firing stuff) and instituting a planes/pilots counter for each team will help dissuade lone wolf strafing tactics while also making it historically dangerous to strafe a field. Then as scripting and mission design progress, further incentives will be available, like affecting the enemy's quality of available hardware through planned operations. "Hey, let's hit their convoys,fuel dumps and Spitfire factories, so they only have 87 octane Hurricanes to fly and we can then win the map"...suddenly you'll have quite a few people flying blue bombers ;) For the time being, setting a planes and pilots limit per side and upping the flak around airfields will probably do. I mean, if you lose too many aircraft/pilots, your team will lose the map, so it's enough of an incentive to either fly clever or team up and do a realistic attack (one fast low level pass in a group and then out). EDIT: Quote:
|
There should be enough AA to crush single attackers and force coordinated attacks by multiple aircraft. If the AA is not a threat then it should be fixed by the devs. If there isn't enough AA around the fields then the server owner must want vulching on their server, or the AA is a resource hog (which may not be possible to fix without faster PCs).
|
Sorry Krupi, Im not really with you on this one although I do sympathise you. As some one else said it does swing both ways. I actually prefer it when there are more reds, it means no out of the blue 109 is going to steal my kill and when I go to ID an aircraft its more than likely hostile :-P
During the Multisquad Battle of Britain Campaign 5./JG27 ran reds out numbered blue 2:1! So it would be interesting to know how many pilots who would allie themselves red are actually flying blue because they currently prefer some aspects of blue aircraft over there usual kites. For example: Only blenhiem for bombing, prop pitch in hurri spit, no cannons etc... Whereas blue has a wider range currently in the game. I also agree with SNAFU. If the objectives where much more about the bombers and the targets say "won the map" and made it rotate. This would focus the fighter elements in attack and defence of the bombers... I do not think forcing team balance by script is a good idea. Placing more AA to deter vulchers is obviously not working and I for one have fell victim to this AA whilst dogfighting near an enemy airfield on several occasions when I have been pilot killed by Bofors 40mm AA... You can ban vulching with guns and just leave bombs but you take away the historical element. Although I do agree some people take vulching far to far and its just silly... S! |
Quote:
1. AA can't hit a barn door 5 meters away 2. Too much AA will bring ANY PC to it's knees and it still won't hit anything We'll just have to wait for improvements in upcoming patches. |
Quote:
I was thinking along the lines of a script that would stop the sides from going over a 1.5:1 ratio? |
Quote:
Think about this. You (or I), flying red, look at the numbers and realise it is 25 blues to 15 reds. How many blues do I actually come across? Maybe 3, 4.... 5? Never 8 or 10. Do I care? I am flying with my buddies. 4 of us, perhaps 6 or 7. The server numbers don't mean a great deal if the enemy aren't working together and we are. Even if they do its unlikely to get too heavy handed against us. Of course if the blues and reds really got their "stuff" into one sock the numbers would matter. But as they would then be historical we would be exactly where we want to be. But move the SpitIIa's to a rear field. |
Yes Klem, for thos of us who usually fly with our squad mates 2-6 at a time its not a problem but what about the little guys? :(
|
Quote:
I've taken off literally hundreds of times from both those fields and never been bounced!! . . . the same for many other regular flyers. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have come a cropper when meeting you 56RAF and JG27 guys in your group flights... so much so that when I see a group of 3-4 Hurris or a few 109s with 110s I pee myself... WELL NEXT TIME I AM GOING TO SEND YOU THE DRY CLEANING BILL :evil: |
Quote:
When I spawned at Ramsgate there was a few 109 circling, luckily the spit 2a's ran them off. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I STILL take off from those two airfields successfully. I think that someone said that rather than just jumping into an aircraft at a particular airfield, you need to do further planning than just getting in and rolling. If you like to take off at Hawkinge - instead take off at Limpne. I take off there also many times using the hills and valleys to my advantage and jump 109 pilots who don't know how to fly the 109. You just stated that 109's were circling and spit 2a's ran them off. Then that's when you take off mate!! Then plan your exit from that field carefully and utilize your aircraft to optimum performance. I really don't know what your problem is other than not spawning in a planned way. One more thing. Numbers on the server mean squat. Five of those numbers could be in bombers! |
Quote:
In my opinion, I think that a lot of guys fly Blue because it is "easier" to fly the 109E4 than any of the RED aircraft. But, once one becomes familiar with RED aircraft abilities and how to take advantage of them the tables are turned very quickly. |
Quote:
Based on what BlackDog said I think it's (ATM at least) a question of mission design and scripting, or rather the lack of sufficiently advanced designs and scripts, since right now incorporating the level bombers is a technical problem (with the AI), a gameplay problem (Ju 88 compass bug, Blenheim handling issues etc) and last but not least a scoring problem (no way to assess damage to a static area target, yet). I have been an advocate of mission designs which adhere to basic historical facts (planeset, numbers, target categories etc) while balancing imbalances (planeset and numbers) via target selection and number of goals to achieve. This way an imbalance in planeset (i.e. one side has a considerable technological advantage) and/or numbers can be circumvented by making the side with the advantages go for more targets than the disadvantaged side. This forces players to cooperate more, and by giving aerial victories very little impact in the grand scheme of things the designer can attribute far more importance to bombers and Stukas than common on DF servers, the steady gangbang will, while not being totally removed, be pushed back into a niche. SNAFU made missions and a concept which goes this way, it's just the engine which ain't up to it, yet, and we as a community do not have the tools to really work with the potential of this sim, yet. That'll take time ... |
Quote:
Note to all: Would people mind adding those extra key strokes 5./ or even 5 before the JG27. Seems all we get refered to is JG27 which is actually a different unit or several units, depends which way you look at it. Not just you Krupi, allot of people do it. Thanks :-P |
Quote:
But to take this line of thinking further, any balancing of numbers by scripting or otherwise, in whatever ratio you care to name, is ignoring the AI population of the server also. I don't know myself what is built into the ATAG server as far as AI is concerned at any given time. Would these have to be counted also to make it 'fair'? Surely that'd be ludicrous. If you're talking about a purely dogfighting server, where it's simply red vs blue flying fighters only, with no AI, fine. Keeping numbers as equal as possible is only right and proper for this type of game. I've enjoyed them myself in the past. But in a server such as ATAG 1, where there are AI bombers and fighters on both sides (I think), with ground targets to attack for both sides, and bombers as well as fighters for the human pilots to choose from, how do you achieve parity from moment to moment? And why would you want to? ;) P.S. Yes I appreciate that the AI 109's don't continually strafe Manston. :) |
Quote:
And you are wrong as it will stand to reason that the blues want to remove the spit 2 threat, but as the spit 2 is so good its capable of fighting back even just after take off, the spit 2 at Manston hasn't really being around too long but you can't tell me that the blues don't try and stop them. P.s. I have taken off from hawkinge a hindered times as well doesn't mean that it's not a target for the blues ;) |
It can be done, that limits the number of aircraft. This is OK. Then - just ask, I do not know the scripts - it would be difficult to do, (both sides) 4-5 aircraft always start from the air? This could be a nearby backup AFB, main task would be to protect its own AFBs? SpitIa - E1 aircrafts, for example?
Sure, maybe someone sit, and immediately shifted to the other coast at sea level, but these team should be regulated. The strong AAA generate huge lag, even in the small dogfight maps :/ Otherwise, they are loser blind gunners. Only luck if they do not shoot each other :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Well, I'll chime in now. Why don't we see some historical fuel cost for the Sim?
I thought the FM was such that they fly over to England and only had 15 to 20 minutes of Fuel left? I know that's enough time to do what ever but it would sure make for Aircraft management? |
You wont find the often quoted 15 to 20 min. fighting time for the 109 because that number was created at a time were the 109 had to fly to a meeting point, wait there for the bombers, then escort the bombers, which didn't fly the direct way, to London and then back.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
hehe. I never take a full tank with me anyways. 40% is more than enough for a fighter sweep sortie.
|
Quote:
You know, if guys fly on their own then first of all they're not going to get anywhere near being 'historical' and they probably aren't going to survive too long (I know some will). But if this discussion is going to be about trying to make things 'historical' or even 'sensible' (as in "I don't like vulchers") then flying alone from vulched fields isn't the way to do it. If someone wants to do that then thats up to them but its then a bit of a stretch to come here and complain that things 'aren't right' or are 'unfair'. You can kill off the vulching argument by not giving them a target. You can improve your chances by working with others and thinking tactically. As for krupi's dry cleaning bill, 56 aren't gods, we just work together. And you can clean your own trousers :) |
I think vulchers days are numbered, if we get control of AA guns the first thing we will do is get on a gun, clear the airfield, maybe stay and get some target practice in:grin:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:-P |
Forget that Farber, Bankers have no nationality!!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I personally welcome the sitution where my team is the underdog. As someone said, this presents "a target rich environment" :) ... Haven't seen this in CloD often though as I mainly fly blue, but in old Il-2 this is more common, and fun ensues for me much more often.
If the airfield I am taking off from is being attacked, I either make a low level escape to a safe direction and start climbing when I'm certain I'm not being followed, or cancel the take off and choose a safer back field. If I get strafed on the runway, that is entirely my own fault, I should've checked the skies first. In the event that blues overwhelm the reds, I might switch teams, but I usually take a bomber or a heavy fighter and head for the ground targets and present a nice big target for the reds too. |
Quote:
|
A bit off topic but: I have yet to see for well briefed missions with markings on the map to show what needs to be bombed, what protected etc. (Haven't been flying CloD for a couple of weeks though, so maybe that has changed.) The briefing tab is a bit cumbersome as you have to switch between it and the map to get to your head where the targets are, and as X% of people can't be arsed to read it, the map markings would at least maybe direct the furballers to the right fighting areas.
|
Quote:
If ATAG Team would try to prevent the airquake, by using the whole BoB map and not only 15-20% of the area and enforcing players to care for their lives by death-count-penalty and ESC penalty options, the player numbers would drop to a level, it would be meaningless - therefore I do not see any solution myself - besides using the Banks Coop System, which really sounds promising and would even solve any balancing issue. But in the end the whole situation put me off CloD I didn´t try and will not spent my rare sparetime on this any longer... I just try to keep track of the progress and in touch with what is online ongoing, therefore I sometimes jump in for an hour but without any joy. |
Speaking as a pilot for the red side, the inland airfields are quite a bumpy ride and take some skill to take off from. So while its a good idea to avoid vulchers, it can be a tricky solution.
Maybe making some air start spawn points for Spits and Hurries near London would be an easy way to fix vulching, but keep it from becoming too much like air quake. Far enough back that an air start doesn't mean much in the way of an advantage. Maybe start at 3,000 ft. But apart from that, PLEASE can ATAG allow us to select our squadron from those rear airfields? Currently, you're stuck with the polish squadrons I believe if you try to take off from the rear airfields. I would very much like it if that could be adjusted to allow selection of squadron (like at Hawkinge/Lympne/Ramsgate, etc.). I'll go post this in the ATAG thread as well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What about splitting the IIas up maybe 3 at Ramsgate and 2 where the Blenhimes spawns down by Lympne...or somewhere else further south. Just a thought..
352ndRibbs |
Blen's spawn at Littlestone, just a few miles from Lympne. These bases are already on the coast and very easy to cover for blue.
It's not a bad idea to split the IIa numbers between two bases to give them a better chance and make it harder for blue to cover them, but the selection of these bases needs some attention. For example, if they spawn at Lypne then the IIas will still get vulched and it's also very easy to shut down any red bomber ops due to the small distance to Littlestone. I think the main solution to this issue is more low level flak (small caliber, high rate of fire). Has anyone managed to get flak to work with sound locators or radar in the FMB? If this was done only for the low level flak, it would be enough to increase their accuracy and make vulching harder for both teams. Mind you, i'm not against vulching mind, i'll fly either team, i might vulch and i won't complain if it happens to me. I think we just need a way to make vulching a bit more dangerous to reflect how it was in real life. If people can get organized in a group to make a low level attack with bombs and strafing runs against a well defended target, i'm fine with that. It seems that what most people object to is a single or couple of fighters shutting down an entire enemy airfield with near impunity while lingering in range of flak, not the risk of getting bounced while having a reasonable fighting chance. |
For me it is a lack of variety on the red side.Whilst I like flyng the spit and hurri, lately I have really been enjoying the JU-88. I Just wish there was a flyable Beaufighter, or even a Swordfish.
|
Quote:
Not that I don't mind having an escort when taking a Blenheim after that invasion fleet! I think we need more people on team speak to help coordinate our activities! Cheers |
Quote:
The nice thing of the Blenheims now is that the airfield is far away from the main action and no blue pilot bothers to lurk around there for the shake of finding the 1-2 bombers who fly online. The more "targets" you put near there, the more interesting you make it for blue ot lurk near there. ~S~ |
For some players it does not really matter which side to fly for. They just do not want to change side or do not pay attention. A script can offer an incentive to them to switch sides.
1st, number of available Spit2s and E4s can be linked to number of enemy fighters or ratio of enemy/friendly fighters. The more fighters enemy have the more good planes are available. 2nd, a delay after which a player can get a new aircraft at an airfield can be increased in proportion (or rather exponentially) to balance. E.g. 10 seconds delay if there is 10% unbalance, 20 sec delay if 15%, 40 sec if 20% etc up to 180 sec if 50% advantage or 300 if 60%. This would naturally balance teams as everyone would make his own decision if he wants to wait for an aircraft or switch sides. No forced team change like in other games with autobalance but only freedom of decision. Vulching which is historical but not very user-friendly in a computer game can be also mildly discouraged by adding some proportional delay in getting new aircraft. |
Quote:
He is my favourit vulcher! As an admin, i would ban him for a lifetime!!!! |
Quote:
No spit2 on the new mission... |
Quote:
Well My point was to split the IIas up instead of just having them at 1 base. While I agree with your point that putting them close to the bombers wouldnt be a good idea.... I do think limiting the numbers and splitting them up would work. Do the same with the E-4s. Or just leave them out all together like it is now. The problem is, the Reds really dont have that many planes to choose from as it is... Spit 1a is barely flyable, and the Spit 1 and the Hurri DH-50 are worthless. The Blues have a little more variety.. with the E-1 ..E-3.. 110, and the 88. Either way is fine with me, not trying to turn this into a Uber Spit II vs The Uber E-4 debate... Its just a shame, that with a sim that is undoubtably lacking in content.. some people are ok with excluding some of the content the game DOES have... Take advantage of it being in the game and find a way to make them work for both sides. Bear in mind that you can never make EVERYONE happy.... I do wish the Reds had a light bomber like the Beaufighter.. that darm Blemmy is just way to finnicky. I definately need more practice with it... S! 352ndRibbs |
The Spit IIa argument in this debate is just stupid, sry top say so. Do you realize that on such a server as ATAG is, you are pushing on the scene a plane that you agree to say that'"s his capacities allow him yo swing the balance of events by itself even it is present at 1/10th the number ?!!!
For sure it wld cure the team balance : most of us with realism in mind will get off the server. No, as BlkDog and Thor did say, there as been always balancing issue (Sad to read you SNAFU :( )... and individuals who likes the challenge to fight outnumbered :rolleyes: My suggestion would be to makes the stats a function of the team balance with more point credited if your team is overwhelmed. For example : - 10/20 -> each kill credits you twice as much point - 10/30 -> each kill is credited with 4 time the amount - 10/60 -> each kill i scredited TEN time the amount or some kind of exponential (not so much) rules. I can tell you that I hve in mind many stats whore that will bail out and switch side as soon as such an indication wold appear in the server chat bar :cool: Team-Unbalance is natural (do you remind that scene of the movie "I-Robot" with the genius professor discussing teh 3 rules and why they will try to stay grouped in a stressing situation - this is true). But Pride and EGO is also natural ;) You'll always found both. Up to you to use it as a balancing effect :mrgreen: ~S! |
Who wants a fair fight anyway.
I want a 2 to 1 more advantage in favor of the other side. That way you see a contact you can immediately assume it is not your friend. Hate having to watch and watch and look around seeing if I can see the bullseye on the side of the plane or not. You get 30 red and 10 blue that is perfect. LETS DANCE!!! I want to be productive, busy, not bored. Otherwise I feel I am wasting time, bandwidth and virtual fuel. |
Quote:
|
Combat Air Patrol Anyone?
Attacking airfield assets was a valid/historical strategy for both sides, its just a matter of teamwork and picking another base if an individual does not want to be straffed consecutively. It takes a minute to respawn at another field or teamwork to get a wingman on coms and fly base cap but I find it interesting how much energy people put into typing about getting attacked while there airspeed is zero when Im sure the solution is simple:rolleyes: Besides after 20 minutes flying in my Ju88 its nice to see a bandit looking at his checklist once in a while:grin:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.