Point Whores etc....
 

Point whores. Those who put points before all other objectives.

The maps I like to fly on usually have a mix of AI and human pilots flying around trying to destroy my ground assets, my vehicles, airfields and ships. I can't bring myself to land points as long as I have fuel and ammo. It is not uncommon to see me kamikaze into an enemy bomber, fighter or ground target instead of landing a spent aircraft.

The most pathetic are those who break out of a furball they have been throwing shots in and throw their landing lights on, thinking that is a free pass to fly home and land, sorry.

There are those who use Teamspeak as a tool for point-whoring too. Announcing over a general channel that "I am out of Ammo" or that they are hurt and are going to land now, often the same person that just blasted someone on final approach to their own landing strip out of the air. Screw you.

If I get someone smoking heavily or knock their controls off, usually I break off the attack and save the ammo and effort for the next objective, but if the target is a known point whore, I will certainly keep firing until the only way they are getting down is as a fireball.

On another note, I just tried to join a server that was still flying 4.07, what is up with that?
My theory: Since Mods have divided and destroyed the IL2 community that used to always fly the same patch, and also since mods have made IL2 installation more confusing and likely to crash than ever, there are those who simply said screw-it and stopped following new patches and add-ons period, and are sticking with what they know works.

Point whores are lame, non-official Mods and hacks are still lame, Flying on easy settings is gaming and not simming.

You should try the popular mod servers, Skies of Valor, Spit109 HSFX or Warbirds - all your probs will gone.
If you intentionally ram, you'll be gone too though.

And btw, those are closed cockpit servers, so it maybe not your cup of tea.

lol

Il-2 Sturmovik is a game for ages eight and over. It's a good idea to try and be tolerant of different people's peculiarities when playing online as you can never tell who they might be.

You mean they are not all WW2 aviation experts
with a wall to wall library room full of books about the war
and every piece of military hardware that was involved in it
and actual pilots anecdotal evidence backing up their favorite plane,
it beat everything, scenario.

Surely you jest sire............

I demand a chart immediately.

:)











.

Skies of Valor is pretty good, doesn't have many "point whores" as Jumo describes them, but there are quite a few pilots who don't mind joining the team that's bigger already to get their favourite plane, and who tend to choose the easy to fly planes even though they're experienced players while the novice players struggle in Wildcats and early Soviet planes.

Agh. Ugh. For what it's worth, Skies of Valor seems to have an interesting map rotation and flexible enough planeset. However, the problem is not only the padlock, but padlock with own externals and enemy externals combined. Three strikes innit.

Players are pretty much never the root of a given problem, it's the settings & maps nine cases out of ten. The only real problem are teamkillers (it can happen as an accident, too) or people who recklessly waste limited planes, such as Me 262s. Some maps have plane limits, and for good reason.

People who join the "bigger" team may seem like a drag, but maybe they are just loyal to their colour, nothing wrong with that. It's just unfortunate that there aren't enough players for the other side at that time.

I have a huge problem with that actually. It's not great to join a server where one team has 30 players and the other has just 12. It quickly goes from challenge to utter devastation. I don't mind so much if the numbers are 24 and 21... no big deal but the folks who join and blindly pick their favourite side are a problem to a functioning and healthy server.

I've kicked guys before because they joined blue or red, wouldn't switch. Then they come back and ask why they were kicked and then they tell me "Well I only fly blue/red". I'm sorry but for the fun of everyone its no good if people only fly one "colour" and refuse to join the other.

I don't mind too much if there is a preference when the teams are fairly even.

Back when I used to host a lot I had to kick people who came in to a Pacific Theater mission, one that was clearly labeled as such, and then whine and moan about there not being any FW 190s, and then demanding that I take the server down and add them ASAP.

:roll:

"Our squad only flys the FW 190!"

Tough luck pal.

I had this happen with the same bunch twice.

I'll never understand people who cling to a single series of planes. There's so many planes in the sim to enjoy at this point, and it's not like learning to operate at least somewhat well requires an enormous time investment. I can understand a squad having a plane of preference if they are based on a real unit, but surely they'd be capable of flying something else "out-of-character" if the situation called for it? Having a favourite plane is okay - refusing to touch anything else is lunacy.

I really like being outnumbered. It adds to the suspense and makes each victory much more rewarding.

Yeah, but getting shot down five times in a row by folks that clearly have inferior skills just because they got the better plane, higher numbers and the tactically superior position gets annoying quickly.

I am absolutely terrified to fly if the opposing side has more than 3 player (or percent) advantage in numbers. In fact, if teams suddenly shift, I rtb. But I wouldn't dream of demanding that other players join my side just so I could feel at ease.

True, true. Five times is just criminal. However, after long research, I've got the solution figured out: if things go sour, you could change your plane, airfield, team, server, mind, game and/or activity. There's always another day, and things will be different.

My own very long research has lead me to the same conclusion. :) It's either a very odd coincidence, or we found something that's true.

Don't just go truckin in against five times your number. Skirt around the edges and pick off the unwary. Fly deeper into their territory when the swarm converges and expects to catch you heading home. Enjoy the chat bar messages as they try to figure out where you are and where you will turn up next. Get some height and pounce on the slow ones who have travelling towards the front and still climbing for altitude. Watch your ammo and go for maiming shots rather than kills. Honestly, it's the most fun you can have. ;)

As a server admin its no good but if you're just a player on the server and you go in with a "I'm probably not going to survive this so lets just go with it attitude" then yeah that can be interesting and perhaps entertaining.

One day I did get a whole line of guys chasing me... in one instance it was easily 7 or 8 fighters lined up behind. I was slightly faster so I was banking back and forth trying to get the whole lot of them to bunch up. I got 3 or 4 "kills" that way. Eventually they still got me :)

While playing Rise of Flight, I once travelled way across the lines in a creaky old Re-8. I suddenly realised I'd wandered into an area surrounded by enemy airfields and could see aircraft taking off from each. In the end I quickly side slipped and landed unseen in a small field and taxied up to a stand of trees, and waited until they'd passed. Was great fun to be able to get away with it.

Historically, axis pilots in WWII often flew vastly outnumbered, but that does not mean that 21st century gamers would enjoy it or be able to pull it off.

The Golden Rule comes up. I personally know a WWII pilot that strafed a German airfield and shot up taxiing fighters etc., but I won't do human sim pilots that way as it is no challenge for me and no fun for them. If they draw first blood though I can give it back to them.

Recently I landed some hits on a P-38 I could only catch up with because of a altitude advantage and got it smoking really good before running out of ammo. I was flying an aircraft slower than all others on the server so with no ammo was out of options and decided to land. The smoking P-38 killed me as I was taxiing as if it was any sort of feather in their cap for doing so, quite the opposite in fact.
I don't mind letting aircraft land that have missing controls or are leaking oil etc.., but if it seems over-important for them to kill me, I return the favors.

Shoulder-shooters have always been a pet-peeve and they are closely related to point-whores. The Shoulder-Shooter has no thoughts about anything but themselves, it is hooray-for-them screw-you all the way. Since they are so thirsty for action I often give it to them. When friendly tracers whiz by my aircraft towards a target that is in my sights, I shoot down the shoulder-shooter and take the hit in points or a ban from the server.

I have to be very bored to fly on servers with open-cockpit, outside views or padlock or other unrealistic crutches poor and stupid pilots need. On hard settings a good and smart pilot can execute strategies that can put him on equal footing with a stronger numerical opponent. If some douchebag can find my location and altitude by hitting a few buttons, or if they never had the passion to learn tactics or making blind lead shots, then they are simply gamers and don't deserve to fly with anyone who is serious about what they are doing.

Bah, no serious flight will ever come from dogfight servers.

This game downfall came when DF servers got the upperhand against coops and online wars.

It changed from long term groups sharing a side in a long term war, against individual fliers pleasing themselves.

It finally ended as an airquake. No more online wars, and people in general shun coops.

It was around the time CooPs were encrypted on the mission transfer.

Killed off CooP hosts due to the inability to host missions in their cache from other hosts.











.

Or, you have to prefer the stock game and live in a timezone where only "poor and stupid" servers are populated in the evenings.

So true! In the begining, you will learn just by checking the mission cache, how other people solved common problems. That was only needed on online wars, not on coops.

Also the number of missions available to fly with was incredible.

It was 10 years ago, perhaps we can have the option to encrypt the mission transfer in the GUI to protect online war campaigns but open it for general CooP missions and Public pilots.

:)

Fresh air? Did I feel it? ;)

True. Geographically I am at the epicenter of ignorance. But on days when there are no work hours I can visit servers with harder settings based in continental Europe and further East during their prime-time. And when it is convenient for us, a small circle I belong to hosts a server with hard settings except for limited friendly icons(not by my vote).

Any type of hard-settings server can have merit if it is done well. I like it when there are map objectives, when your flying makes a difference in the ground war and front line movement on the next map. Pure dogfight or duel servers do provide a place to test aircraft and to practice various skills etc..


Another pet peeve:

Server Bias. When a server admin, or hosting squad cherry-picks the maps and plane sets to favor themselves.

I have been honored in the past more than once by server administrators and hosting squads that have changed plane sets and maps to try and stop me from shooting them down or maybe winning their maps.

*an unnamed server*, the champions of petty, ridiculous and biased servers, changed their plane sets, weapon loadouts and maps more than once because I was kicking their asses all over the place, and I was flying solo!
Imagine how poorly trained a hosting squad would have to be, and how poorly a map would have to be designed to let a solo pilot's actions dictate the administration and changes on their server.
Recently a server based in France eliminated my sides airbase nearest the front line, giving their side three bases to the two we had to fly from. My flying activities were too inconvenient for them.

Just as hilarious and ridiculous are the dogfight servers that actually dictate how you are supposed to fly, banning energy-fighting for instance. Make sure you don't get any more energy than your opponent or we will ban you! LOL.......

That does sound frustrating. I assume you and they always fly on the same sides with the same teams?

IMHO, the only way to design an objectives based dogfight scenario is to ensure that both teams have the opportunity and the tools to achieve the objective. Each side may have unique challenges but they should be equipped to deal with the variety of situations. Simultaneously the idea is to offer unique scenarios so that you get different aircraft and interesting matches.

Jumo, if they changed the map on you alone that would be quite frustrating. If they changed it because the lineup was fundamentally unbalanced (one side has all the fast planes and the other has nothing to compete) and you just exposed that weakness then that is another.

Sometimes it takes a knowledgable player to expose a fundamental design weakness.

Still.. I fall back on that equal opportunity in a dogfight objective scenario is required.

Bro, you done?
It's a game.

Pretty much this.

I used to care about topics like this, but not anymore.

Jumo will never be happy, and he pretty much never has been as far back as I can recall.

If there is a server with rules you don't like, just don't fly there. Simple.

For me coops died a long time ago, not because of changes that Oleg did, but because they by and large are done so that the coop builder wins. And once one has run online it's over, they have no repeatablilty as the objectives are known, and no one ever flys the waypoints anyway.

I never bitch about it, I just don't bother with them.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...72870559_n.png

I see your point. But I do think that a map builder can be, if they so choose to be, impartial to a point. I can see the fault in thinking that I can be fully impartial to my design... the best I can do is guess at what a skilled veteran can do versus a relative newbie player and then keeping in mind the objectives and goals for each team design a scenario that does work for as many as possible.

Again, if you design a scenario with a specific set of targets (say tanks) then you should provide the aircraft and weapons that will eliminate them. With options for skilled veterans that may perhaps be more rewarding as well as options for less skilled players that still work fairly well. The difference say between using a Hs129B-3 (and that lovely 75mm gun) to crack open some T-34s or IS-2s versus a Ju88A-4 with a 2000KG bomb that a more newbie player may not necessarily land the marksman hit on the tank with the 75mm but he can still potentially take out the target with a little skill and luck.

Fighter versus fighter tends to be highly skill based with some degree of fighter performance on the table as well so the best I can do is provide a couple of options that should work well on both sides with a variety of pilot abilities and go from there. For example I find myself tending to put the A6M Zero on a lot of Japanese scenarios even when higher performing types are available. The N1K2J is essentially superior but its a little trickier to handle in places and so many newbie players do better with the Zero because its easier to handle... so I make sure that option is there. Slowly they graduate to the more complicated type. Depends on what they are up against too!

I may be flawed in my thinking here but I attempt at least a modicum of humility and attempt to be as unbiased as possible. Both teams should have the tools available to win. The rest is definitely up to the skill of the team. To be honest, I'd like to fly on either side and win or lose on my teams merits.

As for MODs...well that's a whole other discussion :cool:

You're right, he probably never will be satisfied with the outcomes here but I guess its worth discussing alternative viewpoints as an attempt. I've certainly said my piece by now and the rest is up to individual attitudes. Not everyone will be as biased as Jumo suggests. I don't think I am but I could be self deluded :)

I don't know if you remember this but I remember Friday night IL-2 coops that went on for quite a while. Those were fun and players were engaged and interested most of the time in flying the mission and having fun with it. There seemed to be an attempt by the guy building the missions to make sure that they worked on both sides... sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't but I think we had fun for the most part.

Later on when other players were around they became less fun. I think what you tend to see is when the community is small, everyone gets to know each other and people try to be fair. When the community got larger then there was more anonymity and some personalities tend to become very self centered from there. This is more of a hypothesis rather than real data but I would at least hazard a guess that this is kind of what happened.

IL-2 is still insanely fun when a bunch of people get together to collaborate on flying a dogfight or coop mission. I've had some great Stuka gaggles and bomber raids over the years. Even if we get massacred... its often hilarious to see what lengths people will go to to try and down a massed formation of TB-3 bombers for example :)

This happens to many group activities that suddenly become popular. It is to be expected. You surely are right on the spot.

Even so, balancing il2 scenarios is not an easy task. It is better to admit that one side have the advantage, and the other must show the guts to stop it whatever the odds. War is not fair.

Indeed, it is such a complex environment that it is much more likely that one side has an edge in equipment over the other. Fortunately because of that complexity it means that usually as long as the other side has equipment with some pros that the other side does not that you can exploit that (turn fighters vs bnz, high alt vs low alt, heavier firepower versus less, roll rates, etc. etc.).

I do enjoy the against the odds types of scenarios. I used to go on the old 334th server and fly a Ki-100 against La-7s. The Ki-100 is a decent enough fighter but it is outclassed in such a wide open, every plane available, setup.

Well... at sometimes, mounting a duel Lagg3 vs Hurricanes II, it will be always won by the LaGG, just because the Hurri's bullets would do no damage to the LaGG. That's a very new correction on the game.

The other battle spoiler, but on the ground, was the Matilda tank. It will survive even 75mm shots from other tanks.

There are lots of funny behaviors on ground units, and some aircraft that could spoil a whole campaign if not well researched.

The Matilda had the best armor of any tank in the West until the Panzer V came along I do believe. The Germans in the desert used them whenever they could capture one intact. It's real weaknesses were it's lack of speed and it's puny gun.