![]() |
#1731
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
a few days ago, i think there was a new mission on atag...we spotted a big formation(bigger than normally seen on atag) of german bombers north of manston at +5000meters.i have not seen this before on atag.
we headed towards them and saw a group of spits, it was "our" guys from ACG who attacked the bombers.so we engaged and had a really good fight at 5000meters. i really like those "high" altitude fights.there it seems to be way more even, and suddenly skill is demanded in a 109. btw, has anybody now after one and a half years after the release, thought about a mission with bombers heading towards london??? i mean, i have a really weak machine, but have no problem whatsoever to fly on rooftop level above london.i would really like to escort bombers to different locations then the usual ones....the "atag zone" gets really boring now. |
#1732
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So If you intercepted from your base at Manston and had to bail, would you be able to take off from Eastchurch and be able to get enough height to have a second go at them? Croyden for the third go? Hmmm! could we get the height? |
#1733
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I can't remember when I was hit by AA in a 109. I always loiter over the island because that's where the action is all the time.
|
#1734
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Spitfire´s able to make 160mph/3000fpm at certain altitudes, combine that with a course heading the same way as the bombers and there you go, lunchtime, yummy, tastee 88s
![]() |
#1735
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
First at around 1500 m @ 500kph, from untouched to bam! left wing gone. Second at around 2000 m @350 kph, from untouched to bam! PK. Both times bofors. |
#1736
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The battle of Hawkinge...I'm not saying this is bad mission design by common definition, but it's a condition that hasn't been addressed effectively, so affords some sort of fault to the mission design simply because it's a misallocation of resources and motivation to get those "meat-grinder" pilots away from the deathmatch areas and start engaging in a proper flight SIMULATOR fashion. I understand what the mission designer was trying to accomplish, but that's not what is happening. It's like trying to make a irrigation ditch with the intentions of routing water around the Eastern side of your house, implementing your planned dig route, then when the water escapes and flows on the Western side of your house you just stare at it and say, "Well, this isn't what's SUPPOSED to happen."...that isn't going to fix the issue. We all know the problem, now the next step is to find the solution. The players are "gaming the game", so now the mission builders need to "game the game" right back to balance it out. Example, there's not a lot, well...enough motivation and emphasis right now on objectives for the common non-regular player, whether that be to go bomb something (which is not on the common Red pilot's mind/agenda...we only have one buggy bomber), escort AI bombers (no real reason to other than hopes to find other enemy fighters, possibly exacerbating the air-quake mentality issue) defend a grid/building from bombers, etc. If there was a constant stream of AI bombers attacking each Army's *vital, round winning objectives* and actually had purpose there would be constant pressure to take out bomber formations and get pilots off the airfields and onto escorting/intercept missions. As I see it right now, AI bombers are fairly immaterial and just serve as target practice and/or a stage for a high altitude contact scenario with their escorts, if applicable, and go to the wayside never to be seen again after the engagement. This is a matter of a mission designer providing motivation to do the fun, interactive and balanced activities this simulator has to offer (bombing runs, escorts, interception, recon), meanwhile discouraging the less desirable, unfair, unbalanced activities (vulching, base raping, unrealistic altitude engagements, lone wolfing, "gaming the game"). Stuff like Wolf's Channel Command seems promising with missions on demand, limited aircraft supply (this will be a big one, as it will discourage unrealistic/unsportmanlike bailing out/crashing to skip the flight home), random AI fighter engagements, etc. Bliss you seem to turn a blind eye to the current mission's faults and have repeatedly cited the pilots as the issue (did you make it yourself or something?), while I don't disagree with you, the pilot's actions are not something that is going to change because of forum posts. Said pilot's actions are a constant. We cannot force or change them, but the mission parameters in-game can. It can be something complicated like an aircraft supply system, or a simple on-screen notification of a formation of bomber's location heading toward a critical mission objective...Or ailerons falling off of an aircraft upon spawn because you don't want to deal with that aircraft in the sky, you big blue babies ![]() Last edited by AbortedMan; 07-19-2012 at 04:21 PM. |
#1737
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
All i'm going to say about it is that you can do everything you just suggested as missionmaker, and those players you mentioned will still do exactly what they are doing now.
That is play low level airquake, occasionally intercept a bomber they run into and in general not care about the mission at all. Once the plane(s) they prefer are depleted they will complain a bit and then disconnect. Now you can argue those players aren't wanted anyway..but seeing as they make up half or more of the players online at times, I'd prefer to have them present. Just consider them as new pilots (and thus easy targets) and try to convert a few into missionfocused pilots. Help with their questions, encourage them to hop on teamspeak and wing up. With luck a few will eventually join TS, see the light and turn into great wingmen and even fligthleaders. Afterall I think most of us started as random players just wanting to fly and shoot at something. And even many IL-2 vets rarely did anything but play on servers/coops with 3rd person and icons enabled..so it's a big transition for many to play on full switch servers. Last edited by Warhound; 07-19-2012 at 05:03 PM. |
#1738
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Everything you mentioned is being implemented. How is that for an answer?
![]() ![]() |
#1739
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
One day I hope we can live in an internet that is devoid of sarcastic and ill-mannered undertones and/or the assumptions of such undertones as a default. |
#1740
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
+1
Just saying m8 its coming. Seems everyone hates the blue people. Lol |
![]() |
|
|