Ammo Belts Loadout/Exploit Poll

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Fair enough I will back down!

I know when I am beat, you raised valid points.

S!

I appreciate your honesty, wisdom and open mind Krupi!

~S~

[pupo162]

well, im not sure why this is tending to the "leave it alone".


As with many things thsi sim is related to "options". One may choose to take a bomb i ntheir sortie. one may chosoe to take incendiarys, and another may choose to fly half a fuel depot. this is nice, i like it, but there is a time and a place for everithing.

But then again, options make the game somewhat arcadish to an extreme. as a radical example, let me just say some people think all planes should be availabe to all teams. thats ok in a all dogfight server like Grijos. but who would want to fly in Repka if such choices were available?


my point is, there will be a time where we , players who seek realism, will want it to be there, and we will not want it to be spoiled by someone who wants to simple pick the best combo.

i believe mission builders should have the option to "limit fuel, limit ammo, limit bombs etc" so more complex and realsitic scenarios could be created.

Hipothecly, if i flew a SEOW campaign i would like to see enforced a 100% fuel take off + "you can only chosoe this 2 possible ammo loadouts."

Im not saying this should be aplied to every ocasion, i jsut want the option for it ot be there, so if the need comes its there. Putting it on dogfight air quake servers would be a overuse of this feature, and most people are looking in that scenario.


well, that said, cheers.

[HR_Naglfar]

The ammo load can be changed freely when it's the player who creates the plane in a spawn point, but when it's a plane created in the mission, the ammo and fuel load it's locked to whatever the mission designer put on it.

In an online war the planes could be created in the mission with the ammo and fuel that the campaign sees appropiate (this could be done in a SEOW style campaign, or even in a real time war), and also the campaign could force the player to fly a specific plane.

So I think that the option is already there Pupo. We only need time untill someone makes an online war with all this.

[pupo162]

Originally Posted by HR_Naglfar

The ammo load can be changed freely when it's the player who creates the plane in a spawn point, but when it's a plane created in the mission, the ammo and fuel load it's locked to whatever the mission designer put on it.

In an online war the planes could be created in the mission with the ammo and fuel that the campaign sees appropiate (this could be done in a SEOW style campaign, or even in a real time war), and also the campaign could force the player to fly a specific plane.

So I think that the option is already there Pupo. We only need time untill someone makes an online war with all this.

there is also competitions like USL, who are based on dogfight servers. that wouldnt work there. but you are right to an extend, and to be fair in a USL scenario squads will vouch for pre-assigned rules.

[ZaltysZ]

Loadouts should not be enforced, they should be restricted.

Specifically speaking about belts, there should be an option for mission designer to specify max allowed percentage of every bullet type in loudout (taking into account all guns on plane), and a fallback belt (in case user belt violates the limits). I.e.:

Steel AP - 100%
Tracer - 100%
Tungsten AP - 30%
Fallback belt: [Steel AP, Steel AP, Steel AP, Tracer]

That way various custom belts could be made, and spraying of rare things like Tungsten could be prevented.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

Loadouts should not be enforced, they should be restricted.

Specifically speaking about belts, there should be an option for mission designer to specify max allowed percentage of every bullet type in loudout (taking into account all guns on plane), and a fallback belt (in case user belt violates the limits). I.e.:

Steel AP - 100%
Tracer - 100%
Tungsten AP - 30%
Fallback belt: [Steel AP, Steel AP, Steel AP, Tracer]

That way various custom belts could be made, and spraying of rare things like Tungsten could be prevented.

+1

[JG5_emil]

Originally Posted by pupo162

well, im not sure why this is tending to the "leave it alone".


As with many things thsi sim is related to "options". One may choose to take a bomb i ntheir sortie. one may chosoe to take incendiarys, and another may choose to fly half a fuel depot. this is nice, i like it, but there is a time and a place for everithing.

But then again, options make the game somewhat arcadish to an extreme. as a radical example, let me just say some people think all planes should be availabe to all teams. thats ok in a all dogfight server like Grijos. but who would want to fly in Repka if such choices were available?


my point is, there will be a time where we , players who seek realism, will want it to be there, and we will not want it to be spoiled by someone who wants to simple pick the best combo.

i believe mission builders should have the option to "limit fuel, limit ammo, limit bombs etc" so more complex and realsitic scenarios could be created.

Hipothecly, if i flew a SEOW campaign i would like to see enforced a 100% fuel take off + "you can only chosoe this 2 possible ammo loadouts."

Im not saying this should be aplied to every ocasion, i jsut want the option for it ot be there, so if the need comes its there. Putting it on dogfight air quake servers would be a overuse of this feature, and most people are looking in that scenario.


well, that said, cheers.

That is our opinion as well. More options can't be a bad thing can it....in IL2 things were removed rather than giving us an option instead. I oftened wondered if that was so they didn't upset those people who wanted to be classed as 'Full Real'.

[BRIGGBOY]

it wouldnt bother me if they were not enforced as there is quite allot to sort out first but i do think we should use the same belt set ups as the real pilots did

[von Pilsner]

Originally Posted by pupo162

well, im not sure why this is tending to the "leave it alone".

Because when we said the head shake in the cockpit was a bit too much it was not toned down, it was removed.

[JG52Krupi]

The historical cockpit instruments were removed from the hurri and spit when four ppl complained!!!