Fair Chances when Outnumbered?

Aike (and IEn) has set many rules for this game. Should we remove those? Ie. Does it matter if you shoot down gold or red? Maybe we should be able to takeoff from any color field at anytime. Maybe we should be able to start at any position of map anytime. Maybe we should remove rules that force us to follow laws of physics.

No thanks. I think good rules enchancing realism are welcome. I personally don't want rules (like proposed) for balance though. But I can't (and dont want to) deny others their opinions.

 

Yes thats why we need more strategy elements and rules. In deathmatch numbers make big hit. Also variation in simulation stagnates in many forms.

 

It depends on what level of fight you will look.

Many finnish WW2 pilots say that it was easier to fight when grossly outnumbered ie. 1:25 than slightly outnumbered 1:2.

IRL they don't have icons and enemy can't tell your plane from friendlies until at close range and mostly even then it's highly unlikely he will inspect you as threat. Situational awareness is limited.

Ie. Image yourself in position of VVS pilot. You have flight of 50 planes moving with you. 90% of all spotted formations must be friendly. When fight against 2 enemy planes occurs you have most likely been suprised. Situation is very confusing as only 2 of 52 planes flying around you are enemies. There is simply too many moving objects to track. You can mostly notice enemy only as he opens fire. .

However on the other side situation would be extremely clear. Any spotted formation would be hostile, so spotting could be done with clear weather even 10 kilometres away. You would have all the time in the world to plan your attack and escape. Even formations passing you at close range would ignore you if national insignias werent seen. When fight emerges you can be almost certain that everything you see even in the corner of you eye must be hostile. You can attack without any hesitation and escape using confusion as you ally.

 

That's pretty good point, Illo, I hope there'll be a game so real in a day...

 

For me being outnumbred is not really a problem (like many players in FH), what pisses me off (and that is mostly from red players) is that when golds are outnumbred like 23 to 8, reds have a tendency to be big headed... especially Texaz Rattle Snake squad... they are really good players but you get killed by them and you get those silly SSSSSSSSS or the snake bitessss on the 100 channel, and when you kill them it's alaways because they were afk, or any other excuses they can find... so reds, it's ok to have the advantage but fuck, be modest about it. That's why being outnumbred is in the forum right now... golds can live being outnumbred, but being humiliated on ch. 100 is what pisses them about being outnumbered. For example Elite! they will congrat you when you win and when they lose, they are a example to follow to all red players.

 

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

 

I agree tipiss. Although its not just Texas Rattlesnakes that do it.

Pietas used to really do my head in with his daft macros, but they are much improved now (something like 'S! nice fight!').

It is totally demeaning to speak to people in such a way imho.

-glas-

 

I'm sorry I haven't read the whole discussion. It has been momentally over my abilities. So this could be already posted.

I'm following this logics... why there is imbalance? Because ppl are changing the sides (the problem is worsen by somewhat rigid side changing system of big SQs). Why they are changing the sides? Because there are different oppurtinites for each side. What's that? Different planes Why there are different planes? Because we are trying to simulate reality - the planes which stood against each other in the war. Oh, and when exactly got the bunch of zeros into cooperative fight with 109ers against Spitfires and Lavockins? Wouldn't it be better in general to cancel plane restriction (not rps though) for different sides? I'm not sure.

imho

positive effects:
- balance of numbers
- equal chances - bb whiners
- ppl would stop changing sides and thus the cooperation at particullary sides would improve

negative effects:
- decrement of diversity of planes involved and thus the diversity of fights (like in july 42 everyone would fly 109A4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you Illo, I agree with you Malino. You both have right!
But that "I don't agree with you at all" missed the bowl. You are both talking about different things.
It is definitely good to have ppl here who are trying to invent something and thx to them disscussions and possible solutions are emerging. But it is definitely painful to discuss with person whose attitude towards your opinions is making you feel like idiot. It reminds me of throwing pea to the wall. He has no sense for relativism. His logics is perfect but he deny to understand that the grounds he moved from are the right only in his point of view. He's not god or anything but he behaves like that.

 

Yes, you're right. It has happened. On the other hand, if other is greatly inferior, what use is for kill/loss ratio? One can't lose any pilots and the other can use them without hesitation....
In Finnish-Soviet war finnish pilots had better training and more willing attitude. Morale is everything. Too bad that in FH it doesn't matter...

Besides, if we keep using winter war and BoB as an examples, we're going into wrong direction...
There are other examples too, you know. How about Poland, Greek, Belgium, Holland, or Norway? All of those fell quite rapidly since they were inferior to enemys tactics and strenght. (I personally believe that England would've been in serious trouble if Hitler wouldn't had listen to Goering...) Hell, even finns calls it "a miracle of winter war" .

Back to topic. I think HoHun has something good developing here. His suggestions (might at least ) guide FH for more simulative direction. (simulative as in simulation (don't know if that's the word...). Frontline fields would have bigger meaning, and there would propably be more co-op for both sides.

airfax

"kinda hot in here... "

 

what do you mean he says his new rules are the only solution to the problems? this poll itself is to know what you expect from the game and clearly states nothing is decided.

Ive been thru a dozen or two discussions with and against hohun. i know that he goes after each and every single post regarding the topic in discussion, and all he does is reply, posting his opinions on what others said. sometimes it may seem suffocating, but he never forces his ideas down the other's throat.

certainly you misunderstood something for calling him a control freak?

 

I think that this way to balance the sides will not work, this way will eliminate the chances of the weakest group to use some tatics, mission, or ways to try to win the war.

 

That certainly wasnt the case with the discussion about the streak restriction nic. It appeared to me (and others) that odi and hohun had made up their mind about the restriction long before that discussion ended, and nothing anyone said would make a difference, because hohun would just mix your words or change their meaning.

I dont see why this 'discussion' would be any different (regardless of the fact that generally I would agree with this proposal).

-glas-

 

So in fact you are control freaks?

Because ho-hun, indeed just gives his opinion, so did Odi, that was their opinion, and they wondered if there were enough people that felt the same to form a majority... they don't tell you what think, they tell you the advantages of their idea and of the rules they'd like to see implemented...

it's ok for them to make up their mind, what are you going to change about it?

eventually the input we give is limited... suppose ho-hun would've had the majority and would've went to aike to lay-out his proposal, aike could've sort of speak slammed the door shut in his face...
what I'm trying to say is, their opinion was formed, and you guys tried to convince them of another... they tried to convince you of theirs as well, so eventually, you can't say that he's trying to control your thoughts... because right here and right now you guys are trying to force ho-hun to cease suggesting improvements he feels would increase the fun of the players in the arena...

<Z>

 

Perhaps if you read the thread again Zem, you will understand what I mean (no offence intended).

Throughout the thread about the restriction, people highlighted what they felt were flaws in the proposal, as well as simply highlighting the obvious negative points about it (there was no need for us to highlight the positives, hohun and odi had already done a good job of that). After highlighting these, hohun then usually proceeded to take small parts of posts, half sentences etc and then, constructing these together, they then changed exactly what someone was meaning so it suited their arguments.

Hohun himself admitted that he does it, in the streak restriction thread,because for him winning the argument was paramount.

Therefore, I suggest respectfully you rethink your above post.

-glas-

 

I made my mind about it before discussion. I wonder why should i change my mind? I can discuss about streak restriction, but i doubt that would change my mind. It's so clear it would improve this simulation and fun for me. I understand you can have different opinions, but is it really a problem?

 

Life is short. Is it really a problem?

 

Fair enough illo, as I said I had more or less made up my mind about the proposal in this thread before the discussion. That doesnt detract from the fact tho that when people post opinions different from those who propose the changes, their views are distorted through mis-interpretation of their posts as I stated above.

It is no problem to me that I have different opinions, but it matters when we have an 'already-made-decision' being masqueraded as a 'discussion'. There was no discussion, the decision was already made by the people who proposed its implementation.

Had any concerns people raised been properly addressed, then I would appreciate your point. However, in my opinion, that did not happen.

-glas-

 

none taken

no I won't, as I see it you guys are trying to stop ho-hun from arguing, Mal was kind enough to call him a control-freak, maybe he is, but in the meanwhile you guys are trying to convince him of your views, while he's trying to do the same with you... I don't care about how he tries to argue you, I care about the fact you're trying to silence him

<Z>

you know I respect you as well

 

Okay, now I completely disagree with your last statement there..

I can back up my assertion that Hohun said winning the argument was paramount (or words to that effect) and how he went about that was irrelevant (as far as he was concerned).

So how can you justify saying that I have tried to silence him? In what way exactly? I voiced my disagreements about the restriction, and my reasons for that. As far as I was concerned those points were not addressed properly. Do you equate that to trying to silence someone?

Sorry Zem, but if you want to use statements like that, please at least back them up.

-glas-

 

i still cannot understand this quote:

>but it matters when we have an 'already-made-decision' being masqueraded as a 'discussion'. There was no discussion, the decision was already made by the people who proposed its implementation.

whats the use of hohun or odi making a decision?

im sure the previous discussions came down to a minisculous level of detail up to a point in which the discussions were about things that wouldnt really influence the topic's matters. when this happens, stop and think: "anyway, would i like it or not?"

i remember a discussion i had with hohun. i was wanting zero-icons, while hohun was wanting them at the current d35 or more. we came down to such funny discussions, such as resolution of the human eye in numbers compared to a 90є field of vision of a 15" monitor with a display of 640x480 pixels blablabla. he obviously was winning in that discussion, but even with the worse vision in warbirds, i still preferred the zero-icons. winning the discussion or not, having decided which is more "real" himself or not, my opinion was still my same opinion.

i dont think he "he insists his new "rules" are the only solution to a problem, and no-one can possibly have a solution that is better or equals his own". as i see it, he is only sure of his opinion and defends it well, like, imho, everyone should do more.