Latewar planes available with streack only

hi leda,
i sayd more or less exactly what you sayd in a prew post, there are peaple talented in many "way to fight" but still the way to fight only and not the way to rtb alive
I respect any player who beat me (without warp - lag ect ) but i sincerely hate any players who beat me at the cost of his own virtual life.
I personally trained a lot my aim till i didn't got a level supposed to be a cheat (see over one year of flames against me) but i had to learn that even if accurate the aim isn't the only way to kill, you can allway miss and rememebr warp is allways with you
Ofcourse i tried all latewar uberplanes and i sincerely do not like them.
Peaple are too used to fly only 5% of the whole RPS we have and they do not know how to fly as well one single plane (exeptions: Mart P39, illo 190, M/Rcosta 110, ivaniv Yak3, alv P38 and by-tor P47).
That's only theyr own fault, it's not the fault of arcade simmers if there are lazi peaple who do not like trainnig offline and online theyr favorite airplanes and get planes like La7 only for his speed/manouvrability, 190D9 for his speed ect.

 

hi odi,

i said it before myself:
you have found your way and i regard you high as a superb pilot.
but i do also for others with a different way.
i am not sure i if already found mine, although i think a lot of staying alive.

but i don't hate some ways, because then i start to see them all over (not because they are all over, but because i hate them - it's a little bit like cheaters: when it is discussed, i see them all over ).
i try to tolerate and avoid the areas, where i can't do it my way. in most cases i have no problems with it...

 

I was pointing out the fact that to a serious pilot furballers are not an issue. the (stop) was in reference to complaints made by Odi at losing streaks due to quakers, yet he proved himself that it's possible to stop this happening by flying tactically. Therefore the whole argument against quakers/furballers ruining the game for others is a moot point.

Malino

 

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Sebbo,

>If someone wants to fly kamikaze-esque or abuse the newest plane, who are we to forbid them to do so?

Who are we to allow them to do so?

Hohun, that statement smacks of Communism (apologies to anyone offended other than hohun)

What about the other players who don't want a WW2 simulation spoiled by a bunch of kamikaze-esque Ьberplane abusers?

Streak restriction won't stop Ьberplane abuse, it will just put a price on it. Ьberplane kamikazeing will no longer be dirt cheap. Normalplane kamikazeing will stay dirt cheap.

Warbirds is a Game, as stated elsewhere it is not designed to be vaguely realistic but emphasis is on teamwork. If you want Realism then I would suggest you play IL2 Forgotten battles either in offline mode or as a co-op undertaking historical scenarios.

>On the contrary: all you do this way is fill up the skies with semi-uberplanes, thus turning a FW190D9-kamikaze into a FW190A8-kamikaze.

Exactly. The kamikazes will suffer a neglectable loss, and the rest of the players will gain a lot. I fail to see your argument here hohun.

>They'll be high above the playfield in their LA-7's, Spit XIV's, Dora's and K-4's, swooping down on their easy prey with god-like invulnerability. I do not think this is fair.

You're crying bitter tears for kamikazes who get killed because they don't care for survival? Give me a break! No I think we're trying to say it will make no difference to the kamikazes but will remove alot of the challenge to the better pilots in the Uberplanes because you will go from having an 80% chance of meeting a plane that can challenge you to 20% making it to me pretty boring.

>Am I one of the persons you're trying to get a grip on? I doubt that.

We're trying to get a grip on the game, not on individual players

Who's we? I only see you and Odi for this idea.

And honestly, you're understimating yourself: You're good enough already to get that streak of 3 that gives you the reward for survival, and that means that your personal chances of survival will improve. And so will your streak, and the time you spend in Ьberplanes. As I said yes we can get a streak and then we get bored and end up flying the planes into situations unsuiited to them to give ourselves a challenge.

A former Kamikaze would start to think twice about killing himself at this point, but as that wasn't your goal anyway, the game won't change so much for you personally except that you're in a slightly better plane now than the guys who don't care for their lives. As pointed out why will kamikaze's think twice? they will still fly the same and it won't bother them being in 2nd rate planes because all the other kamakazes they fight are also flying 2nd rate planes, whilst us "aces" are wasting all our time flying around hoping to meet another enemy uberplane to give ourselves a challenge because we're bored of killing sheep.

And let me emphasize: There are some very good pilots around now who don't care for their lives, and anyone who doesn't care for his life is more dangerous to others than someone who wants to survive. You need that Ьberplane just to get even, don't be fooled into thinking you're already at an advantage now. You seem to think Warbirds is our lives, It's a game you sit at a PC to play it and you can't get hurt and the idea is to "ENJOY" yourself. Get it? have FUN, not get stressed out playing a game on a PC because sombody's decided you have to get sick with worry about retaining your "life" and to do so you have to fly long boring sorties and maybe, just maybe attack someone else but then only if you know you can win otherwise you'll lose the chance to fly your plane.

>Do you think I've got a point? If not, please explain!

I hope I was clear

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

No I don't. The most fun I have in Warbirds is flying against superior odds and surviving, most of the time I'll go up from a field under heavy attack and I'm pleased to say in most cases succeed in foiling it. Or alternatively flying through the bad guys and dropping the final bomb that closes the enemy field. This to me is rewarding flying especailly when you survive and when I do so I push both myself and my aircraft to the limit, with your idea I'll lose alot of enjoyment because flying the way I do means taking risks and either I'll be flying an Uberplane and can;t take the risk of losing it or I'll be flying a 2nd rate plane and my chances of surviving will be non exisitent.

This is my final post on the subject because I see no further point in going around in circles, my views are known, my arguments are strong and you have yet to convince me in any way that your argument is better.

Malino

 

Those was all sorties with 100% fuel with at least 40 miles of climb to reach 7/8km and engage only "low" cons at 5/6km, the shorter was about 40 minutes the longer 1 hour and 20 minutes, is this the way to avoid quakers? (80% of players!)
I don't care to my streack, if i have one is only because i haven't metted a pilot able to shot me down, but it has one end, most times killed in collisions others getting vulched on landings (damaged or without enought fuel to reach the nearest field) or when i meet 2/3 enemies with superior energy, usually i run to climb far from them but if i get pursuited then i dive over the first field to get acks cover even if it is useless.

It is anyway like talk to walls, you guys cry for bigger maps for less "quake" and boring fields recapture, but is hard to see you organize an heavy bomber sortie, or a canyon hide mission ect, all times i login your nearly all where radar show furballs. The first thing i ask entering on arena is "are we attacking something?" usually i get total silence or just a "need heavy or JU/Li at F**" wihthout any organizzation.
Is that the result of all FH updates/upgrates and all thread of this forum? get the latest plane to furball?

 

Odi, there are many squads which fly organized raids and donґt take part in furballs. I could tell you some squads but iґm sure you know them too.
Why i donґt fly heavy bombers in big raids ?

1. Otto
2. Spy accounts
3. harder to organize than jabo raid
4. risk of disco is too high !!

And: in a jabo i can run away, in a buff iґm just a victim. (mostly i canґt find 2 escorts per buff...)
Maybe a lone buff can fly in without being attacked, but 3 or 4 buffs are an attractive target

Seille

 

Hi Sebbo,

>The people in this forum happen to be the most fanatical, angry and professional pilots you'll find in the arena, though. I seriously doubt these people qualify as an "accurate sample" of WBFREE-visitors.....

Since you seem to be a decent chap, can we just agree that the quality of an idea doesn't depend on who brought it up and how many people recognize it as good?

>>Go test planes then. That's what I do.

>I am sorry, but I sense a bit of sarcasm in this sentence.

No need to, I was quite serious. Sorry I was a bit brief, but I've been told "fix plane x before introducing feature y" so often that my reply came kind of automatic

>And I am talking about realism all along, not just regarding the plane-modelling.

Great! I think there are too many people who think that "realism" means nothing more than plane modelling, anyway

>True , but how could I learn if my 190-a in 1945 gets shot down by three or four high LA-7's every time I take off??

If you get shot down while taking-off, it's not the fault of the plane Seriously, taking off from a rear field and climbing a bit before entering the combat zone will make an A-8 quite competetive. And you're not up against Ьberplanes exclusively - in fact, the vast majority of planes are Normalplanes anyway.

>You can do this trick with two computers and one person as well... And there's numerous other tricks I can think of.

I don't say it's impossible, but it's going to pretty pretty rare. And every now and then, cheaters will be caught anyway - just like they're now.

>Or a discus-throwing event where the previously succesfull Olympics are given a 5-lbs discus, while the other have to throw a 20-lbs discus.

The point was that even in the Olympics, the sportsmen have a different set of "tools" available because they're physically different.

Olympics weren't that good as an example because it's a competition and not a game. According to Chris Crawford, the difference is that there's no interaction between players in a competition, but there is interaction in a game.

(And with regard to the weights: If you'd adjust them to 19 lbs vs. 21 lbs, that's more like it.)

Let me try to use a game as an example: In football, both teams start at equal distance from the opponents' goal. After the kick off, their ability determines where the ball goes. If you get the ball close to the opponent's goal, scoring a goal is just one kick away for you, and all the way down the field for the other team. Is that unfair? Not at all, it was the superior performance of the attacking team that brought it there, even if the balance is heavily in their favour now.

That's a better comparison to what the streak restriction does than the Olympics.

>Oh, and I didn't flame anyone, did I?

(Checking thermometer)

Temperature is in "convenience" range, everything fine here

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Odisseo,

>Sorry i'm not so diplomatic as Hohun is and my english is not enought good to let me explain well what i mean.

I'm afraid I'm target of a lot more personal attacks than you are, so actually your diplomacy seems to beat mine.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Sebbo,

>>Streak restriction won't stop Ьberplane abuse, it will just put a price on it. Ьberplane kamikazeing will no longer be dirt cheap. Normalplane kamikazeing will stay dirt cheap.

>Okay HoHun, now I am confused.... First you say that Kamikazeing was one of the main reasons for this proposal. And now you say it wouldn't help a bit? What's going on here??

Actually, I didn't say it won't help. It will subtly change the balance in the game away from suicidal flying to survival flying, though everyone can do just what he did before.

For example, to top ten squadrons' survival rate might rise from some 40% to 60% or even 80%. By historical standards, that's still catastrophical, but it will make a noticable difference in the arena even if there are still people around who land 40%, or 20%, or 0% of their sorties.

So it's not black and white, but rather a wide scale of grey, and the streak restriction won't replace black by white but merely brighten up the grey a bit (or a lot).

>But anyways, a kamikaze is an easy kill for any experienced pilot.

The problem is that when you have a kamikaze on your tail, he's much harder to shake than a pilot who wants to survive. A pilot who wants to survive can be scared away by the threat of a wingman, of more friendlies nearby, of running out of fuel or of fire from flak guns. A suicidal player can't be scared away because he's not afraid of death, and so proven tactics don't work against him.

Oh, and there are highly experienced players around who fly suicidal, too. Back on Air Warrior, one guy who was actually appointed trainer by the company running the game even told me "The question is just how many of them you'll kill before you die".

>Doesn't this mean kamikazeing is a good tactic? I mean, it gives you loads of kills, following your train of thought.....

Exactly That's the very heart of the problem!

Kamikazeing is a good tactic because you lose nothing when you lose your life. The general preference for suicidal tactics is a result of the game's reward structure, and not of the players' free choice based on their enthusiasm for getting blown up all of the time.

And that's why they won't leave the game in droves when the streak restriction is implemented - they'll adapt to the new set of rules just like they did to the old set.

>What I said was: People that aren't good enough for a 3-kill streak will be sitting ducks.

OK, sorry. The idea of the streak restriction generally puts the majority of players into Normalplanes, so the majority of fights will be between Normalplanes, too. There will be Ьberplanes around as well, but on both sides, too, so the conception that Ьberplanes will be able to pick on Normalplanes at will is not realistic.

>That means that I am NOT ALLOWED to fly this plane for what? 20 days per TOD? I find this discriminatory.

It's a rule, and the rules are the same for all players, no nobody is discriminated against.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Glas,

>I agree completely and, personally, would prefer to see this system of restriction if any is to be introduced. Which was why I proposed earlier that people discuss fully the merits of the different options.

I'd say this would be most productively done in a separate thread, so if you'd like to open one ...

>I dont agree that the effect of adding one mechanism can be easily predicted at all.

You need some experience, and you need to think it through very thoroughly. You need to be aware of psychology and of feed-back loops, and doing some math usually helps too.

I'm through the full program of this, and I can make a prediction that's reliable enough to be turned into a working system by simply tuning the key parameters.

I'll admit it's not as easy as I wrote - a game is a system where everything has an effect on everything, including itself. Accordingly, the normal "everything else being equal" method of analysis completely fails and leads to superficially logical but entirely wrong conclusions.

>The more I think about it, the more I agree about the need for some kind of restriction. I disagree with the system proposed but to that I say 'hey, bring it on', we will see what happens when the time comes.

That's a good start ... how about that:

>If you have problems understanding my posts HoHun, then I can only say I credited you with a better understanding of the English language than you really have.

Glas, the truth is that our discussion is cyclic because the nature of the game mechanisms is cyclic. That's why comments aimed on any particular bit are not taking you anywhere - you have to build a coherent picture of the entire system to escape that trap.

Since we've just found a common basis for discussion, I'd really suggest we pick up Malino's approach of preparing a complete description of the new system so that we don't get into those cyclic interrelationships again.

I'll simply ignore everything you wrote between the post I'm quoting and this post summarily since we're not getting anywhere by looking at mere fragments of the big picture.

Here's the new basis (HoHun's version loosely based on Malino's draft):

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

---cut---------------------------------

Behaviour currently rewarded by Freehost:

- Territoral conquest, rewarded by allowing the use of captured airfields by the conquering side.

(Clarification #1: Score has no bonus effect on gameplay and can't be considered a reward. Rewards directly affect gameplay.)

(Clarification #2: "Objectives" are defined by the rewards and are not independend of them or implied by the topic of the game.)

Hohun's proposals:

- Add another reward for shooting down aircraft - in the shape of a better aircraft. Implemented by restricting late war planes to those with a streak of 3 or more.

- Planes restricted: Gold: 109K4, 190D9, Ki84, Me262, Red: F4U-4, Tempest, Spit XIV, P38L, La-7, P47D, Yak-3, P51D

Why?

- To reward survival in addition to territorial gains and to give an incentive for all players to try and survive, which serves as encouragement to apply advanced tactics.

Arguments for:

- By introducing a streak restriction you subtly move the game away from suicidal tactics to realistic tactics.

- The necessity for the player to decide between two different sets of goals makes the game richer tactically and emotionally.

Arguments against:

- Less talented players might have difficulties getting Ьberplane access
- More talented players gain an advantage by getting Ьberplane access.

Anyone wish to add more?

 

Hi Malino,

>>>If someone wants to fly kamikaze-esque or abuse the newest plane, who are we to forbid them to do so?

>>Who are we to allow them to do so?

>Hohun, that statement smacks of Communism (apologies to anyone offended other than hohun)

Actually, I think you're cute

Any game is an entirely artificial set-up of restrictions that arbitarily allow one thing and forbids another. The original question assumes that there's something special about the rules you got used to that justifies preferring them over other sets of rules.

But there's nothing special, they're entirely arbitrary.

Asking "Who are we to change them?" does nought to justify sticking to one set of rules when we have a better set of rules at hand.

>You seem to think Warbirds is our lives, It's a game you sit at a PC to play it and you can't get hurt and the idea is to "ENJOY" yourself. Get it?

The game is going to be more ENJOYABLE when you have the freedom of choice between two different sets of rewards - territory and surival. Get it?

>The most fun I have in Warbirds is flying against superior odds and surviving, most of the time I'll go up from a field under heavy attack and I'm pleased to say in most cases succeed in foiling it.

>[...]

>either I'll be flying an Uberplane and can;t take the risk of losing it or I'll be flying a 2nd rate plane and my chances of surviving will be non exisitent.

Thanks for making my point.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

An 'evolution' arena would be better, where everyone would start in the worst plane (with creating a worst to best RPS), and every 3rd (or more) kills would allow you to move one step higher on that plane-ladder.

I think that the effect of streak-restriction wouldn't change the major feeling of the game, thus that idea is totally useless.

 

Why? point out some examples why it shouldn't work.

 

hi Odi,
i must say i dont like this phrase...
im totally against training offline; even when pilots i respect, sayin' its the best way to help my gunnery skills; im sure u will agree: wb is only so great when playing online;
best scenarios with drons wouldnt be as addictive as fight with other players;

as for the favourite aircraft choosen:
u cant disrespect player who choose a plane because of its speed/manuevering-handling;
for the whole tod i use only few planes: 109e, f2, f4, g2; 190a4light, 190d, ki84, me262;
as u can see i prefer faster planes then the easy-manueverable ones;
that makes me worse pilot because i use bnz tactics?
or that makes me better pilots because i dont turn, dont make opponent to get a shot-position and try to apply only E fast fight?

none answer here is right - good pilot is that one who can use plane as it should be used; if someone can use la7s speed.... good for him; anyone can use spits turnrate and econserving... great!
look at situation like this:
there r streak restrictions;
i fly 190, rtbing with streak, lets say 5 which allow me to use that plane;
im going to land, but then some yak which i damagded and disengaged earlier to let him rtb, chasing me to the acks...
(yak dont need any streak in this example)
so i have speed 300km (on 190 it is equal to death, especially when low alt while land attempt)
but!!
i let yak close to me and use unexpected turn to make the yak miss me; i menaged to do that, im proud of myself, but got shot downed by my own acks; pked by 40mm...

silly death isnt it? stupid streak loose... but it happened to me day ago!! every one can die in stupid way, u cant deny that;

and now what?
im forced to fight on planes which i cant fly in my favourite way....
i have to use other tactics based on available aircraft; probably i cant build a streak for some time because i dont like other plane and i fly like idiot, to get my kills for streak; dying and dying again...

u can say that the streak restricion will cause pilots to be more skilled in any type of flying...
but its wrong: if someone is good in one thing and cant do it because of such limitation, its unnatural forcing him to fly like he dont want to;



thats my opinion, thats why ive decided to disagree with a streak limitation; hope i wrote it clear;

regards, s

 

hi odi,

it won't work, because the idea of streak-restriction is proposed by you as a result of your experience. you neglect the psychological aspects of the motivation of others. it's quite difficult to prove psychological evidence... it is the old opposition between psychology and ethology, one starts with the hypothesis and looks for evidence, the other as a science of nature gets it conclusion after collecting scientific results, which have to be shown as significant expression to the questioned behaviour. due to anonymity and hard observation, ethological research in a multiplayer is nearly impossible.
psychologically seen, you have the only prove for your idea to be successful in your own experience and the resulting conclusions. it may be assumed furthermore, that you don't/can't conclude from that the bewished overall change of behaviour, because you show a high disregard and antipathy for the manners you complain of.
even without being able to prove behavioural effects, i hope, i will be taken serious enough, because i can watch (extreme examples) 'kamikazes' and (!) 'streakers' without being emotional touched. it has nothing to do with my own way of behaviour, but with my reaction to others.

i do know, it is still hypothesis, but i am very sure, emotional and psychological parts of playing wb-fh should be considered high attributions. the resulting psychological parts (possibly positive) of your suggestion are not overall represented now, so they can't have sucj high value, because they won't be resulted from experience.
simplified example is: parents restrict their kids, argueing 'we only want the best, we know the good way, you will see...' most kids will try other ways first, after a while they mb come to the same conclusion like their parents, but then there is already the next generation. this example is not about age, but more (not exactly) about experience. so pls don't see anything 'childish' there. many great persons in history have not only tolerated, but kept on doing 'silly' things. one can say 'i do good', but should be careful to do others the same: they don't necessarily do 'not good' (and probably they don't want to do 'bad')
so i say, if there is no real need (like extreme chaos), show them more than restrict them, try them more than hate them, tolerate more than disregard. when your way is good, chances are high others will do the same.

 

Hi Kutya,

>An 'evolution' arena would be better, where everyone would start in the worst plane (with creating a worst to best RPS), and every 3rd (or more) kills would allow you to move one step higher on that plane-ladder.

Do you mean total kills or kills in streak?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Kutya,

>I think that the effect of streak-restriction wouldn't change the major feeling of the game, thus that idea is totally useless.

The streak restriction will change the balance of the game. It will be subtle enough that the new game will be very similar to the original game, but it will be powerful enough that the new game will be noticably different.

I'm not sure whether you'd call this a "major feeling change", but the strength of the impact can be adjusted by selecting a larger or smaller set of Ьberplanes, and by deciding on a longer or shorter streak.

The streak restriction can be scaled to achieve just the desired result.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Spuint,

>i let yak close to me and use unexpected turn to make the yak miss me; i menaged to do that, im proud of myself, but got shot downed by my own acks; pked by 40mm...

I'm afraid bad luck will always be part of the game, just like good luck will. Fortunately, luck affects all players the same, so it may be unpredictable, but it's fair.

>and now what?
im forced to fight on planes which i cant fly in my favourite way....

That's just what happens with the normal RPS all the time. You're a Mustang fan? You're forced to fight in planes that come nowhere close to it until 1944. It's part of the game - and it's the same with the streak restriction.

>probably i cant build a streak for some time because i dont like other plane and i fly like idiot, to get my kills for streak; dying and dying again...

However, once you get the hang of it, you'll be a better pilot than you were before. You've already pointed out "good pilot is that one who can use plane as it should be used", so I'm confident you won't be stuck in a plane you don't like for long - or that you'll even learn to like the plane you're stuck in when you find out how it's used

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

Hi Ledada,

>so i say, if there is no real need (like extreme chaos), show them more than restrict them, try them more than hate them, tolerate more than disregard. when your way is good, chances are high others will do the same.

That may be fine for raising kids

The Freehost arena, though, is a place where a selection process determines which tactics are used and which are ignored. As success is defined by the rewards earned for game play, and the only reward is use of conquered territory, the successful tactics are geared towards territorial gains and largely ignore survival.

Reward survival, and the game will change. You could also remove the reward for conquering territory, and the game would change, too - just imagine fields never changing hands!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

hi HoHun,
cant agree with that;
rps allows to fight each side with newest planes, somehow close eachother in speed/manuever/firepower; while streak restriction will block newest plane and pilot is like transferred in time back, when his opponents arent;

im a 190 fan; i must wait till half42 for it; but untill then i fly 109s just like 190; attack with e adv, bnz; only when attacked i try df;
bnz works better on 190 ofcourse (and i can see that by my effectivness on 190 and 109 clearly), but its good for 109 either, just not that good like for 190;
its not like u said: i loose my streak and i will rebuild it on weaker plane; in mid 42' bnz tactics on 109's is totally wrong - 109s are simply too slow then;

if i understand well, u would like a small streak restriction?
if yes then good pilot will get that streak in one sortie, and weak will fly couple sorties in senseless fights;
cant see logic here;

thats how i learnt 190s but im not going to change my flying

regards, s