Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Mango]

Man, I thought my programming job was hard!! The subtlties and obscure factors they deal with when tweaking the flight model must be maddening!

Thanks BS, for such a detailed updated. I'm really getting excited about this again.

[retrojet]

is there a fix for the whining divots that bug the hell out of us

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times. Everybody lets their SA drop now and then, and team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

Very true.

I guess my initial post on this whole subject is really just part of my occasional 'vent' based on frustrations that sometimes come out of piloting the inferior planes.

I made my choice to fly red. I'll keep doing so. Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission. The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

I heard that.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I made my choice to fly red. I'll keep doing so. Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a bit more exciting for everyone.

I heard that too, but I'll reserve judgement until after the patch......

[major_setback]

Thanks B6, thanks Luthier, thanks to all the development team and the testers.
God bless you all!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission.

Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Indeed.



Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

Regarding the sim not fair/ game fair thing:

The simulation aspects of the game should be as close to reality as they can get them. So 109 / Spit / Hurricane / damage model, etc etc. Get all that stuff functioning as close as possible to real, regardless of which 'side' the details favour.

But the GAME aspect. Like, "Score 500 points to win the map!" stuff. THAT stuff should DEFINITELY be tuned to make the chances of winning equal to both sides.

If Luftwaffe fighters have the advantage in dogfighting (on average taking into account mistakes or a lapse in SA, etc.), or by a margin as you put it, then having a mission that is "First to 50 kills!" isn't exactly a fair gameplay target for both sides.

I don't really know how exactly I'd tweak missions to suit this kind of simulation / game issue, but I'd certainly make an attempt.

If a mission's objective is just to present a Battle of Britain scenario, ala Campaigns and the like, then this kind of thing isn't really necessary. Whatever happens happens.

But in a win/lose setup mission with points and targets and objectives and things, why not make an attempt to give both sides the same chances?

I don't think anyone can really seriously argue that the objectives and mission points systems in missions like the ones on ATAG are meant to be serious 'simulations' of action during the Battle of Britain. They're meant to be fun objectives to provide purpose to the action that might otherwise just be dogfighting.

If Red's strength is in taking on bombers, then give Red's target more emphasis on that. Vice versa, if Blue's strength is on air superiority fighting and bombing targets, make those the objectives for Blue. So for example:

RED OBJECTIVES: Destroy 50 bombers
BLUE OBJECTIVES: Destroy 25 ground targets and 25 fighters

Obviously that's just an example so please no one start posting "But 50 bombers is easier than 25 ground targets and 25 fighters!" That's not the point.

Right now, most missions I see have way too much symmetry. Each side has pretty much the same objectives, just opposite. "Red attacks parked Ju88s. Blue attacks parked Beaufighters. Red attacks tanks here. Blue attacks tanks there." Symmetry like that doesn't take into account the different weapon sets these teams have.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times...

Totally agree with your post, except this part.
He wasn't shot down, but had a habit of running into pieces of his kills......something like 14 times
To quote the man himself "I was never another pilots victory".