Hey TD is this doable?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I'm not talking about realism.. I'm talking about fun.

I've got no problem with player-controlled AAA if TD wants to do it. Heck, I don't even mind if there's a server option that allows people who have been shot down, even killed, from manning AAA guns or even taking up a new plane. But, it should be a server-admin controlled option.

For the option of manning planes or guns if you're shot down, it would be simplest to just allow that option if the player is a) alive, b) unwounded, c) within X miles/km of his home base. That gives people some incentive to try to nurse a badly damaged plane back home. But, the server admin should have final say on who gets to "respawn" and the criteria required to do it.

So, +1 to Bearcat's original request.


As for my mini-rant about camping and its causes and solutions, I know exactly why onliners don't like campers. I'm just pointing out the problem of camping comes from grossly unrealistic scenarios. To me, that's as much of an immersion killer, and detracts from my enjoyment of the game, much as a grossly unrealistic flight model would. That's one of the reasons that I don't fly online. But, I also respect that different people play the game differently and enjoy different aspects of it. I happen to like realistic operational and tactical details, and love campaigns which try to faithfully recreate historical situations, but that's just me.

But, if you're flying on a server where opposing sides spawn from just one base each, you can practically see the enemy base from your airfield, and people can join and leave the game at random, I can see a real need to artificially discourage camping.

One way to get rid of the camping problem by allowing people to do air starts (if the server admin allows it, of course). To make things even more random, the server admin could have player-controlled aircraft spawn at random altitudes, random vectors, within a range of altitudes and within a range of grid squares on the map. To make things a bit fair, the server admin could set parameters that you can't spawn within X km/miles of an enemy plane and/or that you can't spawn in a position where you are advantaged or disadvantaged by an enemy.

Another simple way to discourage campers would be to subtract points from the offending team's score if you orbit an enemy airbase for more than N minutes. After all, artificial situations require artificial rules, just like any other sporting contest. Again, this could be a simple setting designated by the server admin.

There are probably other methods which might work as well.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Black_Sage29

This is what I'm reminded of when i hear the words "fun game"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EyAznFhh-es

First off I said nothing about "fun game" in the manner in which you refer to .. which has a totally different connotation from what I am talking about.. Second.. if you are not having fun in IL2 then you are taking it way to seriously. I don't know about you but I still have fun every time I fire up 46 beit online, offline, COOP, DF or campaign.. rgardless to my settings whether it is full switch or some thing other than that (I personally like to have externals on regardless but I will drop into full switch servers on occasion) because that is why I do it.. to have fun. I am not trying to re live history or practicing to be a drone pilot.. I am trying to have fun... and I have been.. al,ost daily for the past 11 years with this product.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I've got no problem with player-controlled AAA if TD wants to do it. Heck, I don't even mind if there's a server option that allows people who have been shot down, even killed, from manning AAA guns or even taking up a new plane. But, it should be a server-admin controlled option.

For the option of manning planes or guns if you're shot down, it would be simplest to just allow that option if the player is a) alive, b) unwounded, c) within X miles/km of his home base. That gives people some incentive to try to nurse a badly damaged plane back home. But, the server admin should have final say on who gets to "respawn" and the criteria required to do it.

So, +1 to Bearcat's original request.


As for my mini-rant about camping and its causes and solutions, I know exactly why onliners don't like campers. I'm just pointing out the problem of camping comes from grossly unrealistic scenarios. To me, that's as much of an immersion killer, and detracts from my enjoyment of the game, much as a grossly unrealistic flight model would. That's one of the reasons that I don't fly online. But, I also respect that different people play the game differently and enjoy different aspects of it. I happen to like realistic operational and tactical details, and love campaigns which try to faithfully recreate historical situations, but that's just me.

But, if you're flying on a server where opposing sides spawn from just one base each, you can practically see the enemy base from your airfield, and people can join and leave the game at random, I can see a real need to artificially discourage camping.

One way to get rid of the camping problem by allowing people to do air starts (if the server admin allows it, of course). To make things even more random, the server admin could have player-controlled aircraft spawn at random altitudes, random vectors, within a range of altitudes and within a range of grid squares on the map. To make things a bit fair, the server admin could set parameters that you can't spawn within X km/miles of an enemy plane and/or that you can't spawn in a position where you are advantaged or disadvantaged by an enemy.

Another simple way to discourage campers would be to subtract points from the offending team's score if you orbit an enemy airbase for more than N minutes. After all, artificial situations require artificial rules, just like any other sporting contest. Again, this could be a simple setting designated by the server admin.
There are probably other methods which might work as well.

My suggestion has less to do with discouraging campers and more to do with just adding another layer of fun.. especially in coops. That is one reason why I prefer to leave externals on particularly in coops. I cannot tell you how many times I have nursed a plane back to my base only to have some AI plane strafe me on the runway.. It would just add another level of something to do while waiting for the next mission. I also like the idea of making it so that you have to be at a certain proximity to the gun and you also have to be alive.. If say you bail or crash and make it top the ground alive and you are within say I dunno .5 or under clicks to a gun .. tnen you can man it.. I have no idea how doable something like this is and am not expecting TD to say "Great idea BC we'll get right on it!!" I am just asking.. is it even doable... ?

[IceFire]

I'm not sure Bearcat but my guess is that yes, it is something that would be possible with at least some degree of programming. The actions wouldn't... at least to a non-programmer like myself (with a minimum of high school OOP as my basis) be all that different than a turret station on an aircraft. For dogfight servers it could be as simple as selecting a flak battery from the plane list and using the spawn in stationary plane feature. Or a modification of that.

It's a bunch of work so it might not be my first choice personally... but I think its a neat idea, it has merit, and aside from effort involved I don't think there is any reason not to do this. If the spawnable flak isn't someones idea of fun then it doesn't have to be enabled/included.

[Luno13]

Landing in close proximity to flak would make it more of a challenge to use, and make it more rewarding, but it's not "more realistic" to do that. Pilots generally wouldn't be manning the guns in any situation, so saying something is more or less realistic is sort of moot point in this regard.

Think of it as any regular res pawn that you do in the game. You landed, and you re-spawned instantly in a fresh plane. All this is doing is giving you another option on where to re-spawn.

Highly unrealistic. But practical, and more importantly, fun.

One of my favorite things to do in Silent Hunter was load up a mission with airplanes all around and try to shoot them down with the 20mm AA before they sank the sub. In Il-2 that would be really interesting with the full-fledged DM and FM, or against human players.

[RPS69]

Bearcat's idea is funny, and probably under certain conditions quite enjoyable.
And I agree with the comment about people getting too much involved with dogfight servers for evaluating in game developement.
On some campaigns, the possibility to get into an AAA, is an excelent alternative to wait 15 minutes to respawn. Still it doesn't need to be necesarilly on home bases.

Also on some campaigns, driving at least one tank of the four, or having a land scout represented by a jeep or something to orient air attack is something that at some times looked as a cool thing to have.

[IceFire]

I don't think we should get too far off the beaten trail necessarily (if resources were vast/infinite I'd think differently ) but again I think the idea is at least a fun idea worth entertaining. But if it were to be done it should be done with some degree of realism. Proper sighting systems, any reloading that might be required, etc.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I don't think we should get too far off the beaten trail necessarily (if resources were vast/infinite I'd think differently ) but again I think the idea is at least a fun idea worth entertaining. But if it were to be done it should be done with some degree of realism. Proper sighting systems, any reloading that might be required, etc.

Agreed on that, but with some agreement on sandbags bulletproof capacity from scratch! I mean, whatever the implementation, it is as is!

[darktatka]

I personally think that man-able AAA's are griefing goldmine.

[bf-110]

It would be a fun extra content!