Point Whores etc....

[swiss]

Bro, you done?
It's a game.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by swiss

Bro, you done?
It's a game.

Pretty much this.

I used to care about topics like this, but not anymore.

Jumo will never be happy, and he pretty much never has been as far back as I can recall.

If there is a server with rules you don't like, just don't fly there. Simple.

For me coops died a long time ago, not because of changes that Oleg did, but because they by and large are done so that the coop builder wins. And once one has run online it's over, they have no repeatablilty as the objectives are known, and no one ever flys the waypoints anyway.

I never bitch about it, I just don't bother with them.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Pretty much this.

I used to care about topics like this, but not anymore.

Jumo will never be happy, and he pretty much never has been as far back as I can recall.

If there is a server with rules you don't like, just don't fly there. Simple.

For me coops died a long time ago, not because of changes that Oleg did, but because they by and large are done so that the coop builder wins. And once one has run online it's over, they have no repeatablilty as the objectives are known, and no one ever flys the waypoints anyway.

I never bitch about it, I just don't bother with them.

You're right, he probably never will be satisfied with the outcomes here but I guess its worth discussing alternative viewpoints as an attempt. I've certainly said my piece by now and the rest is up to individual attitudes. Not everyone will be as biased as Jumo suggests. I don't think I am but I could be self deluded

I don't know if you remember this but I remember Friday night IL-2 coops that went on for quite a while. Those were fun and players were engaged and interested most of the time in flying the mission and having fun with it. There seemed to be an attempt by the guy building the missions to make sure that they worked on both sides... sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't but I think we had fun for the most part.

Later on when other players were around they became less fun. I think what you tend to see is when the community is small, everyone gets to know each other and people try to be fair. When the community got larger then there was more anonymity and some personalities tend to become very self centered from there. This is more of a hypothesis rather than real data but I would at least hazard a guess that this is kind of what happened.

IL-2 is still insanely fun when a bunch of people get together to collaborate on flying a dogfight or coop mission. I've had some great Stuka gaggles and bomber raids over the years. Even if we get massacred... its often hilarious to see what lengths people will go to to try and down a massed formation of TB-3 bombers for example

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Later on when other players were around they became less fun. I think what you tend to see is when the community is small, everyone gets to know each other and people try to be fair. When the community got larger then there was more anonymity and some personalities tend to become very self centered from there. This is more of a hypothesis rather than real data but I would at least hazard a guess that this is kind of what happened.

This happens to many group activities that suddenly become popular. It is to be expected. You surely are right on the spot.

Even so, balancing il2 scenarios is not an easy task. It is better to admit that one side have the advantage, and the other must show the guts to stop it whatever the odds. War is not fair.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by RPS69

This happens to many group activities that suddenly become popular. It is to be expected. You surely are right on the spot.

Even so, balancing il2 scenarios is not an easy task. It is better to admit that one side have the advantage, and the other must show the guts to stop it whatever the odds. War is not fair.

Indeed, it is such a complex environment that it is much more likely that one side has an edge in equipment over the other. Fortunately because of that complexity it means that usually as long as the other side has equipment with some pros that the other side does not that you can exploit that (turn fighters vs bnz, high alt vs low alt, heavier firepower versus less, roll rates, etc. etc.).

I do enjoy the against the odds types of scenarios. I used to go on the old 334th server and fly a Ki-100 against La-7s. The Ki-100 is a decent enough fighter but it is outclassed in such a wide open, every plane available, setup.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Indeed, it is such a complex environment that it is much more likely that one side has an edge in equipment over the other. Fortunately because of that complexity it means that usually as long as the other side has equipment with some pros that the other side does not that you can exploit that (turn fighters vs bnz, high alt vs low alt, heavier firepower versus less, roll rates, etc. etc.).

I do enjoy the against the odds types of scenarios. I used to go on the old 334th server and fly a Ki-100 against La-7s. The Ki-100 is a decent enough fighter but it is outclassed in such a wide open, every plane available, setup.

Well... at sometimes, mounting a duel Lagg3 vs Hurricanes II, it will be always won by the LaGG, just because the Hurri's bullets would do no damage to the LaGG. That's a very new correction on the game.

The other battle spoiler, but on the ground, was the Matilda tank. It will survive even 75mm shots from other tanks.

There are lots of funny behaviors on ground units, and some aircraft that could spoil a whole campaign if not well researched.

[ElAurens]

The Matilda had the best armor of any tank in the West until the Panzer V came along I do believe. The Germans in the desert used them whenever they could capture one intact. It's real weaknesses were it's lack of speed and it's puny gun.