Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fast Food Dogfight server


  • Please log in to reply
340 replies to this topic

#81 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 05 March 2011 - 17:35

Josh, using the altitude throttle at low level ruins the engine

I've never destroyed my engine using the afterburner, except when I over-revved it. The Hohengas is good for at least five minutes of low-altitude combat, as long as you understand that you are more likely to over-rev in diving turns and fly accordingly. But I've never had my engine die on me from using uberboost at low altitude for a few minutes. And that's all it takes.

Secondly, suggesting a duel must be a joke, because otherwise it would show a myopic and incorrect understanding of what air combat is about. Or do you think it would be interesting to watch me only engage you when I have an altitude advantage, and run away every time I do not?

Well, actually, sure, I'm cool with that. A SPAD XIII can have any altitude advantage he wants, and my money's still on the Fokker D.VIIF. The difference between these two aircraft is massive. I think you (and most people) aren't aware of just how completely the Fokker D.VIIF dominates the SPAD XIII; as I said, the SPAD is only superior on paper. If a SPAD engages a competent Fokker D.VIIF pilot alone, the SPAD is dead unless the D.VIIF pilot doesn't see him coming. Doesn't matter what kind of crazy altitude advantage he has; the D.VIIF can turn the tables in a few quick maneuvers.

Also note that the SPAD does not possess the ability to gain an altitude advantage over any Fokker D.VIIF that it spots. Even without the Fokker using his wonderful afterburner, the D.VIIF only climbs worse up to about 2500 meters. The SPAD cannot climb high enough over the Fokker to have a reasonable chance of surviving an engagement before the two aircraft reach that altitude and the Fokker begins to climb better. And again, that's without afterburner.
  • 0

#82 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 March 2011 - 17:55

Your thinking is constrained by the dueling scenario. Think outside of the 1vs1 engagement Josh. Actual combat conditions are not two pilots spotting each other co-alt, and then racing in a climb to see who can gain an altitude advantage. What is far more typical is for someone who took off 20-30min before his adversary spotting him below, and attacking him with a huge starting advantage.

The closest thing we have to WW1 combat conditions in RoF multiplayer is the Syndicate server on Vintage Mission days. I've flown the Spad 13 in those conditions against some of the best pilots we have flying the D.VIIF, and the only time the Spad 13 is truly in danger is if the pilot is bounced, i.e. suffers catastrophic SA failure (and that does happen from time to time ;)).

A SPAD XIII can have any altitude advantage he wants, and my money's still on the Fokker D.VIIF

Give me an altitude advantage and you will go broke. I will either A) shoot you down or B) dive/run away to safety. Below 3km the Spad 13 is probably the best fighter in the game because it can engage and disengage at will. Even above 3km, it can still disengage whenever the combat conditions have gone bad.
  • 0

#83 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 05 March 2011 - 19:26

I'm not only talking about a duelling scenario. I'm even talking about stuff like Syndicate. The SPAD XIII can only run away from a Fokker D.VIIF. If the former engages the latter without the greatest of advantages, he's dead. Altitude advantage alone won't cut it. The Fokker D.VIIF turns the tables with startling rapidity.

You're talking about a Syndicate-type situation. However, that isn't remotely what Fast Food is like. You know that. The SPAD never gets an opportunity to dive away, because the Fokker D.VIIFs are all on the deck. And of course if the SPAD tries to boom-and-zoom one, the Fokker will just prophang and nail him.

I think that you (and almost of the players) are rather unaware of all the Fokker D.VIIF is capable of. The thing is like a jet, comparatively. It is far more maneuverable than the SPAD XIII, and its "combat speed" is much higher than the SPAD XIII. (Combat speed was a term coined by a real fighter pilot to describe the effective speed in a normal combat situation; it's a combination of maximum speed and acceleration. If an airplane is almost as fast and accelerates much better, it has a higher combat speed.)
  • 0

#84 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 March 2011 - 20:14

Did you know that the D.VIIF's acceleration with full hohengass is only equal to the Spad's?
  • 0

#85 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 05 March 2011 - 20:41

The only thing insulting was to say no one else besides Matt or Josh Echo makes a balanced mission. The things I said about Josh are true. I'm not worried about embarrassing anyone, and my squad is on the same level that I am on this issue.

But I'm not gonna sit here and have this constant banter hinting at our "unbalanced" or "conspiracy theory" type missions you think everyone else has. I suggest you re-read what your buddy said (the insulting parts) and then you can finally learn that I can easily return the favor of insults already given.

And I'm a very nice person. Anyone that actually knows me, already knows this. But remember, if you're going to insult us or me personally, expect to have it returned in full force. I do not stand for it and it's sad to keep hearing it from people like you.

You replied to Josh's post. Josh's post did not mention your squadron or your server at all.

As far as I know Josh hardly plays on Syndicate. And once again he did not mention you, the Syndicate server or the syndicate squadron at all.

And you reply with this:

One day I hope you get a job, move out of your parents basement, and wake up to reality.

Get over yourself.

You say your squad is on the same level as you? I hope not. Let's stop this squadwar.

And Josh is not my buddy at all. Not any more than anyone else playing ROF is.
  • 0

#86 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 05 March 2011 - 21:29

gav, I really have to agree with Josh on this particular point. I've bounced many a D.VIIF pilot in a SPAD above 2km, and even with a successful first pass and an initial energy advantage, I usually end up dead. The D.VIIF can turn inside the SPAD with zero effort, can reverse on a dime without losing much speed, and can climb much more steeply, quickly, and prop hang to pepper you with rounds from below. It really does beat the SPAD hands-down in a medium to high altitude fight.

Last weekend I got a great bounce on J2_Adam, landed some hits, and tried to zoom away. He did a full 360' turn (late evasion) and still was able to climb / prop hang right up and damage me. He then followed me in an evasive dive to the deck from 2.5km without any trouble and finished his kill. Pretty frustrating.. probably not incorrect, just frustrating.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#87 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 March 2011 - 22:07

You need to be more conservative. Disengage before you even get to an equal energy state. That way you can convert your extra potential energy into kinetic energy for a safe extension.
  • 0

#88 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 05 March 2011 - 22:38

That's what I'm talking about with that "combat speed" thing. Even if an aircraft has better straight-and-level acceleration and top speed, if another aircraft accelerates better in climbs and turns and retains energy better through maneuvers, it can have a higher combat speed. For example, as Jay pointed out, you can be on a D.VIIF's dead six and disengage, and he can turn around and be right on you and gaining. He has higher combat speed. Reason? It's complicated, but it's generally about the concept I call "energy-angle."

Just as speed and altitude are the same resource, energy, so energy and "angle" are the same resource, which I call "E-angle." Energy can be traded for a favorable angle relative to the enemy aircraft, with the maximum being you behind him and the minimum being him behind you. Not that him being behind you is always a bad thing, of course. But I digress.

The point is, the Fokker D.VIIF has the best ability to transfer energy to an angle, and by doing so it actually retains and gains energy quicker than aircraft which have superior straight-and-level acceleration and top speed. In short, it's the ability to … ugh, you know, this is pointless.
  • 0

#89 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 06 March 2011 - 01:36

gav, seriously, it's me. You've flown against me plenty of times. You know that I know how to handle the SPAD, and when to disengage. In fact, if you read my post carefully, you'll note that A) I had an energy advantage when he turned on a dime, hung on his prop and damaged me and 2) I dove the shit out of my SPAD, from 2.5km to 0m, and he had no trouble following me – kept his alt throttle open the whole time. Nothing I could have done.

That's not to say that I shouldn't have gotten shot down or that the planes don't stack up correctly. I think they do. I'm just saying that the D.VII(f) has the SPAD's number if combat starts above 1000m. You ever run into one at 3km? It's hopeless.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#90 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 06 March 2011 - 03:07

gav, seriously, it's me. You've flown against me plenty of times. You know that I know how to handle the SPAD, and when to disengage. In fact, if you read my post carefully, you'll note that A) I had an energy advantage when he turned on a dime, hung on his prop and damaged me and 2) I dove the shit out of my SPAD, from 2.5km to 0m, and he had no trouble following me – kept his alt throttle open the whole time. Nothing I could have done.

That's not to say that I shouldn't have gotten shot down or that the planes don't stack up correctly. I think they do. I'm just saying that the D.VII(f) has the SPAD's number if combat starts above 1000m. You ever run into one at 3km? It's hopeless.


Slightly off topic:

Jay,

I do remember that particular engagement. It was the last time I fought you. In regards to the wide open altitude throttle, I had no sound indication that it was open at all! I usually turn it off before a dive. Having said that, I had been having many strange sound issues that day. For example, propeller sound and birds chirping but no engine or wind sound (yes, my engine was functioning properly). Those particular array of sounds happened more than once. There were other strange sound issues too, so, it is possible that I had inadvertently left my alt throttle on and simply could not hear it. But just you all know, flying around at low altitude with my alt throttle on AT ALL is something I don't do….on purpose anyway.

BTW since that day and a computer restart I've had no other sound issues.

Cheers

  • 0

#91 ATAG_Bliss

ATAG_Bliss
  • Posts: 927

Posted 06 March 2011 - 03:32

The only thing insulting was to say no one else besides Matt or Josh Echo makes a balanced mission. The things I said about Josh are true. I'm not worried about embarrassing anyone, and my squad is on the same level that I am on this issue.

But I'm not gonna sit here and have this constant banter hinting at our "unbalanced" or "conspiracy theory" type missions you think everyone else has. I suggest you re-read what your buddy said (the insulting parts) and then you can finally learn that I can easily return the favor of insults already given.

And I'm a very nice person. Anyone that actually knows me, already knows this. But remember, if you're going to insult us or me personally, expect to have it returned in full force. I do not stand for it and it's sad to keep hearing it from people like you.

You replied to Josh's post. Josh's post did not mention your squadron or your server at all.

As far as I know Josh hardly plays on Syndicate. And once again he did not mention you, the Syndicate server or the syndicate squadron at all.

And you reply with this:

One day I hope you get a job, move out of your parents basement, and wake up to reality.

Get over yourself.

You say your squad is on the same level as you? I hope not. Let's stop this squadwar.

And Josh is not my buddy at all. Not any more than anyone else playing ROF is.

Jorri,

You clearly didn't read anything your groupie said. But just to summarize: Josh said only him or Matt can make a balanced mission. Then he went on saying that the rest of the mission makers clearly make missions that favor one side or a particular group. That's when I laughed and made my comments clearly disagreeing with his insults about the other mission makers. I hope you finally understand or possibly learn to read the 3rd time I've said the same thing. That is insulting to the rest of the people that make missions and was an obvious stab at us. If you can't understand that, then I honestly don't think you can understand much of anything.

And there's no squad war. You jumped into a conversation that was not directed at you. And I jumped into one that was.
  • 0

#92 Sensenmann

Sensenmann
  • Posts: 381

Posted 06 March 2011 - 04:38

Hello Bliss, I see you are being nasty again :roll:

Here is a direct quote of Josh:

MattM does a good job of keeping planesets balanced, but aside from his and my own, I haven't seen any planesets that keep a reasonable balance. They always seem to be written for the advantage for a certain group of people, or else written by people who don't fully understand how the aircraft compare to each other under various conditions. Well, technically, any close-range mission that has both Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr.I is balanced, but that pretty much forces everyone to fly one of those aircraft.

Now I can see where you might think this statement could be implying other missions makers are incapable or unwilling to make balanced plane sets, but where is there any indication that the above quote has even the slightest hint of any malcontent being directed at you, your squadron, or your server? Seems you have a mighty big chip on your shoulder, coming in here leveling insults at others because you erroneously perceive a dig in your direction. So why this animosity that has you looking for insults where none were given?

Upon a time (before my attentions were diverted to other tasks) I made a good number of missions myself. Yet, as a mission maker not included in the two individuals Josh mentioned, I do not take any insult from Josh's comment. I do not see how anything he said could be construed as a thinly veiled insult directed at myself, or anyone else in particular. His comment is a general observation based on his opinions and experience. As such he is entitled to it. And being that his comments were not specifically directed at the missions on your server, there is no reason for your reaction.

In short: You are out of line.

You say you are a "very nice person", but so far I have seen very little to indicate you are anything of the sort. You really ought to try a different approach on these forums, as you are not making very many friends with such behavior.
  • 0

#93 ATAG_Bliss

ATAG_Bliss
  • Posts: 927

Posted 06 March 2011 - 05:04

Well the only thing I can suggest is you read that quote again. Because it says that only his or Matt has balanced planesets. Not only is that laughable, it's just plain wrong to everyone else out there that makes missions. And it's insulting to say the least.

If you don't see that, then you clearly are blinded. I'm not out of line in the slightest, btw. Everything I said about Josh is true. And the fact that he never plays on our server just further proves my point about him talking about planesets or balance in other people's missions.

But thanks for the kind and insightful comments. Coming from you, that means quite a bit :)
  • 0

#94 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 06 March 2011 - 05:53

Upon a time (before my attentions were diverted to other tasks) I made a good number of missions myself. Yet, as a mission maker not included in the two individuals Josh mentioned, I do not take any insult from Josh's comment. I do not see how anything he said could be construed as a thinly veiled insult directed at myself, or anyone else in particular. His comment is a general observation based on his opinions and experience. As such he is entitled to it.

Hmm, I do seem to have forgotten a few mission makers in my list of ones who spend the effort to balance planesets. O_Taipan comes to mind. RAF74_Winger, I think. A few others. I've never had the opportunity to fly your missions, Sensenmann, but no doubt you put a lot of effort into them as well. Thank you for not reading into and taking offense to my comment. The remark was off the top of my head; it wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list. I should've phrased it better, but the general sentiment stands: most mission makers don't seem to understand and care much about planeset balance. [shrug] Whatever pulls one's prop …
  • 0

#95 =FB=Vaal

=FB=Vaal
  • Developer
  • Posts: 2850

Posted 06 March 2011 - 11:17

Topic temporarily closed.
For further discussion of balance in the missions and d7f can create new topics.


update
topic unlock

  • 0

#96 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 March 2011 - 04:42

Hi Vaal,

Since you unlocked the thread, any ideas about what can be done to get the fight off of the Entente aerodrome when the Camel/Dr1 are not available? I take off from the rear aerodrome, but my choice seems to do little to change the dynamics. The fight seems to always be at the Entente air-spawn, and it's not as fun as when the fight is in the middle.
  • 0

#97 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 21 March 2011 - 04:56

Some ways that would work:
1. Limit D7f
2. Higher air start
3. Air start at back base
4. AAA machine gunners :)
5. Lock loadouts and give D7f only half bullets, they can't camp the base so long.

In terms of player strategy, a few jumping in a tripe with low fuel for a few minutes can clear the base as it's a good turner too.
The other defense is offense, when they do this crap I take a SPAD to their base and bounce them on the way to our base then head back over the lines as they burn lol. They aren't usually very happy.
  • 0

#98 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 21 March 2011 - 05:19

Some ways that would work:
1. Limit D7f

I wasn't kidding when I said this thing is imbalanced in that planeset. Last mission I flew when the Fokker D.VIIF was available and not the Sopwith Camel, the Central won every round and ended up with 71 kills to the Allies' 19 kills.
  • 0

#99 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:52

I guess the thread will get locked with this disscusion going into this direction again.
Still cant keep quiet - D.VIIf dosent have as much of an impact as you think. The Tripe just about outdoes anything the Central has in a low level airquake type fight. The only problem is the one gun, but I have won with the entente side many times when this plane set came on.
Its down to which side has the more experianced pilots and how they work together (which is most times no teamwork at all here - as soon as you have a good pair or a squad coming in the dynamic changes).

Josh - lets put this Tripe v D.VIIf thing to an end -> tonight. PM me for details.
  • 0

#100 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 March 2011 - 06:53

Can I ask a simple question? Is there a problem with the DVIIF being the only plane in the game that can compete with the spad on it's own terms? Do spad drivers EXPECT to be invincible?

Even in a dead-slow albatross or DIIIa a decent pilot can time his break from a booming spad attack and get an (admittedly) medium-range snap-shot at the Spad pilot desperately racing for safety.

This does depend on the defensive pilot being aware he's being attacked.

As far as certain plane-sets in missions being unbalanced goes, why do the majority of players crowd one side or the other if the sides are balanced? or take the ultimate sanction of deserting servers when particular missions come round on mission rotations?

I think my views are well-known but i will re-iterate them here. Vintage missions run on sundays with groups of like-minded (fairly hard-core) multiplayer pilots are very enjoyable because the missions objectives/orders etc are generally adhered to by players and pilots stick together. I have had some of my best RoF experiences in these missions BUT that's fine for an organised, timed event where everyone is flying in a disciplined manner.

The problem (imho) comes when these same missions are then expected to have the same result when put into general mission rotation. As i've said many times, we do not have the full choice of planes to accurately represent ANY period of WW1 and there are constraints on mission design and technical issues which further hinder accurate historical representation of WW1 air combat.

There are huge problems also when the servers are lightly populated…a mission that works well with 30 players in a large map does not obviously work so well with lower numbers.

Plane-sets aren't the only problem either if realism is the ultimate goal. Realistic fight altitudes, realistic flak levels, the 'flying Circus' (groups of up to 3 Jastas flying high patrols), the fact that most combat operations were into central territory and central were mainly fighting defensively.

I guess my main point is that labelling missions as historical is just plain wrong atm and mixing and matching plane-sets that are 'close' to historic given what we have tend to put Central at more of a disadvantage than perhaps historically accurate.

Assuming historical isn't possible for the reasons i've stated and others i've probably neglected to mention, perhaps it's time to aim more for balance than some sort of pseudo-accurate historical hybrid?

Part of the reason fast-food is so popular (beside the instant gratification) is the fact that love it, or hate it, it's totally fair (usually) when both sides get to choose whatever entente or central plane they like. It's not my favourite type of gameplay but it IS balanced.
  • 0

#101 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:40

Some ways that would work:
1. Limit D7f
2. Higher air start
3. Air start at back base
4. AAA machine gunners :)
5. Lock loadouts and give D7f only half bullets, they can't camp the base so long.

In terms of player strategy, a few jumping in a tripe with low fuel for a few minutes can clear the base as it's a good turner too.
The other defense is offense, when they do this crap I take a SPAD to their base and bounce them on the way to our base then head back over the lines as they burn lol. They aren't usually very happy.


That "defense" is becoming common habit for a lot of players on both sides and I do find it lame - that is to say it in nice words.

The problem that has been taken over from IL2 is that many of the good pilots (just as a few smartypants new pilots) think the ultimate tactic is to hang out at altitude close or over the enemy bases, looking for an easy kill ****ATTENTION, HERE IT COMES AGAIN**** to fed their stats.

That is called "perching" and is generally frowned upon by many of the skilled players in the IL2 community and worth a temporarly ban on most of the decent servers.

Once again, the problem is not in the planeset, as said on previous posts a million times on this thread and on this forum. It is the same with flying/parking bombers close to the DF area and it is the same for people "Spading" (term from the RB3d community - take a Spad, go for one bounce and immediately fly away without even putting up a fight).

Add to that, the only time I have seen Allies loose this planeset is when too many Spaders and new pilots try to mix it up with more experienced pilots. Generally, the allies are supposed to have the advantage at speed and usually altitude all the time with this planeset - asking for balance is probably the last favourable thing to do. Yes, the D7F can compete with the SPAD, but when at a disadvantage it becomes prey just like any other plane on the Central side.

Just a last note: when having more energy initially, an SE5 at 10% fuel is well able to compete in a manouvering fight with anything central fields in this planeset, but you did know that, right?
  • 0

#102 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 21 March 2011 - 07:48

Josh - lets put this Tripe v D.VIIf thing to an end -> tonight.

I'd love to. But it'll have to wait for a week or so—I've got a nightmarish number of college assignments I'm gonna be doing all at once.

Can I ask a simple question? Is there a problem with the DVIIF being the only plane in the game that can compete with the spad on it's own terms? Do spad drivers EXPECT to be invincible?

Even in a dead-slow albatross or DIIIa a decent pilot can time his break from a booming spad attack and get an (admittedly) medium-range snap-shot at the Spad pilot desperately racing for safety.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like these two paragraphs of yours kinda contradict each other. Besides, the Pfalz D.XII can compete with the SPAD XIII on the latter's terms … technically.

Anyway, even without the Fokker Dr.I and D.VIIF, the other Central aircraft are all more successful on that Fast Food mission than the SPAD XIII is.

Part of the reason fast-food is so popular (beside the instant gratification) is the fact that love it, or hate it, it's totally fair (usually) when both sides get to choose whatever entente or central plane they like. It's not my favourite type of gameplay but it IS balanced.

Not with D.VIIF but no Camel. It's only balanced on paper. In practice, on Fast Food, the D.VIIF is far more deadly than the SPAD XIII or S.E.5a. The only thing the SPAD effectively does better is avoid fights. I don't know why I'm apparently the only person in the world who can see that. I don't know why I even let myself get sucked into this debate again.
  • 0

#103 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:41

I guess the thread will get locked with this disscusion going into this direction again.
Still cant keep quiet - D.VIIf dosent have as much of an impact as you think. The Tripe just about outdoes anything the Central has in a low level airquake type fight. The only problem is the one gun, but I have won with the entente side many times when this plane set came on.
Its down to which side has the more experianced pilots and how they work together (which is most times no teamwork at all here - as soon as you have a good pair or a squad coming in the dynamic changes).

Josh - lets put this Tripe v D.VIIf thing to an end -> tonight. PM me for details.

YES - this was my other suggestion. Take a tripe and fly base defence for a bit. I love the SE5 and the SPAD but I've been flying the tripe a bit when they get close and low and it works!

I don't think this will lock the thread. The thread was locked before because of an unrelated squabble between two squads that spilled over into here unexpectedly.

The problem that has been taken over from IL2 is that many of the good pilots (just as a few smartypants new pilots) think the ultimate tactic is to hang out at altitude close or over the enemy bases, looking for an easy kill ****ATTENTION, HERE IT COMES AGAIN**** to fed their stats.

That is called "perching" and is generally frowned upon by many of the skilled players in the IL2 community and worth a temporarly ban on most of the decent servers.

Once again, the problem is not in the planeset, as said on previous posts a million times on this thread and on this forum. It is the same with flying/parking bombers close to the DF area and it is the same for people "Spading" (term from the RB3d community - take a Spad, go for one bounce and immediately fly away without even putting up a fight).

ROF is my first online combat flight sim experience, my IL-2 experience is limited to some offline Sturmovik rocket/bombing campaigns and some other messing around with bombers. I thought I had learnt most online ettiquette but please excuse my inexperience i didn't know it was bad to fight back as they do to you. I guess you're right as it's not always going to be the same people you hit back on… and two wrongs don't make a right :idea:

But it's interesting that the problem is not new and has a name. Fair enough if central "Perch" at the allied base, no need to drop to their level and fight back like that. But I think it highlights the problem EXISTS. I suggested several solutions, perching back is not really a long term solution and you can see this from your experience.

The problem being - airbases too CLOSE, and air start altitudes too LOW, and airbase defences being NON-EXISTANT.

Move the bases back, put some AAA, raise the air starts, and give an air start to the rear base and it will be alot harder to be overrun.
OR - do one or two of the above will help.

As for feeding of stats, have to agree to disagree. STATS as they are now are nonsense.
If one was concerned with stats, the worst plane to fly is the SPAD. Hit and run takes a very long time to achieve the same points as someone in a furball. The quickest way to raise your score and LAME-board position is to take a Dr1 on an air quake server and shoot everything you see. The type of planes that can fight multiple opponents is how stats are padded and these people have a huge number of points per minute. All a SPAD will do is ensure that you live long, and there is no LB for that as the current kill/death ratio is totally wrong (compare your hangar to the LB stats).
In addition - you are hardly penalised for dying, so to fly and kill until dead will pad your stats much quicker as there is no RTB or life extending flying to do. K/D ratio has no bearing on LB position either.

To put it simply, I think anyone that cares about LB stats are rare and I would like to see LB gone totally to see no more of both stat building activities (well known players have team killed me to steal a kill), and the whole risk of being accused of stat padding. But if you want to discuss stats/leaderboard please raise another post, I will happily post in favour of the problem there.

Just a last note: when having more energy initially, an SE5 at 10% fuel is well able to compete in a manouvering fight with anything central fields in this planeset, but you did know that, right?

Yes of course - when having more energy initially and 10% fuel on the deck. D7f flounders around like a fish for a little bit at zero deck energy, I know, and the rudder is crap. I kill lots of D7f with my SE5a, but against equal pilots in equal energy equal fuel of course the D7f is better. Everyone knows I'm mostly an allied flyer, but trying the D7f lately I'm getting more kills and quicker kills than flying SE5. Having said that I'm happy to fly against it and I'm not saying remove it, all I was suggesting was a solution to the base raping, one of 5 solutions. They don't all involve the D7f.

I am not biased to think Allied are hard done by - I acknowledge the camel has the advantage on the other map with more speed than the Dr1 (and same turn rate). The missions are ALMOST balanced as they are, just each side takes turns in having the slightly better plane.

I also acknowledge that the Albatros should be faster than they are and need an engine upgrade :)
  • 0

#104 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:55

Fair points Taipan and I definately agree - two wrongs don't make it right and a solution is definately needed.

Btw, I don't want to start another stat discussion, any attempt so far has had a lot of backup from the guys posting here, still every server has the stats turned on. Another thread would be just a futile attempt. My point was however, that the guys you find perching are usually the more experienced guys (a few known to be dedicated stat whores) that could otherwise contribute to their team's effort in winning a map.

Don't forget, the whole point behind perching is to get as many easy kills as possible, if that's not stat-whoring at it's best I really got no clue about the whole issue ;)
  • 0

#105 =FB=Vaal

=FB=Vaal
  • Developer
  • Posts: 2850

Posted 21 March 2011 - 09:56

OMG… Again…
Fighting pilots, but not airplanes.
I'm not the best pilot SE5, often dying, not enough patience. VikS flies much better than I SE5. But I can successfully fight on the SE5 when there is no Camel))
The main thing is to use the strengths of each aircraft.

Video from FF.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=oRFBfqmqDVo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=B3gGFW1tfQo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KJUeMNWrSg8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

and Saving private VikS =) As always I am lost))
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jqFUPf_Sfog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">


About fight over airfield.
Provide all options for events is not possible. We start in the air and if you can not get rid of your opponent's spawn - it means the opponent is much stronger or more in number.
  • 0

#106 ZaltysZ

ZaltysZ
  • Posts: 1638

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:42

2. Higher air start

High air starts are "evil" in such servers, because basically everything becomes a sequence of "dive, kill, die, dive, kill…" or in other words, killed players gain immediate advantage over their killers. Looks twisted to me. I would better be perched knowing that opponent had patience to get into advantageous position, than knowing that he is is there just because someone shot him. :)
  • 0

#107 hq_Overmax

hq_Overmax
  • Posts: 358

Posted 21 March 2011 - 10:57

The bombers just start too high. On the lake map without Camels and Dr.1 the entente airfield got baseraped by the whole central team. So i took a Handley Page from the airfield further back and shoot quiet a few planes, but the mission was nearly over. When in doubt use a bomber i'd say. :lol:

Higher airstart won't fix anything. The uneven fights will just take place further up. A real solution is not there except for some ground fire on the airfield maybe.
  • 0

#108 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 21 March 2011 - 11:11

OMG… Again…
Fighting pilots, but not airplanes.
I'm not the best pilot SE5, often dying, not enough patience. VikS flies much better than I SE5. But I can successfully fight on the SE5 when there is no Camel))
The main thing is to use the strengths of each aircraft.

Video from FF.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=oRFBfqmqDVo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=B3gGFW1tfQo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KJUeMNWrSg8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

and Saving private VikS =) As always I am lost))
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jqFUPf_Sfog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">


About fight over airfield.
Provide all options for events is not possible. We start in the air and if you can not get rid of your opponent's spawn - it means the opponent is much stronger or more in number.

And that post (and the vid) exactly shows what I meant earlier. It's not like some big bad mission designer is putting up a biased missions as the SE5 is really one of the superlative fighters that close to the deck.

The problem is, that flying an SE like that requires to think out of the box and be more creative in your manouvers than holding the stick back, no matter if it is to climb or to turn.
  • 0

#109 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:06

Well, there can be a problem if the "skill balance" is disregarded by the pilots, but this is true for any mission.

Very frequently I see entente doing well in the missions without Camel/Dr.I/Pup. I am not going to deny that usually a lot of good pilots fly entente in those missions, but they fly there very often so it can be expected that the entente team knows what to do. So basically every time I fly on FF there are good pilots on either side so usually there is no issue with balance.

However a few days ago teams were 5 Central vs 3 Entente, about 3 D.VIIFs were flying, a Pfalz D.IIIa and an Albatros D.Va. The entente team was simply too small to cover each other and the D.VIIF and D.IIIa were extremely nasty and as soon as you did one attack on one of them the other one would be glued to your six.
But from my experiences the server usually has more people playing and not soon after some more entente pilots joined (mostly Russians :D) and the central team was getting kicked in the butt eventually.

and Saving private VikS =) As always I am lost))
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jqFUPf_Sfog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
I think that's my S.E.5a flying past your plane at 3:20 :D Tried to help you but there were just too many of them :x
  • 0

#110 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 March 2011 - 12:21

Once again, the problem is not in the planeset, as said on previous posts a million times on this thread and on this forum.

Exactly. Isn't there something that can be done with game mechanics? Of all people, if I like the Dr1/Camel maps more than the other ones, then you know something is really screwed up.
  • 0

#111 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 21 March 2011 - 13:30

Well, I'm done with this discussion, I think. Peter, I'd love to do that duel, and will do so as soon as we have some free time together. As for this Fast Food mission, I'm going to do what I stated I'd be doing, and have started doing: if the Allies are getting their butts kicked by the Fokker D.VIIF, then I'm going to switch to Central and start flying a D.VIIF too, and team balance be damned. [smile]

I'm tired of being the Nice Guy who loses because he's fighting outnumbered in an inferior fighter, because he's trying to keep the teams even.
  • 0

#112 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 21 March 2011 - 14:14

2. Higher air start

High air starts are "evil" in such servers, because basically everything becomes a sequence of "dive, kill, die, dive, kill…" or in other words, killed players gain immediate advantage over their killers. Looks twisted to me. I would better be perched knowing that opponent had patience to get into advantageous position, than knowing that he is is there just because someone shot him. :)

They are only diving on you because you are at their airbase :o

Don't hangout there and you'll be fine :)
  • 0

#113 ZaltysZ

ZaltysZ
  • Posts: 1638

Posted 21 March 2011 - 14:18

They are only diving on you because you are at their airbase :o

Don't hangout there and you'll be fine :)

I am talking about the middle between the bases.
  • 0

#114 Armincles

Armincles
  • Posts: 514

Posted 21 March 2011 - 14:20

I agree with Josh,that the balance is a problem. Corsairs and Mercenaries with equal planes available would fix that.
Only thing would be friendly icons ,but because it is not a realistic vintage server anyway it should be acceptable. :)
  • 0

#115 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 21 March 2011 - 14:31

OMG… Again…
Fighting pilots, but not airplanes.
I'm not the best pilot SE5, often dying, not enough patience. VikS flies much better than I SE5. But I can successfully fight on the SE5 when there is no Camel))
The main thing is to use the strengths of each aircraft.

Video from FF.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=oRFBfqmqDVo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=B3gGFW1tfQo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KJUeMNWrSg8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

and Saving private VikS =) As always I am lost))
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jqFUPf_Sfog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

About fight over airfield.
Provide all options for events is not possible. We start in the air and if you can not get rid of your opponent's spawn - it means the opponent is much stronger or more in number.

And that post (and the vid) exactly shows what I meant earlier. It's not like some big bad mission designer is putting up a biased missions as the SE5 is really one of the superlative fighters that close to the deck.

The problem is, that flying an SE like that requires to think out of the box and be more creative in your manouvers than holding the stick back, no matter if it is to climb or to turn.

Vaal - pilots are not fighting we are having a discussion and giving some feedback.

Nothing is wrong with the SE5 today I had a go with a 12/1 ratio. Just before that in the camel/dr1 mission I tried Fd7f against HP for a 5/5 ratio. So it's the damn bombers that are more lethal than any plane !! :lol:

People's complaint is just the bases get overrun sometimes. We can go to the back base to be able to climb. But how about rear base air start please? At the moment no one else uses the rear base because they have to take off, they cant be bothered with mixture etc.

Also by the way I lost my manners. I have forgotten to say THANK YOU for running a mission without Camel/Dr1. It's the only way the rest of our 20 plane hangar can be enjoyed fully and competitively. So thankyou I do like giving the camel/dr1 a miss and also not having to compete with them "mopping up" our fights. Also THANK YOU for allied vs central. That old corsairs vs mercenaries was horrid and the worst for the game. The fact that FF is busy and Corsairs is not says what people want.
  • 0

#116 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 21 March 2011 - 15:02

Yeah, I must say, in spite of my desire for even balance, I'm not a fan of same-sides planesets, because I can't stand icons. If icons are available in a server, I turn mine off, which would leave me no way of telling friend from foe, unless it's a duel mission.
  • 0

#117 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 March 2011 - 16:46

Here's the deal. When there are unlimited respawns, and one side has better turning aircraft, that side will put pressure on the other side's aerodromes because their aircraft require less time to re-enter combat. With the SE5 and Spad, the Entente pilots must get some altitude before heading into the fray, and that means a slower turn around time after death or landing. For example, it frequently happens that I shoot down a CP pilot who was trying to attack SE5s or Spads as they spawn out (to prevent them from gaining altitude? for an easy kill?), and minutes later that same CP pilot is back to do it again. Shooting down the enemy does nothing to blunt the advantage of less preparation time to be effective in combat.

So what about this? Move the aerodromes further apart when the DR1 and Camel are not available. More than anything else, an extra two or three minutes before the CP can spawn-camp the Entente aerodrome might have a very positive impact on the fight dynamics.
  • 0

#118 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 21 March 2011 - 16:50

Hmm. Farther apart means higher average engagement altitude, which means even more Fokker D.VIIF domination.
  • 0

#119 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 March 2011 - 17:17

You are incorrigible sometimes. :x

Really, think the idea through for a moment, Josh. The "advantage" of the CP planeset in this case is not maneuverability, acceleration, speed, or any combination of those things. It is the time required to effectively re-enter combat.

D.VIIF pilots come in with an altitude advantage right now. What I'm proposing is that it be more difficult for the CP side to saturate the Entente aerodrome with spawn-campers.
  • 0

#120 Parazaine

Parazaine
  • Posts: 1902

Posted 21 March 2011 - 17:18

Josh - lets put this Tripe v D.VIIf thing to an end -> tonight.

I'd love to. But it'll have to wait for a week or so—I've got a nightmarish number of college assignments I'm gonna be doing all at once.

Can I ask a simple question? Is there a problem with the DVIIF being the only plane in the game that can compete with the spad on it's own terms? Do spad drivers EXPECT to be invincible?

Even in a dead-slow albatross or DIIIa a decent pilot can time his break from a booming spad attack and get an (admittedly) medium-range snap-shot at the Spad pilot desperately racing for safety.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks to me like these two paragraphs of yours kinda contradict each other. Besides, the Pfalz D.XII can compete with the SPAD XIII on the latter's terms … technically.

Anyway, even without the Fokker Dr.I and D.VIIF, the other Central aircraft are all more successful on that Fast Food mission than the SPAD XIII is.

Part of the reason fast-food is so popular (beside the instant gratification) is the fact that love it, or hate it, it's totally fair (usually) when both sides get to choose whatever entente or central plane they like. It's not my favourite type of gameplay but it IS balanced.

Not with D.VIIF but no Camel. It's only balanced on paper. In practice, on Fast Food, the D.VIIF is far more deadly than the SPAD XIII or S.E.5a. The only thing the SPAD effectively does better is avoid fights. I don't know why I'm apparently the only person in the world who can see that. I don't know why I even let myself get sucked into this debate again.

You quote me and then fail to read the meaning of my quote for a second time…I will highlight the relevent part 'DVIIF being the only plane in the game that CAN COMPETE WITH THE SPAD ON IT'S OWN TERMS'

The second paragraph describes a situation where the central aircraft is being boomed at a disadvantage and not ON THE SAME TERMS.

There is nothing contradictory about the two paragraphs. The DVIIF is a fantastic plane AT ALTITUDE but not so good dogfighting down low.

How you can not see that the Spad is almost unbeatable when flown correctly (and there are some very good pilots out there that use it's full capabilities) eludes me.

Your other point about flying crappy aircraft to balance the sides….i'm in total agreement, i hardly get the chance to fly central these days due to stacked teams (I think we all know the reasons for this, easier to fly planes so all the newer pilots fly them)

You selectively choose situations to support your arguments….what is more balanced than fast food? The thing that fast food does is exaggerate the 'uber' plane differences on both sides (by that I mean that Camels, DR1's Pups, Spads, DVIIF's and SE5a's rule.

Oh and IF the only thing the Spad did was avoid fights effectively (it was a french plane after all :P ) that is one thing that only 2 central aircraft are capable of and half the entente air force can do effectively.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users