In the works

[cyrano01]

Thought I might as well thrown in my two penn'orth.

(1)Sounds good, do it on Monday!

(2)I actually rather like this. I sometimes feel that the uniqueness of pilots provided by skills just gets lost in a tidal wave of additions and deductions coming from everyone who is anyone having 6 or 8 skills in a broadly similar composition. Greater pilot uniqueness seems to me to offer better opportunities for tactical sharpness.

(3) Sounds OK to me. Follows on pretty directly from (2).

(4) Hmm. Not sure about this. My more experienced pilots really have their work cut out against AI fighters which go into the fray with enough Draw Extra Cards to be pulling 1 per turn in any case. If (1) above reduces this then some reduction might be OK. I am ambivalent about this one.

(5) I can see the thrust behind this. Given that skill costs increase dramatically at the higher levels anyway, even now, the net effect will pretty well be to stop leader progression in its tracks until the wingman catches up. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not.

[bartbert]

There's about 4000 EXP difference between these guys but their opponents seem to be very similar.

We have about 8 "levels" of AI pilots defined right now, from complete newbie (no skills) to the uber-pilots with all the skills we could throw at you. Once you hit that highest level, there's just nowhere else to go. In the future, we would prefer to work on making the AI "smarter" rather than throw more skills at the problem.

Also I note that AI pilots never by "redraw"??

The AI pilots don't have the "Redraw" skill because it would require additional AI logic coding for them to be able to "decide" when to use the skill. We'll get around to it one of these days.

[Guest Mike]

That's probably a good thing, 'cos those almost-40-pt pilots give my "120 pt" pilots just as hard a time as they give my "mere" 70 pt pilots!!

[ December 04, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Sixxkiller]

Krikies, I leave for 1 day and DIF has major news.

-Ray

[Guest Mike]

While we've got your attention Six-k, what was that stuff you talked about a few days ago about getting more EXP if you kill the target pilot??

[Sixxkiller]

Hi Stalin. I always thought when the enemy pilot died you seemed to get more exp.

-Ray

[Fred19]

Some people like to play against bots, others like to play against a human opponent. When we bought the game there was no hint that you get "punished" when playing against the AI. So I would leave that point as it is now.

Just my two euro-cents.

[Guest Mike]

I've now got a pilot who can buy a skill for 11,000 EXP if I want to!! :eek:

That's just the most expensive of course - there's a few others at a mere 2-4000........

And my top ranked pilot, part of a 188 pt section, has just been hsot down twice in a row without making a kill in either mission, losing over 150 EXP's in the process - fortunately he didnt' lose his ED in either case.....there wsa a serious sigh of relief each time :mad:

[ December 05, 2005, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Ron]

1.- A welcome change and looking forward to it. I woold think this alone would faciliate more player vs player matches. The current system makes it very difficult for players to match pilots to get a game going. Another idea that was floated here was to make the players offering a game visible above the chat window. Is this being looked into?

2.- I'm ambivalent about this one. I understand where you are coming from, but I think it would detract unnecessarily from the roleplaying aspect and seeing your Pilots progress. As is stands now it is virtually impossible to get another skill past 8 or 9, in some cases even 7 depending on your purchase order. My top pilot accumulates over 300 fatigue every mission, worse if he gets shot down, and the next possible skill(Starting Energy) is a whopping 8000+ points - the highest 35000+ points. Obviously with the fatigue rotations of the other 3 Pilots, all very good now also, it is impossible to go any further. He won't be getting any better and as it is I am flying him fatigued regularly without ED!!

With a variation of 7-9 skills my Pilots are all sufficiently different and I fly them accordingly in style and missions. A reduction in skills to 3 permanent ones will probably make them all clones, as there are some skills that are 'must-haves'. A huge negative IMO for replayability. What about a compromise if that is the direction you think is best, ie 5-6 permanent skills?

3.- An excellent idea. A big playability plus.

4.- Don't really care about this either way, though some simply like to play the AI I assume and I don't know how that would be good for the game.

5.- Yes a much needed change. The main reason I fly Escort missions is so my Wingmen usually get some XP. I agree with the poster above who said the Leader should still be getting a little 'more' - he is the Leader afterall!

Unrelated to the proposed changes, but something you changed awhile ago in the Higher AI skill set was good in some aspects but not so good in others. The AI Team really suffers from not having the 'Spoil Aim' skill and I think the Leader would be better off with the 'Stay with Him' skill instead of the 'Shake him Off' one given the AI trait of almost always following the Player altitude changes. 9 times out of 10 I let the AI go, for obvious reasons!

Ron

[Harv]

Originally posted by Fred19:

Some people like to play against bots, others like to play against a human opponent. When we bought the game there was no hint that you get "punished" when playing against the AI. So I would leave that point as it is now.

Just my two euro-cents.

I've though of this also, but instead of being punished for playing against the AI, consider yourself being richly rewarded for playing against humans.

Which brings up another question...which (if any) of these changes will be carried over to the local game?

[bartbert]

Which brings up another question...which (if any) of these changes will be carried over to the local game?

I think the local version of the game would get all of the same changes except #4 (since they have no choice but to play against the AI).

[Fred19]

Harv, some of us have their reasons to play against bots more often than against humans.

I have to pause the game every couple of minutes because I have to leave the computer. Don't think a human opponent would appreciate to spend half an hour on one game.

[Mistura]

Here is my 2 cents on all the points.

1. A BIG YES.

2. No. Here is an idea. Players can pick there first 2 skills. After that the skills are given to you randomly. Say a player has enough XP to get his 3rd skill. Lets just say it's 200 XP to buy his 3rd skill. The SYSTEM would randomly pick a new skill that the pilot does not already have. Be it Quick Reflexes or Zoom Climb. Any new skill would double the cost to buy. Say 200-400-800-1600 etc... This is the only way to have unique pilots instead of fighting clones of each other. I'm not sure how hard this is to do, but it's just an idea. Plus Get rid of being able to buy the 2:Destroyed Card.

3. Yes. See #2 above.

4. A GREAT BIG YES.

5. Great idea.

This is only my little 2 cents. I would like to Thank the DIF team for the effort to improve an already GREAT GAME. Keep up the great job.

[ December 05, 2005, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Mistura ]

[Northstar]

I'm not a "power player", but I thought I'd throw in my $0.02!

1) Excellent idea! The guy who suggested it is brilliant! (Do a forum search! )

2)I'm somewhat ambivalent about this one, but I don't think I like it. My best pilot right now has about 550 XP, and he's been playing since demo! I've been lapped so many times so far, I'm getting dizzy! A change reducing the number of skills each person can have would mean that I (or someone like me) will NEVER get to use any of the skills. I really don't think that the number of skills is an issue here, especially since the re-balancing from number one will help in finding even matchups. I can see a slight increase in skill costs, but a wholesale massive upward change seems excessive. If the issue is taking advantage of the AI, see my comments to number 4 below.

3) Seems a bit gamey, but OK. I guess it'll give us a chance to test out skills we wouldn't normally buy. I also like the idea of not being able to buy the IMS:D. I assume that these extra skills will count towards the point balancing? Or will they be treated as a extra advantage for one game only?

4) This seems OK, but does penalize people who either like to play the AI, or prefer to play people but can't find anyone or any suitable matches. If this is also an attempt at controlling the "runaway skill" issue in #2, then maybe it should be implemented in rolling fashion. Perhaps players up to some low point value -- those trying to get pilots started or just learning the game -- should get full value from AI fights (these games don't earn an awful lot of XPs anyway). At this point, a penalty could kick in, and get more severe as the pilots get more experianced. This way, new pilots would be able to move up at a decent clip, but uber-pilots won't be able to pick on the poor AI and become...uh...even more uber. (This is not a problem I think I will ever have!)

5. I like this a lot as well. Now losing wingmen won't permanently cripple the team.

All in all, I like everything except the skill reduction issue. I think you should review that one a bit more carefully. However, I'm really glad to see you guys continuing to work on this game and try to make it and the community the best they can be.

Keep up the good work!

[Mistura]

Hi all. I did forget to also say for question #2

in my last post that players should be able to battle anyone within 2 skills of each other. Say a player has 2 skills. That player could battle anyone with 0-4 skills. It doesn't matter what the skills are just so they are within the limit of skills. Players would be able to find more opponents that way. For some of us it's real hard to find anyone to battle because of XP. Plus anyone complains that the other pilot has better skills so what. Nothing is fair in combat. Only winning.

[Guest Mike]

The more I think about it the more I liek the idea of sharing EXP by some means of assessing the amount of work each piot has done.

I'd quite like to see a measure of how successful each pilot was in playing their cards - I'd be tempted to award 2 pts for each Wingman card successfully played or able to be played but not played (eg not taking the last shot so the leader can get the kill), and 1 pt for each one unsucessfully played, and 1 pt for each leader card successfully played.

The difference is based on the wingie normally being used to "set up" a target and making it easier for the leader to get the kill........well that's what mine do

So let's say a leader plays 60 cards, of which 40 are successful, then he gets 40 pts.

If the wingman plays 24 cards, of which 12 are successful and 2 not used then he gets (12+2) * 2 = 28, plus 10 for the unsuccessful cards, for a total of 38.

EXPs for fighting are then awarded to the 2 pilots in the ratio of 40:38 (Leader:Wingman).

Alternatively you might look at the ratio of points awarded to the cards played - in this case the Leader would have 67% (40/60), the wingman would have 158% (38/24), and the EXP's would be split in the ratio of 67:158.

Presumably bomber escort/intercept EXP's are awarded as they are now, so this would only apply to those EXP's gained for combat with enemy fighters.

[Dan Verssen]

HARV!!!

Great to see you again!

My pilots are going to rack up sooooo many more kills now that you're back.

[bartbert]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

The more I think about it the more I liek the idea of sharing EXP by some means of assessing the amount of work each piot has done.

I'd quite like to see a measure of how successful each pilot was in playing their cards - I'd be tempted to award 2 pts for each Wingman card successfully played or able to be played but not played (eg not taking the last shot so the leader can get the kill), and 1 pt for each one unsucessfully played, and 1 pt for each leader card successfully played.

Very early versions of the game did something similar to what you described. It's a bit hazy now, but as I recall, we awarded points for successfully attacking, or countering an attack. We gave points for each turn spent advantaged/tailing, and bonus points for successfully playing certain cards (IMS 2:Destroyed, Half Loop, etc.)

I can't remember the reasons for abandoning that approach for the current method, but I think it just came down to being simpler to track aircraft damaged and destroyed (both for us, and for the players). Plus, tracking points for damaged and destroyed aircraft was a better indicator for who "won" the dogfight.

[Harv]

Originally posted by Dan Verssen:

My pilots are going to rack up sooooo many more kills now that you're back.

Bah. Let a guy win a couple of games and suddenly he thinks he ownz you. I like to think of losing to you more along the lines of letting the boss win occasionally in order to keep my job.

As soon as Canaduh Post delivers my loooong awaited copy I'd be more than happy to have a little rematch in the Solomons some day though.

Originally posted by bartbert:

I can't remember the reasons for abandoning that approach for the current method, but I think it just came down to being simpler to track aircraft damaged and destroyed (both for us, and for the players). Plus, tracking points for damaged and destroyed aircraft was a better indicator for who "won" the dogfight.

IIRC, it was that downing aircraft is the only thing that really counts in aerial combat. All the fancy aerobatics and perfect maneuvers mean nothing if your opponent is able to come back and shoot you down tomorrow.

Also, determining the "best" maneuver could be quite subjective also. Trying to determine what is the correct card to play might make judging Olympic figure skating start to look easy.

[Guest Mike]

No - downing aircraft only counted for the "score" - there were a few famous cases of pilots who became Ace's in 1 day - but that didnt' make them better pilots the day after in proportion to their victories!!

By the end of WW2 allied fighter pilots were getting about 250 hours instruction before becoming operational IIRC - german ones maybe 50 - often less. Neither had shot down an aircraft and yet the allied ones were much better piltos than the German ones.

I recall reading an anecdote from WW1 that the ONLY skill that mattered in aeriel combat was a good eye for deflection shooting - aparently some of hte earlier aces were very poor pilots, but they could hit every time they fired - which didnt' have tobe all that often.

That said I can certainly understand that it's easier to code for planes shot down!

[Harv]

I don't quite understand what you're saying Stalin...if downing aircraft didn't matter for anything more than the score, then what was used to determine success?

Not trying to argue unnecessarily, but I'm confused as to how a pilot would think his side won a small aerial battle when they'd all been shot down and captured, even though they'd been well trained, were good pilots and performed all the "correct" maneuvers when needed.

[Stalker]

I am concerned about the focus on player vs player. The anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in people (and humanity in general has a lot of "bad" to offer). I for one tend to only play on-line with people I know. People are much more polite when they know they have to face you in person again sometime.

A continued focus on "encouraging player vs player" will only serve to drive away people like me who have been burned by others abusing the anonymity of the internet.

If you change the system to give less xp against bots online than local, you will drive me to local only. That has the opposite effect of what you were intending.

[bartbert]

We're following this public discussion with great interest, and I can assure you that there is a parallel internal discussion taking place.

The idea of encouraging human vs. human play by reducing the amount of XP gained against AI opponents does not seem to be very popular with you guys based on the feedback received so far.

We still think encouraging human vs. human play is good for the game in the long run because it helps build community. But there are other things we can do to achieve that goal. Rather than impose negative consequences for playing against the AI, we're thinking that it might be better to provide positive incentives for playing against humans. We haven't decided what those positive incentives might be yet, but hopefully this approach would be better received.

[Mistura]

Hi all. I like playing against an other player, and yes I like to rib a person now and than by saying "Nice Chute" or " Is the air cold up here" after I shoot them down. I like to talk also when My pilots are swinging in the breeze "This thing really works" etc.. So don't be scared to battle me. My planes are easy to shoot down. Ask Moon. He Took control of my pilots first turn last night. I was trying to play a loop on him and it wouldn't let me. I clicked it like a dozen times until the timer ran out. Than it discarded all my good cards. Ace Pilot, Loop. My OOTS1:2 That I paid for, and my V-Roll. Than Moon toyed with me until he got tired and shot me down. I have my "EYE" on you now Moon.

[ December 06, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Mistura ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Harv:

I don't quite understand what you're saying Stalin...if downing aircraft didn't matter for anything more than the score, then what was used to determine success?

Not trying to argue unnecessarily, but I'm confused as to how a pilot would think his side won a small aerial battle when they'd all been shot down and captured, even though they'd been well trained, were good pilots and performed all the "correct" maneuvers when needed.

There's a difference between success and skill tho' - certainly shooting down enemy a/c is a measure of success, but it is not a measure of skill.

A very skilled pilot might never have shot down a single enemy a/c in his whole life - look at the aeril GP races they have around the place these days - IIRC it's called the "Red Bull" series & I've seen it in TV a few times.

Or the effects of "Top gun" and "Red Flag" and similar training courses and exercises - often they're training up pilots who have had zero combat experience - but when those pilots DO get into combat they are much better than pilots who have not done the training. And yet no-one gets shot down