Buzzing Topics on the realitymod forums

[Celestial1]

Originally Posted by Eavy Gunner

Yes. Life is like this. You dont see premier league footballist's losing but smiling because they had fun while getting their arses handed to them because they knew they did something critically wrong. You've got to appreciate that the majority of PR players live in capitilist countries, and so they must capitilize on others, via winning. Its human instinct to want to be the best, and that little "winning" sign is like a big hug for that instinct.

While it's lovely that you want to try and create some sort of "everybody's a winner" uptopia, everything has winner's and loser's.

The idea isn't to make 'everyone a winner'. Yeah, it's removing 'losing' from the gamemode... but you can still tell if your team did a horrible job, or a great job, and the end-round scores could reflect that. If you get 2 caches, you can tell your team did pretty badly. But that won't stop you from having enjoyed the game; even football players can see the good side of the game... They may have pulled off an amazing play, only for the rest of their game to run short.

They won't walk off smiling. They will still have lost. It's just that they have a better option to focus on each cache's fight (cache 1 was a quick, quiet fight and there was minimal casualties, whereas cache 7 was a hard battle that used up a lot of tickets in assaulting) instead viewing the round as a whole.

Originally Posted by snooggums

The pilot kits are already useless for non pilots, there's no real reason to restrict them.

There is only one thing in regards to restricting pilot kits, and that is ensuring that the kit could only be requested from the vehicle/main so that no one in the battle grabs a pilot kit and has his 'lols' and loses his team 10 tickets in 30 seconds.

Originally Posted by Eavy Gunner

I think the rescuing will drain too many resources away from the main objective, which is winning the battlefield. with only 32 player's on a team, I think rescuing a pilot will contribute to losing because of the loss of man power needed to hold the objectives.

How often do you see transport helicopters (1 or more at a time) sitting on deck waiting for a mission? I don't know about others, but whenever I played one of the water-borne assault maps (Jabal, Muttrah, Barracuda), there would be heavy use of transport helicopters during the first 30 minutes of play, and shortly after only sporadic use. Sometimes a squad would be wiped and instead of spawning on a friendly firebase will spawn at main to get reinserted on the beach or on a new assault location. This is about the extent of pilot missions, and most times there isn't more than 3 squad-respawns on deck during the game.

The manpower wasted would be the ones that go horrendously out of their way to pick up the pilot, whereas a transport helicopter is often available for the pickup, and often an APC is being used in a way that isn't truly beneficial to the team (strykers trying to act as a heavy IFV instead of a transport), and have the speed to devote going in alone and quickly rescuing the pilot.

However, what's to say that the pilot HAS to be rescued? If your team is out of the way, it isn't absolutely necessary to go rescue him. There's incentive (tickets saved) but it's no worse letting him die on the ground than having him be killed in the air.

And the lock on removing seems a bit of unneeded unrealism, the current system of flaring and missles is fine in my opinion. The cannon usually acts as extra anti air ,times when you don't have enough time for a lock, when your very close or for ground attack.

I agree in regards to removing the lock-on missles. How about in regards to my post? Did you get to read it? I think some of the bits I suggested might balance out AA to have longer range engagement abilities, which would reflect some of it's dominance in terms of controlling airspace.

In short, here's what I proposed:

-AA has lock-on and engagement range of 1000+m, my original thought was 1500m.
-AA now locks on to friendly aircraft. Unfortunately, this could cause a bit of mayhem when a new player to PR picks up the AA kit, and thinks 'ooh box i can fire now' and then gets 8 teamkills. Luckily, not too many newer PR players grab AA kits on their first rounds, so I don't think it would be a large issue.
-Handheld AA has no HUD whatsoever; Lock tones will indicate locks and visual confirmation/assuring that no friendly fire is involved/ensuring that the shot has the best potential to hit (not locking onto flares) is required by these devices.
-AAVs have lock-HUD, but only for the target it is locked on to. Lock tones will indicate that you are beginning to lock, and then a steady lock tone and the lock-box around the target will ensure that you are locked on to your particular target. No other lockable targets show up on screen, so flares will have to be avoided manually instead of watching the green boxes pop up; you can fire the missle from beyond visual range, but a flaring helicopter could easily divert the missile long before it reaches it's target.
(AA platforms that are built by firebase would be subjected to whichever is more realistic for the launcher's configuration. I would assume that the launchers depicted in game have a HUD due to the bulky eye-piece when manning the AA.

Let me know what you think should be changed. I'm really iffy on the Friendly Fire issue, because it could really cause some issues but I think that it's one of the only real ways to balance the huge engagement range of the launcher.

[snooggums]

Originally Posted by Celestial1

There is only one thing in regards to restricting pilot kits, and that is ensuring that the kit could only be requested from the vehicle/main so that no one in the battle grabs a pilot kit and has his 'lols' and loses his team 10 tickets in 30 seconds.

Which is a solution to a problem that having the kit worth tickets creates. Instead of creating problems and solving them the better thing would be to make a change that doesn't cause problems.

And when it comes to pilot suggestions, why are pilots so important in PR? Pilots already get to play with the in demand air assets, why does the rest of the team have to suddenly treat them like royalty and have the pilot not lose tickets for their asset if they eject like every other vehicle? It's suggestions like 'snipers should be speshul lolz!' and 'pilots need gunz lolz!' when it's clear they can't be responsible already that make me dislike the air assets and snipers in general more and more.

Why do you want to make a pilot worth rescuing? Why not any other soldier? What is so special about pilots that they need special rules different than everyone else?

When it comes to air assets they need to be treated like every other asset. When tanks get blown up on Kashan in short order, leave them at main and use a different approach. When air assets get shot down, keep them grounded. When infantry gets wiped off an area, bring assets to the fight instead of rushing in. But in all cases air is just another asset and does not deserve special rules.

Re: transport choppers and not being needed after the first 30 minutes. I ran a transport chopper squad on Barracuda on Monday. I started with four pilots and once there was a FOB built I had two switch out to infantry squads and only kept myself and another pilot available. When we lost two choppers about an hour later and AA was not under control we simply respawned at the base and assisted infantry. We went back to flying once we were needed for relocation transport again. US won the map by 17 tickets due to not losing too many choppers which often happens. See what I did was treat the asset as an important item and simply didn't waste it. I don't need special rules for pilots only to use an air asset wisely, and I don't see any reason for game changes to do so either.

[Celestial1]

Originally Posted by snooggums

Which is a solution to a problem that having the kit worth tickets creates. Instead of creating problems and solving them the better thing would be to make a change that doesn't cause problems.

Civilians caused problems from the start; they're still here after over 5 releases. That doesn't make them any less broken.

And when it comes to pilot suggestions, why are pilots so important in PR? Pilots already get to play with the in demand air assets, why does the rest of the team have to suddenly treat them like royalty and have the pilot not lose tickets for their asset if they eject like every other vehicle? It's suggestions like 'snipers should be speshul lolz!' and 'pilots need gunz lolz!' when it's clear they can't be responsible already that make me dislike the air assets and snipers in general more and more.

Because, as I see it, if Air Assets were more realistically implemented they could also be more fragile in some ways. If the pilot was worth tickets, he could bail. If jets got disabled when they got hit by AA missles, then he would have that opportunity to bail. If jets are disabled and not destroyed immediately by things like AA missles, the AA missles can be implemented a bit more realistically and bring in some of the better elements that make them so feared in the first place, like the extreme ranges of the missiles.

The thread about AA contains my post detailing my idea of how to increase the range of AA's significantly to allow them to do a job a lot more efficiently, without making them overpowered. Personally, I would love to see AA making more of an impact on games like Kashan... but when they seem to be so under powered that MEC literally camps the US runways to get a jet out of the air, it seems that something has gone awry.

When it comes to air assets they need to be treated like every other asset. When tanks get blown up on Kashan in short order, leave them at main and use a different approach. When air assets get shot down, keep them grounded. When infantry gets wiped off an area, bring assets to the fight instead of rushing in. But in all cases air is just another asset and does not deserve special rules.

Often enough, a crew of a vehicle that has been hit by a critical but not fatal attack will often bail out, especially if it's an APC crew. The incentive is that they are already in the action, and can try to assist in an assault as well as retreat on foot to a safe area for transport back to main. In the case of air assets, it's simply not practical to even bother ejecting because there's no reason to value your life when you're doomed to either smacked on ejection, or land outside of a combat zone with no assistance, or worse to land inside a combat zone and be immediately killed due to no help from friendlies.

Re: transport choppers and not being needed after the first 30 minutes. I ran a transport chopper squad on Barracuda on Monday. I started with four pilots and once there was a FOB built I had two switch out to infantry squads and only kept myself and another pilot available. When we lost two choppers about an hour later and AA was not under control we simply respawned at the base and assisted infantry. We went back to flying once we were needed for relocation transport again. US won the map by 17 tickets due to not losing too many choppers which often happens. See what I did was treat the asset as an important item and simply didn't waste it. I don't need special rules for pilots only to use an air asset wisely, and I don't see any reason for game changes to do so either.

That's great, I'm glad your helicopters got good use that game...

However, if you were to have crash landed in an area where friendly support was rather accessible, then you could stick with an infantry squad until you got found a weapon, and then fight alongside them that way.

If you're an infantry unit and the pilot is near your route to your next objective, you can secure him and have him tag along with you until you can get him a fighting-man's kit, and he can fight alongside you until he can be safely evacuated. If you're a part of an APC crew, you can pick him up, he can grab a kit from the APC and can stay with you until you are ready to RTB.

If you choose to save the pilot, you should account whether the risk is worth the reward (are you going to get another asset shot down? or is it a safe area where it's kind of like picking 10 free tickets for your team.) But again, it's not mandatory to go save the pilot; if he dies, it's no worse than losing the plane in PR as of now.

[snooggums]

Originally Posted by Celestial1

Civilians caused problems from the start; they're still here after over 5 releases. That doesn't make them any less broken.

Just because the devs don't fix them the right way doesn't mean I should suggest ideas that break them further. The pilots are fine right now, why do you want to break them?

Because, as I see it, if Air Assets were more realistically implemented they could also be more fragile in some ways. If the pilot was worth tickets, he could bail. If jets got disabled when they got hit by AA missles, then he would have that opportunity to bail. If jets are disabled and not destroyed immediately by things like AA missles, the AA missles can be implemented a bit more realistically and bring in some of the better elements that make them so feared in the first place, like the extreme ranges of the missiles.

The thread about AA contains my post detailing my idea of how to increase the range of AA's significantly to allow them to do a job a lot more efficiently, without making them overpowered. Personally, I would love to see AA making more of an impact on games like Kashan... but when they seem to be so under powered that MEC literally camps the US runways to get a jet out of the air, it seems that something has gone awry.

But WHY are pilots important enough to be worth the tickets instead of the plane?

Often enough, a crew of a vehicle that has been hit by a critical but not fatal attack will often bail out, especially if it's an APC crew. The incentive is that they are already in the action, and can try to assist in an assault as well as retreat on foot to a safe area for transport back to main. In the case of air assets, it's simply not practical to even bother ejecting because there's no reason to value your life when you're doomed to either smacked on ejection, or land outside of a combat zone with no assistance, or worse to land inside a combat zone and be immediately killed due to no help from friendlies.

Still worth one point like everyone else.

That's great, I'm glad your helicopters got good use that game...

However, if you were to have crash landed in an area where friendly support was rather accessible, then you could stick with an infantry squad until you got found a weapon, and then fight alongside them that way.

If you're an infantry unit and the pilot is near your route to your next objective, you can secure him and have him tag along with you until you can get him a fighting-man's kit, and he can fight alongside you until he can be safely evacuated. If you're a part of an APC crew, you can pick him up, he can grab a kit from the APC and can stay with you until you are ready to RTB.

If you choose to save the pilot, you should account whether the risk is worth the reward (are you going to get another asset shot down? or is it a safe area where it's kind of like picking 10 free tickets for your team.) But again, it's not mandatory to go save the pilot; if he dies, it's no worse than losing the plane in PR as of now.

But why do you want the pilot to be worth enough tickets that the risk/reward comes into play? Why isn't a regular soldier worth enough points to consider that risk.

Why are pilots special? Why should the other 30 players on your team need to worry about rescuing a pilot more than anyone else?

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

The entire notion of no losers in insurgency is a bad idea.

You have an objective: Destroy 10 caches before you either run out of tickets or you run out of time. If you do not, you did not achieve your objective and therefore you failed and therefore you lost. Don't sugar-coat it. Don't try to spin it. You lost, pure and simple.

What is so wrong with losing? Does the world end? No, just the current round and you move on to the next one.

Failure should serve to teach lessons to those that can learn to use failure in the correct way. This is a mindset and it takes a good while to understand the value of failure and how it can be used to one's advantage. Instead of becoming upset or discouraged, people need to see the value of the feedback and use it to modify their behavior to hopefully allow them to succeed at the same task again in the future. This is learning, and as far as I know learning is a really, really good thing.

Instead, we have a syndrome that is known as the "pussification of America", or in this case, the "pussification of Project Reality". That is where everything has to be nice for everyone, all the time. No losers, only winners. No one is at fault, it's always the fault of others or circumstances beyond one's control. I can't think of a more detrimental or harmful mindset than to not accept responsibility for one's actions or to not accept the outcome as one's own shortcomings and denying yourself the opportunity to learn from your mistakes and better yourself.

This will sound like an oxymoron, but it is the truth: Inability to accept failure and learn from it is what separates winners from losers.

----------------------------------------

Rescuing pilots: Nope.

First, the asset is the valuable part of the equation. I realize this differs dramatically from real life, but it is just a game, after all.

Secondly, if a pilot is worth 10 tickets, how many tickets do we invest from our team of 30 other soldiers to try to rescue the pilot? Should we send another pilot/asset combination in an effort to retrieve our fallen hero? What happens when that rescue pilot gets shot down? Perhaps an apc should be dispatched, but then the squad that apc is transporting is without mobility and over-watch, which could result in the loss of the squad, the apc, or all of them.

The suggestion makes the objectives of the map change from being team-orientated goals to being all about one guy: the pilot. This would be an entirely wrong direction to take the game.

[A.WICKENS]

Well said Dispo and Snoogs. Just what we need to inflate the self importance of pilots on our server, half our team being dedicated to rescuing them. Count me out, I'll be busy.

[AlmightyLion]

Originally Posted by snooggums

I also suggested delayed bleed in the middle of another thread and was it was well received by lead mapper Rhino. Basically the bleed starts a while after a flag is captured, allowing the team to respond without having to throw tickets at it quickly.

So on Kolzsek The Russians could be given 30 minutes to capture the first flag before a bleed is imposed, instead of the random ticket difference we ended up with on Mestia if the flag was capped quickly. Gives some time for organization without having a direct impact on the end of the game.

On a large map like Kashan flags such as North Village could have a delayed bleed of say 20 minutes so that the attacker who secures the most flags for a long period of time would start to bleed out the defenders hiding on their last flag, but not kill the game right away by sneaking back to the rear flag. Outpost could have a shorter delay and main could then have instant bleed if pushed back that far. This would allow more offense on the offensive flags but allow the losing team a little time to fall back and regroup.

I really liked your bleed idea !


by the way; it was me and namebot shooting you down on archer. Our whole game was about trying to kill snooggums in his chopper
, LOL ! We once killed your chopper at main, but you gor revived(but we got you in the end, outside airstrip)

[snooggums]

Originally Posted by AlmightyLion

I really liked your bleed idea !


by the way; it was me and namebot shooting you down on archer. Our whole game was about trying to kill snooggums in his chopper
, LOL ! We once killed your chopper at main, but you gor revived(but we got you in the end, outside airstrip)

You guys were so effective my second pilot elected to stay on the ground and defend main and I was just trying to hide my grounded chopper from you

Good times, didn't need new rules for it either.

I'm going to put up a big delayed bleed thread one of these days just so Rhino doesn't forget.

[snooggums]

Delayed bleed thread is up: http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-...g-version.html

[Celestial1]

Originally Posted by snooggums

But WHY are pilots important enough to be worth the tickets instead of the plane?
Still worth one point like everyone else.
But why do you want the pilot to be worth enough tickets that the risk/reward comes into play? Why isn't a regular soldier worth enough points to consider that risk.
Why are pilots special? Why should the other 30 players on your team need to worry about rescuing a pilot more than anyone else?

Because while APC/Armor/Etc drivers are worth one ticket, they are not bound by game limitations to allow them to bail out. Have you ever rescued or seen an APC/Armor crew rescued? It's usually done once they're out of fighting range or they just follow an infantry squad around until it's possible. A pilot simply has no reason to bail, as the game will cause his jet to run him over mid-flight, and the missle gives no reaction time whereas a TOW hitting certain spots on armor will cause a burn-time where the vehicle is disabled and would soon explode.

A pilot has none of these 'luxuries' to allow it to be worth it for him to bail out. At the moment, Helicopter pilots do; the helicopter becomes disabled, and they have to make a hard landing. Jet pilots don't have the ability to do any of this, at all.

Originally Posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0

The entire notion of no losers in insurgency is a bad idea.

You have an objective: Destroy 10 caches before you either run out of tickets or you run out of time. If you do not, you did not achieve your objective and therefore you failed and therefore you lost. Don't sugar-coat it. Don't try to spin it. You lost, pure and simple.

What is so wrong with losing? Does the world end? No, just the current round and you move on to the next one.

Well, technically, there's no winning either. But for that change, winning and losing still exists; it's just a subjective thing... Did your team get 10 caches? Great! Did your team get 10 caches but lost most of their tickets? Not bad... Did your team get 10 caches and have 100 tickets left over to search for 2 more caches? Even better! It's not intended to 'pussify' the game. If you get 10 caches, you get 10 caches. You get 2, you get 2. You're still going to understand how badly you sucked that round. It's more that you get an opportunity to search for more caches if you get past 10 caches, and that was the main point; to remove the stop in the game after the BluFor gets 10 caches, and allow them to search for more.


Regardless of that fact, the thread was made to try to bring out different ideas on Insurgency 'win conditions' such as one person suggested: the insurgents also lose tickets due to being killed, but tickets would be over 1000 for insurgents and caches would be worth 100 tickets.

Secondly, if a pilot is worth 10 tickets, how many tickets do we invest from our team of 30 other soldiers to try to rescue the pilot? Should we send another pilot/asset combination in an effort to retrieve our fallen hero? What happens when that rescue pilot gets shot down? Perhaps an apc should be dispatched, but then the squad that apc is transporting is without mobility and over-watch, which could result in the loss of the squad, the apc, or all of them.

If he's in a bad location, he's not worth the rescue; if he dies, he dies, and you lose no more tickets than you currently do in game.

If it's worth the rescue (he's in a safe area, transport helicopters are available, he's in the route of a transport heading past, a logistics truck is able to pick him up on the way to a supply drop), you gain 10 tickets. If it's not, you should make the decision to have him move to a safer location on foot until it IS worth the save.

If he dies on the way, there's no more penalty for his death than if his jet goes down now.

The suggestion makes the objectives of the map change from being team-orientated goals to being all about one guy: the pilot. This would be an entirely wrong direction to take the game.

Again, the pilot could only cost as much tickets as the plane itself does now. Not too often do you see AAVs used in large quantities on a match, but they would help protect the plane if they were...




And besides all this, again, the notion that the pilot is worth the full 10 tickets is the radical end of the solution. If the pilot was worth 2 tickets, and the plane worth 8, it wouldn't encourage bailouts that much... but if the pilot was worth 5, and the plane worth 5, there would be a bit of an incentive to bail out especially if the odds of rescue are high.

[snooggums]

Originally Posted by Celestial1

Because while APC/Armor/Etc drivers are worth one ticket, they are not bound by game limitations to allow them to bail out. Have you ever rescued or seen an APC/Armor crew rescued?

Yes, I've been rescued a few times.

It's usually done once they're out of fighting range or they just follow an infantry squad around until it's possible. A pilot simply has no reason to bail, as the game will cause his jet to run him over mid-flight, and the missle gives no reaction time whereas a TOW hitting certain spots on armor will cause a burn-time where the vehicle is disabled and would soon explode.

A pilot has none of these 'luxuries' to allow it to be worth it for him to bail out. At the moment, Helicopter pilots do; the helicopter becomes disabled, and they have to make a hard landing. Jet pilots don't have the ability to do any of this, at all.

But you still haven't explained why the pilot is so important that he is worth more points than any other soldier. If you are shifting the points from the aircraft to the pilot then the pilot is worth more than the asset. Why are you not proposing this for other assets?

Because they can't bail out? The can sometimes, most vehicle crews die from the fire their vehicle has when it is almost destroyed so most often they don't survive either without outside help. If the complaint is the vehicle kills them then the points are lost anyway and the suggestion is useless.

If he's in a bad location, he's not worth the rescue; if he dies, he dies, and you lose no more tickets than you currently do in game.

If it's worth the rescue (he's in a safe area, transport helicopters are available, he's in the route of a transport heading past, a logistics truck is able to pick him up on the way to a supply drop), you gain 10 tickets. If it's not, you should make the decision to have him move to a safer location on foot until it IS worth the save.

Oh, so you want to be worth enough points that people think about coming for you. How delightfully self centered of you as you are a regular pilot.

[Celestial1]

Originally Posted by snooggums

But you still haven't explained why the pilot is so important that he is worth more points than any other soldier. If you are shifting the points from the aircraft to the pilot then the pilot is worth more than the asset. Why are you not proposing this for other assets?

Because the pilot simply doesn't have the ability to take such luxuries as bailing out and being rescued; bailing out of a jet at full speed usually means being smacked by a wing. With the suggestion of bringing the disabled effect to jets (part of the tickets suggestion), this would allow the pilot to bail out. This alone may increase the ability or want to bail out. If it doesn't, an incentive for a pilot to bail out would.

As infantry, you can be revived. You can pull back from the fight.
As a crewman, you can get out of the vehicle, and you can join the fight as infantry or get a pickup by a friendly vehicle that has time to do so.
As a helicopter pilot, if you crashland your helicopter you can work your way to friendlies for protection, be picked up by a friendly vehicle, or can make your way to supplies to pick up a kit to help fight your way back.
As a jet pilot, if you get hit by an AA missle, you are killed. If you bail out, you have a large chance to be killed on ejection by your own jet. If you manage all this and land, you have just as much of a chance to be saved as any of the above. It's the bailing out thing that is the issue, there's not a reliable way to get out in the first place.

If the disabled effect on jets fixed that, there would be no need to have pilots worth tickets.

Oh, so you want to be worth enough points that people think about coming for you. How delightfully self centered of you as you are a regular pilot.

I also suggested in the AA Lock-On thread that AA be given a lot more extreme ranges (1500m and beyond) to allow them the dominance they deserve. I'm all for making EVERYTHING a bit more realistic.

For instance, in combined arms, the jets have the ability to guide everything in, see everything with rader, etc etc. But anti-aircraft weaponry has a larger range, radar for air targets, and other things to make it more of a power against those jets.





Let's just agree to disagree. You see it one way, I see it the other, and it's not likely we'll come to an agreement.

[google]

I really don't understand why it's so hard for you pilot whores to swallow this. There is no point in putting manpower (from an allready thinly stretched team) into recovering a person that is useless after the aircraft has been shot down. It really doesn't matter that much for you guys to have perfect KDs, make yourselves feel better some other way (oh wait, that's probably not possible given your nature). Besides the infantrymen probably won't like you enough to save you anyways.

Originally Posted by Celestial1

As infantry, you can be revived. You can pull back from the fight.
As a crewman, you can get out of the vehicle, and you can join the fight as infantry or get a pickup by a friendly vehicle that has time to do so.
As a helicopter pilot, if you crashland your helicopter you can work your way to friendlies for protection, be picked up by a friendly vehicle, or can make your way to supplies to pick up a kit to help fight your way back.
As a jet pilot, if you get hit by an AA missle, you are killed. If you bail out, you have a large chance to be killed on ejection by your own jet. If you manage all this and land, you have just as much of a chance to be saved as any of the above. It's the bailing out thing that is the issue, there's not a reliable way to get out in the first place.

If the disabled effect on jets fixed that, there would be no need to have pilots worth tickets.

Ask yourself this: How does recovering a person that cannot do anything, other than fly an aircraft that won't respawn for a good 20 min, help the team? The infantrymen can live to shoot hostiles, the tank crews can actually rejoin the infantry and shoot hostiles and actively help the team-mates. Saving a pilot is just not worth it at all. Making them cost tickets would simply distract from the true purpose of gameplay (which, suprisingly enough, is not about blowing everything up with air assets).

[Celestial1]

Originally Posted by google

Ask yourself this: How does recovering a person that cannot do anything, other than fly an aircraft, help the team? The infantrymen can live to shoot hostiles, the tank crews can actually rejoin the infantry and shoot hostiles and actively help the team-mates. Saving a pilot is just not worth it at all. Making them cost tickets would simply distract from the true purpose of gameplay (which, suprisingly enough, is not about blowing everything up with air assets).

A pilot could join infantry as well, if he got a kit. Not to mention if kits were separated, helicopter pilots might forfeit a parachute for a carbine or other self-defense weapon.


If you don't want to pick up the pilot, don't. You're really not losing anything more than you currently do. If you've got a spare helicopter, and he's in an area out of the battle, you're just bringing him back to main base and gaining tickets.

If he doesn't cost tickets, but the disabled effect were implemented (which was linked to in my thread, and was also posted as a SEPARATE suggestion), then he could bail out and players that couldn't give less of a damn could leave him out in the desert; it's their choice.


It's about making the pilot have a vulnerability. If the AA missiles were more powerful, but the pilot could make an escape, he would be a vulnerable player on the field. If the AA was more powerful, but the pilot couldn't make an escape, he would feel doomed to being killed repeatedly by AA without any kind of chance for survival, so he feels more like a ragdoll than a player on the battlefield, fighting for his life.

[Startrekern]

Originally Posted by google

I really don't understand why it's so hard for you pilot whores to swallow this. There is no point in putting manpower (from an allready thinly stretched team) into recovering a person that is useless after the aircraft has been shot down. It really doesn't matter that much for you guys to have perfect KDs, make yourselves feel better some other way (oh wait, that's probably not possible given your nature). Besides the infantrymen probably won't like you enough to save you anyways.



Ask yourself this: How does recovering a person that cannot do anything, other than fly an aircraft that won't respawn for a good 20 min, help the team? The infantrymen can live to shoot hostiles, the tank crews can actually rejoin the infantry and shoot hostiles and actively help the team-mates. Saving a pilot is just not worth it at all. Making them cost tickets would simply distract from the true purpose of gameplay (which, suprisingly enough, is not about blowing everything up with air assets).

It isn't worth it right now; what I'm proposing is that we make it worth for the pilot to eject in some cases. I.E. over friendly territory; Most of the time the transport choppers sit in the middle of the main doing nothing.

If all else failed or there were no transport helos doing nothing, the pilot could simply walk back to main.

Having a pilot not attempt to bail out is simply unrealistic, and having him ABLE to bail out will not do anything to detract from gameplay balance or remove manpower.