~S~ All,
Off the bat I want to make sure this DOES NOT turn into a thread about buff-tuff, Otto accuracy and a whole bunch of "Bombers go down too easy" or "Bombers are impossible to take down" topics.
That said I want to make this thread about how the events can be historically relevant and yet allow for fun game play and the bombers can pull off their duty looking good!
Yes looking good is really important
The issues I have observed in the last two series and hoping we can eventually arrive on an agreement and fix them.
1. Time
2. Intel
3. Accuracy
Time
====
We have been battling the T+160 finish..
By the combination of the distances, airplanes involved, fuel multiplier last two series have been really tough on the bombers. i.e. either use full possible throttle (including various boost stages available) or risk not finishing on time. Even in BBD where we had a T-30 start this was a huge issue. I think what we need to strive here is that all targets should be achievable by the buffs while flying "90%" throttle.
Why? because having to fly 100% + just does not make for a "good looking" bomber box and a bad looking box just does not get the job done right!
What could we have done better in BBD?
----------------------------------
Enlarged the target area westwards. There were several targets west that would have still made game play interesting.
What could we have done better in OH?
----------------------------------
Fuel multiplier could have been higher (say at .9 or even 1.0), DAR could have been at 40-45 miles instead of the 50 and CVs could have been nearer.
Basically anything we can do so that buffs can fly at a reasonably fast speed and yet have room to maintain the formation would be great. I believe this will not just enhance the buff's experience of the events but also provide the other side with an enhanced game play experience. After all it would be great to talk about busting up a well formed bomber box as opposed to taking out the stranglers.
Intel
===
The object hardness chart is simply inaccurate. Discussions in the forms and testing has proved that that it is way off. In some ways this is a good problem to have. Currently it seems the values are overstated in the chart (at least for OH). So for most part buffs are more than prepared to take out targets we go after, but IMO this leads to less than aggressive plans to get buffs to target and that works against maximizing the potential.
Having this as accurate as possible has the benefit of:
1. Frame CO can use the data to evaluate what to go after and what to defend.
2. Buffs can plan on how to take out the targets best.
What can be done about this?
-------------------------
Whenever brought up in the forums it seems that someone (usually Sleepy ~S~ Thanks sir) will go look into the actual arena settings and let us know what the values are. e.g. in OH (yeah I know we are mid series, but the data has been seen before the side change) the values in the chart vs what was real was quite off.
So I propose an program that will look at the settings and provide the output in form of the objects chart for each series. I am more than happy to help write such a program. I don't need any special access. If someone can provide me how your view of the "real" values look like I can help you write a program to make it available to all.
Accuracy
======
Nothing is sadder than a number of bombers say 10 or more making it to a target dropping all their bombs on what looks like the right place and then having the run called
useless because oh a small warehouse which is behind the other 3 and looks a little different stayed up.
In short let's not make the S3s the same capture the flag game as the main.
"Where is it?" "Where is it?" oh one gun on the island to the east..
Instead lets go the Pony Baseball route, "Everyone gets to bat so if the defense made a good play let's air on their side and reward them the out."
What can we do about it?
----------------------
1. Don't rely on the required object list for field closure, sure the game code probably cannot change for this but this can be a subjective call.
2. Don't have points assigned to field closures instead make them object based. e.g. warehouse = .3 points and sub-pen = 3 points or what ever they deserve.
Looking forward to comments and suggestions.