Change back the dog fight mechanics

5 Oct 2017, 12:53

Hello all,

Since recently, without being communicated, the air battle mechanics have changed.

Now, the old version wasnt perfect, as you had certain ways to do massive amount of damage without recieving any, or very little.

Yet, the new version is even worse. Now you are rewarded to nót engage enemy aircraft during patrol runs. The player who stays online long enough to avoid the 15 minute tick, is the one that is rewarded with obscenely positive battle results.

So all in all, the change was made that its a good idea to do damage by...not attacking?

TL;DR

Please revert back to the old dog fight mechanics, they arent perfect, but the new version is even worse.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

314 Replies

29 Oct 2017, 06:26 (edited)

man, going through your post gave me headache, why can't you just do what I do, quote out a sentence or phrase and answer it in a spoiler. Wouldn't it make it easier for everyone to read? Putting your own reply into the quote will only make your reply more unreadable. Just do as I do, like this:

Since it's a long post, i'll put it in a spoiler tag:

Spoiler

NovaTopaz wrote:
First, put one and two together because they are the same question. As for an actual answer, I did not really care... I was explaining how it comes about, not the exact method for which it works. There would be a lot of different methods for how it could work, but I was explaining the basics for how it comes about, not exact implementation, which would be another thing

[spoiler] First of all, if you don't really care to know more of his solution, you shouldn't have said that his solution will work. There are tons of questions unanswered and you just created even more questions for me....

First sentence in bold; i'm confused, what are you talking about?

Second sentence in bold; i'd like to hear about that other thing

You're not answering my questions

Regid wrote:
2.What timer are we talking about? Wouldn't it still be one stack receiving fire from every hostile stack?

NovaTopaz wrote:
Yes, but ONLY the one stack. All the other stacks would not receive return fire (1). This is assuming that they don't all attack on the same turn cause of reasons... (2)

Spoiler

You haven't answered me on what timer you're talking about.

First sentence in bold; what do you mean by "ONLY the one stack"?. And of course no friendly stacks other than the one attacked will receive return fire, that's a given already. You're stating the current situation, not the solution.

Second sentence in bold; that's the point, they don't attack at the same time, so again, what timer are you talking about when you say all planes attack and fire back once in 15 minutes?

NovaTopaz wrote:
... Why is this a list, again? 1 and 2 were along the same line of thinking, and now 4 and 5 and 6. Makes the list bullets kinda pointless, if you ask me...

Spoiler

number 1 asked what would happen if the second stack timer goes off

number 2 asked what timer are you using for that 15 minutes and to check on your understanding of Montana's solution

number 3 was there to check if you're using 5 stacks of planes as a big stack or not, if you answer yes, then your take on Montana's solution is wrong. Because if each of them attack at different time in the span of 15 minutes, if All planes are to return fire only once, then it will make the 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th attack receive no return fire.

number 4 was a hypothesis that you would use the timer of the very first stack on patrol as a timer for all other stacks as well. So why would you need a timer for individual stack?

number 5 was there to see if you had answered "No" on number 3. It asked...well, I think that doesn't need anymore explanation

number 6 was a further implication of putting 5 stacks of planes as one big stack and the effect of SBDE would have on it as well as the exploit that could potential happen.

number 7 and 8 is pretty clear.

Instead of dodging the questions, please spend your time on answering them as we need to know more on why you think Motana's solution would work since you said you understood it so well

Again, you haven't answered number 4 question

Regid wrote:
5.Also, if you saying that you treat 5 friendly stacks as one big stack, that means using SBDE, then how is this calculated

NovaTopaz wrote:
... I didn't say anything on this...

Spoiler

Let me put up an example for my understanding of what you wrote from the top:

Stack A,B,C,D,E are friendly stacks

Stack Z,Y,X,U,V are hostile stacks

Using 0:00:00 as the time when A arrived first at the patrol area

Following by B(0:01:00), Z(0:01:05), C(0:01:10), Y(0:01:15), D(0:01:20), 0:01:25), E(0:01:30), U(0:01:35), V(0:01:40)

So A timer will finish its tick at 0:15:00.

A will attack every hostile planes patrolling in that area. So A will receive fire back from Z,Y,X,U,V immediately.

B timer will finish its tick at 0:16:00.

So if you're saying all planes only fire and return fire once every 15 minutes, then B timer will go off without B attacking. But you also said "Yes" on my 3rd hypothesis, which would mean B would still attack. But you also said "If you make it so defending aircraft do not have unlimited defense chances, it severely nerfs the exploit, if not eliminating it entirely.", so that means B will receive no return fire like A had.

Because you said you didn't say anything on SBDE things. Everything you said I just put out using the above example

Another thing, if you wanna make an example in the future about this, use the above parameters for simplicity purpose.

NovaTopaz wrote:
... Also goes with the previous stuff. Again, I was not referring to specifics. If you want those, Montana should be coughing those up, not me. I was referring to where his idea was coming from, as I will personally not add to his idea. If you make it so defending aircraft do not have unlimited defense chances, it severely nerfs the exploit, if not eliminating it entirely.

Spoiler

what?

NovaTopaz wrote:
I understand it very well. I just find using examples is a tad redundant. Also, your professor is quoting Einstein indirectly. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't know it well enough". I personally take from that quote, not whichever one you just said. And in that regard, examples just show that I would not know it well enough, if I used them constantly. I do not take the time to simplify mine(though I really should), but I also go on the assumption that my peers may not know it as well as I, and a simple explanation just doesn't cut it. Hence the really long comments...

Spoiler

You are contradicting yourself. I really don't understand what you're saying

NovaTopaz wrote:
The damage isn't being spread across 5 stacks, it is doing the normal damage to each stack, but the defenders are defending for each nominal attack, and therefore inflicting 5x the damage onto a single stack. But it wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact the defenders have an unlimited number of defensive strikes(IE they can defend against as many attacks as there exists). If it was just one, then the other 4 stacks would be free to strike with impunity against the defenders, compared to now, where they suffer the same fate as the first stack

Spoiler

First sentence in Bold:

Yes it is. Let's use my previous example.

A will do 25% of its NORMAL damage to X,Y,Z,V,U. This 25% damage again is spread out amongst X,Y,Z,V,U, which is in essence, A will only do 5% of its damage to each hostile stack.

While each of the hostile stack return fire at 25% of each's normal damage back to A. That means A will deal 5 times less damage to each hostile stack, while all hostile stack return fire back at 25% normal damage. So that means A would have received so much damage while barely doing any damage at all.

This is what would happen if planes patrol radius overlap each other. What you talking about is directly attacking a patrolling stack, which results in 25% damage dealt but 100% damage taken for the attacker.

Second sentence in Bold:

Again, not the point of this problem as patrolling planes should be able to defend against as many attacks as there are. What's the point of patrolling a sky when you only shoot down one squadron of planes and let the remaining squadron roams free for 15 minutes?

Third sentence in Bold:

That is the same problem we have now. Be more specific with your statement,

How many stacks will attack how many stacks?

And how many stacks will defend against how many stacks?

Those 4 friendly stacks(B,C,D,E), are they gonna focus on one hostile stack(Z for example) or will it be a 1vs1 fight(BvsZ,CvsX,DvsY,EvsU, then what about the remaining V stack, how would A know which stack to attack, haven't A already attacked all Z,X,Y,U,V?)

If B,C,D,E attack like that, what would happen to their individual timer? Would they simply ignore their timer? What timer are we using for the 15 minutes cooldown?

You're creating more questions. I need some answers. If you have already defended Montana's point of view, I really hope you actually knows about its problem at the core. And since you're rooting for his solution, you might as well as help him finish it. Don't start something and then turn away from it. I really want you to look into it more since we're discussing further fixes in the future. If you and Montana are supporting this solution and if the devs actually choose this solution, you might as well as explain it fully because they're not gonna finish the work for you. In fact you created more work for them since they have to look into different scenario and the very core of your solution. They're gonna be talking and asking you about this solution and how you would implement it so they can code it correctly.

[/spoiler]

That is what this discussion is about. I'd like to hear your answers more . Also, this is how you should organize your post. You really should take notes for future cv. Organize, Organize, Organize your post.

29 Oct 2017, 16:03

So in my opinion, we should not take this patrol damage off entirely, because that be just stupit, but we could change the patrol dmg on lvl compared to airbase which on the unit is doing the patrol, like on lvl 1 it would do 10% of dmg, lvl 2 20% dmg. and onl lvl 3 25% off the dmg on 15 minutes. Other change which should be done is that after patrol there is no refuelling which is stupit to.

But still the biggest problem in this game are rockets, i hope you all agree that distance attack of the rockets is just mental.

29 Oct 2017, 16:41

Slightly to the side of the main topic here, but:

Diabolical wrote:
not wanting to eliminate the important and needed ability of patrols to intercept and attack your opponents....and that is because most of us don't want to have to stay up long enough to micro-manage the planes

I think that this might be the key concept about planes being overpowering. When used as you describe for border defense and offense both a player simply needs 50 planes and a handful of armored cars to cover a lot of ground. The planes should not be a single unit solution for all situations.

MarkAchkar wrote:
tell the dev to direct attack a 10- stack patroling planes with 10 stack planes, and tell me what they think about E,

Equal numbers fights always favor the defender. That is no different that attacking 10 infantry with 10 infantry. Attacker will lose because infantry defend with a higher number than they attack. Why should planes be stronger on the attack? If you want to attack 10 planes you ought to bring 20 or 30, the same as if you want to take on a group of 10 tanks you need to send more than 10 tanks of your own.

sadapta wrote:
Other change which should be done is that after patrol there is no refueling which is stupid too.
But still the biggest problem in this game are rockets, i hope you all agree that distance attack of the rockets is just mental.

In the case of rockets there are some considerations here:

Currently planes on the ground refueling are very vulnerable to rockets. So being able to touch-and-go from patrol to patrol is good when the enemy is proficient with rockets. Having to direct attack everything will make refueling planes more vulnerable to rockets. Airbases in a rocket hot zone will need to be upgraded to level 2 or 3 for faster refueling times in order to escape the rockets.

War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill
VorlonFCW
Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.
>>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

29 Oct 2017, 16:48

just want to point out that interceptors are supposed to have the same values whether attacking or defending.

29 Oct 2017, 16:54

why attack with rockets refuelling planes, when you can attack them on air while patrolling, with very huge damage, other thing is that it is nearly impossible to take out with rocket refuelling planes, which you are unable to see?

29 Oct 2017, 17:07

sadapta wrote:
it is nearly impossible to take out with rocket refuelling planes, which you are unable to see?

That comes down to timing. When a bomber attacks you you can select it and see how long it will take to return to base. Assume 5 to 15 minutes to refuel depending on the airbase. So time your rockets to hit that airbase while the planes are refueling. If you practice a few dozen times you get quite good at it. Helps to have several rockets and launch them one at a time.

29 Oct 2017, 17:32

Why can't we focus on the issue? That is using lots of planes to kill patrols. All this other crap is clouding the topic.

29 Oct 2017, 18:06

agreed.

29 Oct 2017, 18:37 (edited)

Regid wrote:
NovaTopaz wrote:
The damage isn't being spread across 5 stacks, it is doing the normal damage to each stack, but the defenders are defending for each nominal attack, and therefore inflicting 5x the damage onto a single stack. But it wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact the defenders have an unlimited number of defensive strikes(IE they can defend against as many attacks as there exists). If it was just one, then the other 4 stacks would be free to strike with impunity against the defenders, compared to now, where they suffer the same fate as the first stack
First part is a mix of a bunch of them...
First sentence in Bold: This is A
Second sentence in Bold: This is B
Third sentence in Bold: This is C

... First, when I'm having to address multiple points, it's easier to hit them on each one rather than do it in a mass post underneath that quickly discombulizes into a incoherent ramble of words, which is what happens otherwise. It's also why I distinguish what I said with bold(though I do the distinction rather inconsistently... Should stop that, for sure). I thought you wanted clarification of what his idea basis was, not for me to be backing up his post. And I never, EVER said I was rooting for his solution. I just said that I thought it could be a possible solution, given where the idea is coming from and it's deductive reasoning. Now, to get on with the REST of this.

7. Starting with the very last one, because there is clearly a flaw here that Needs to be addressed if we are to continue this discussion. If I wasn't for the fact I am very passionate about this game, I'd probably quit this discussion right about now..

TL;DR: off topic-ish, correcting misconceptions, and semi-incoherent rambling... Plus more corrections.

Spoiler

Your view of the problem is wrong. Dead wrong.

I normally wouldn't say that, but the examples you have used are making a bunch of incorrect assumptions about the game... Many of which are making the problem worse than it actually is, or twisting it into a completely different problem. First and foremost, attacking patrol planes do 25% to each individual stack, they do NOT do 25% as a collective group. If that was the case, there would be a WHOLE host of problems besides defending aircraft having an advantage. Aircraft, instead of being strong, would be borderline underpowered when using the patrol function. AA guns and light tanks would be the preferred units in the game, not lights and tacts(with ints for use against other guys using the same combination), if the patrol function did 25% as a collective. Secondly, Stacks 2-5 are NOT free to attack with impunity as it currently stands. As I said before, they suffer the same fate as the first stack(IE they get smashed by the numerically superior enemy). And thirdly, you are assuming that a lot of factors are changing that I am not changing. I may have been misleading with one of them, when I said the stacks thing, but I knew you said that, and so put it in for completeness sake... Clearly I shouldn't have.

A. Pretty much the first thing I said. It's not 25% as a collective. Enough said for the first part of it... In hindsight, I did word it badly, but it looked good when I was typing that sentence...

For the second part... That would be 25% dished out and 125%(not 100%, 5x25%) taken, using what you think. Instead of what it actually would be, which is 125% collective(25% to each defending stack) versus 125% concentrated(5 defends of 25% being used on the single attacking unit). Patrolling aircraft only do 100% defense when an aircraft is direct attacking something on the ground, or is directly attacking the patrolling stack. And then, the attacker is using 100% attack strength, so it is equal. To put this in perspective, your multiplying the actual problem by a factor of 5 by reducing the combat capability of the attacking aircraft by a factor of the number of aircraft being attacked...

B. ... Again, B and C are the same in a lot of ways... But on to the actual question.

It may not be the point of this problem, but it is a possible solution to the problem. Do I need to say more? I never said it was ideal, but it is a possible solution to the problem.

C. Still assuming that no other conditions are changed besides defending aircraft only being allowed to defend once in a set period of time... Again, I thought you wanted the base concept of it clarified, not require me to MAKE AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE, EXTENSIONAL POST THAT IS long, boring, and something I do not want to do...(made edits to this... Obviously)

... Would love to add some of the other points, but I forgot I was going somewhere where my computer probably doesn't have internet... But I think this is enough for one post anyway... If only because it clears up some stuff.

Also, hooray for the 10000 character limit... Could not add the whole original post in. >.>

29 Oct 2017, 20:16

never seen a player using direct attack when rockets are around but whatever, must be, because i am to noob, but still this is staggering that you take down airforce patrol while you keep rockets at madness.

29 Oct 2017, 20:41

btw guys, the vote is back on page 6 if you havent voted

30 Oct 2017, 01:33

It's always such a joy reading your post Nova. It's like a decipher game and I have IELTS band 9 for reading. It took me quite a while to understand parts of what you said lol. But it's ok, let's go over the problems, see if I understood you correctly(or part of it

Spoiler

Regid wrote:
7.Players can wait 14 minutes and send in tons of planes to the patrol area so let's say we have only 2 friendly stacks patrolling over 2 hostile stacks. After 14 minutes, the enemy suddenly send in 3 more hostile stacks . Wouldn't it be 2 vs 5? the SBDE would not help since it would not reduce the damage enough nor would it depict the crowded skies and friendly fire that could happen.

NovaTopaz wrote:
7. Starting with the very last one, because there is clearly a flaw here that Needs to be addressed if we are to continue this discussion. If I wasn't for the fact I am very passionate about this game, I'd probably quit this discussion right about now..

Regid wrote:
9.You said "as it relies on the fact that defensive fire on patrol is, well, infinite" which was not the problem that everyone's been talking about, it's the fact that 1 stack receives fire back from 5 stacks as patrol attack everything its radius, including every single hostile plane. So the damage dealt is spread out amongst those 5 hostile stacks but that one friendly stack takes full 25% damage from each of those 5 hostile stacks. That damage is not spread out evenly amongst 5 friendly stacks, but only one. You got it right?

[spoiler]Why do you number your answer 7 if you're answering question 9? Or is it the other way around? I constantly find your post confusing man.

NovaTopaz wrote:
First and foremost, attacking patrol planes do 25% to each individual stack, they do NOT do 25% as a collective group

Spoiler

eh, that's what I said, might wanna re-read the number 9 quote from me. Also, I used a more simpler example in my previous post. You should re-read it as well.

NovaTopaz wrote:
Patrolling aircraft only do 100% defense when an aircraft is direct attacking something on the ground, or is directly attacking the patrolling stack

Spoiler

ok, what? Your wording is so confusing in this I don't even know what i'm reading

NovaTopaz wrote:
you are assuming that a lot of factors are changing that I am not changing

Spoiler

what factors are we talking about?

NovaTopaz wrote:
That would be 25% dished out and 125%(not 100%, 5x25%) taken, using what you think. Instead of what it actually would be, which is 125% collective(25% to each defending stack) versus 125% concentrated(5 defends of 25% being used on the single attacking unit).

Paramunac wrote:
8.As already explained, when enemy has one or more air groups patrolling over some area, that groups will deal 25% of their damage every 15 minutes to all groups inside the area and receive 25% damage from those groups (excluding your own patrols as they will deal damage separately). This can used against him. One way is by moving land (or naval) groups (with a lot of AA defense) inside enemy patrol area. If total AA defense of your groups used this way is large enough so they can inflict more damage to enemy patrol groups than those groups deal to them (HP should also be considered in this calculation), then this is a good way to destroy enemy patrols. Other way is to use your own air groups. Trick is to avoid patrolling over enemy patrols and make sure your air groups are either flying around (looking confused) or standing in airbase, with the condition that they are inside enemy patrol area. Unlike classic patrolling (in which case your patrols deal offensive damage every 15 minutes and don't do any defensive damage when enemy patrols end their patrol cycles), air groups used this way will defend when every enemy patrol group finishes its patrol cycle. While to someone this doesn't seem to make any difference because it just changes time when your patrol groups deal damage, there is reason why in many situations this can do more damage than classic patrolling. That reason is the fact that while patrolling, all damage is spread across all enemy groups but in this case it is not spread across them and instead it is dealt to all enemy patrol groups separately at the moment when they finish their patrol cycle. Knowing this, you must also be careful when moving your small air groups near enemy patrols as they can easily be destroyed if at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Paramunac wrote:
Direct attack is pretty simple. Order group of your planes to attack enemy group of any type in its range, it will do 100% damage to it and receive 100% damage from it, but, there are some situations where calculation changes a little. First, if enemy has one or more air groups patrolling in a way that their patrol area covers the location where enemy group (the one which is being attacked by your air group) is positioned, that air groups will do 100% damage to your air group while receiving 0% damage from it. Second, air groups have area of effect (AoE) damage. It is very small area, but still worth the mention because if more than one enemy group (excluding air groups currently in air) is very close to each other, they will defend against planes together (your air group attack to any of those groups will be considered like an attack to all of them at once, meaning that it will be spread over them, while their defensive damage is sum of all defending groups). This means that enemy can't just split some group few moments before it gets attacked in order focus all attacking damage to just one of the groups.

Spoiler

Might wanna do some reading to check your understanding. Pay particular attention to the sentences I marked in bold for you

NovaTopaz wrote:
Still assuming that no other conditions are changed besides defending aircraft only being allowed to defend once in a set period of time... Again, I thought you wanted the base concept of it clarified, not require me to MAKE AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE, EXTENSIONAL POST THAT IS long, boring, and something I do not want to do...(made edits to this... Obviously)

Spoiler

honestly, I think you made a mess clarifying Montana's solution. Namely you created more questions than answered. So let's just throw it aside since you don't want to dwell more into his solution. On my part, I still think his solution doesn't solve this problem at all

[/spoiler]

Your last post was actually more readable than its previous. There are rooms for improvement however;

Such as the use of spoiler, try to encompass every part of the paragraph of the same idea, or use it to separate those with a different idea.

Also, use more reference, if you state something out that involves other person's writing or you put claim something about your idea that has connections to others, you need to use references. Underline or bold the key words up so people can understand your point of view.

Last but not least, use more examples, as detail as possible, no one wants to go through mountains of words with no connection to reality. The more grounded example the better. Throw in some maths(simple ones), throw in numbers and connections so that everyone can have a better understanding of your point.

NovaTopaz wrote:
TL;DR: off topic-ish, correcting misconceptions, and semi-incoherent rambling... Plus more corrections.

Yup, you're right on that incoherent part.

31 Oct 2017, 08:34

so whats the result? what changes?

31 Oct 2017, 20:04

Is it not possible to just revert the code back to where it was just previous to the new exploit? (Apologies if this has been asked already). I mean as far as plane mechanics.

31 Oct 2017, 21:22

Steve Trevor wrote:
Is it not possible to just revert the code back to where it was just previous to the new exploit? (Apologies if this has been asked already). I mean as far as plane mechanics.

The same exploit was there, just a bit harder to use (and a bit more obscure).

2 Nov 2017, 09:20

Is the vote to the poll still open?

Is this poll also on other language forums?

2 Nov 2017, 12:14

no, it was stoppt at November the 1st.

8 Nov 2017, 06:59

about this game mechanic, it has been that way since maybe september/october/november 2016. It's not new. I left the game january 2017 and could do the mentioned thing with avoiding patrol tick even then.

by the way, hello again everyone

Sincerely, wildL
EN Mod
Report a problem

9 Nov 2017, 09:52

wildL SPQR wrote:
about this game mechanic, it has been that way since maybe september/october/november 2016. It's not new. I left the game january 2017 and could do the mentioned thing with avoiding patrol tick even then.
by the way, hello again everyone

howdy!

It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3

10 Nov 2017, 10:45 (edited)

I am happy that option E was chosen. Agree with Rokossovski on everything.

Still, if it's supposed to be a success, the following changes should be - or even have to be - released at the same time:

1.: As already stressed by Roko, patrolling planes may not react on direct air-to-air-attacks.

2.: As I'm sure we all agree that issue concerning direct air-to-air-attacks must be fixed - attacker must have same chances as defender there.

3.: If possible, please give refueling planes more hitpoints. Maybe 10. Or maybe their regular amount as if they were in the air (that would also be in line with the graphical display). Mainly to make them less vulnerable against rocket attacks, which we would otherwise see way too often in the future. Furthermore, I guess this would calm down those who are worried that option E might be a nerf for airforce.

4.: When taking their shot on an enemy aircraft attacking a (ground or sea) target in their patrol circle, planes should use their offense value. Otherwise it would be even more attractive to add bombers that are currently not in use for own offenses to your stacks patrolling as interceptors - which clearly wasn't their purpose in reality.

5.: Since point 4 would render rocket fighters an extraordinarily strong patrolling interceptor, the patrol functionality should be removed for rocket fighters (and hence for all stacks containing rocket fighters). Alternatively (even better) remove patrol functionality for all aircrafts except interceptors and invent a new recon functionality for naval bombers (which would be analogical to patrol with the difference that it doesn't attack opponents operating in the circle).

Quite a lot of changes, I know, but then we'd have a beautiful, long-term solution.

If these changes are not feasible or too much effort, I'd prefer to rollback to old dogfight mechanism, cause this at least did not give an advantage to those players who are able to buzz around underneath the enemy patrol every 14 minutes.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions