Please pardon me. I’m a pc player, and I rarely drop, even in situations when the
“experts” say it’s legal. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, just giving some background on where I’m coming from on this.
I’m not that great at the long shot game; 1.) Because I typically am getting shot at before I can even see my target, and 2.) While I have monkeyed with my sensitivity settings, I still find that the keyboard arrows tend to oversteer as far as aiming is concerned, and dialing back the sensitivity much more starts trading too much flight maneuverability for aiming stability.
I’m also more interested in concentrating on developing my turning game.
Here is where I have a problem; darraxx, forget about the bomb for just a second, the train of thought that you’re on seems to suggest that the down the middle, long shot game is
THE correct set of skills, and turn fighting is somehow something less. It's a common supposition in a lot of these type posts. I’ve never seen a place where Zup stated that was his opinion, or his intention for the ideal way Dogfight was meant to be played. As far as I’ve seen, with the exception of the tank glitch, he’s intentionally left the possibilities open.
I was attracted to the concept of a WWI air combat simulator. WWI air combat was about locating your target, gaining a superior position, and putting a burst into him, hopefully before he even knew you were there. If you didn’t pull that off it turned into a dogfight or a “furball” if there were multiple aircraft involved. From a historical standpoint, the only noteworthy example of someone who was known for the long shot or head on “playing chicken” approach was Air Marshal William Avery "Billy" Bishop (Major Bishop during WWI). My point being that if anything, turn fighting simulates a more historically accurate depiction of the lion’s share of WWI air combat.
To me, the straight down the middle, long shot skill set is more adapted to a first person shooter, arcade style, point treadmill game. I’m not saying that approach is wrong, or less than turn fighting, I’m just saying there is a difference between a
flight simulator and a
fps.
Here’s where the problem starts; Zup built a game that can be played either way, but has marketed it as a simulation. The term “simulation” typically suggests more of an expectation of more reality than something that is just called a game. That’s why some people like the idea of the new ballistic model in Dogfight Elite, and other people are unhappy with it; bullet drop is a more realistic simulation, while the straight laser shot serves the fps, straight down the middle, long shot style better.
Personally, I prefer to play Dogfight more like a simulator when possible. Since stealthily sneaking up on your adversary is all but impossible, that leaves turn fighting, and a little use of defilade. Does that make mine the right skill set,
no just my skill set of choice.
As far as dropping goes, if you’re dropping in my face as I watch you take off in front of me, you’re probably not trying to complete our team's mission, you’re just treadmilling for points, and you could care less if anyone else is there or not . . . you might as well be playing solo against AI. If the situation has changed your mission to protect the base, or survive the furball any way you can so you can run away and live to fight another day, then by all means drop . . . that’s realistic.