Sorry for my poor English.
I just saw some players talking about dropper issue.
In my opinion, it is case by case.
I am a player flying Fokker E. 1 without any upgrade.
I can not shoot any enemy up high since my plane will stall when I pitch up about 15~20 degrees.
If I am in BTH and I dropped, then this mission is meaningless for me.
On the other hand, if I keep the bomb, I will only be a sluggish target for enemies.
Also only toll number increase, nothing happens.

I know many other players with better planes do not have to drop.
So what's the boarder line in those different circumstances?
In my opinion, this will be case by case.

I think the golden rule is to make every player have fun.
The minor group of people that often deprive the right of others' ability to have fun is not welcome.

meowko wrote: Sorry for my poor English.
I just saw some players talking about dropper issue.
In my opinion, it is case by case.
I am a player flying Fokker E. 1 without any upgrade.
I can not shoot any enemy up high since my plane will stall when I pitch up about 15~20 degrees.
If I am in BTH and I dropped, then this mission is meaningless for me.
On the other hand, if I keep the bomb, I will only be a sluggish target for enemies.
Also only toll number increase, nothing happens.

I know many other players with better planes do not have to drop.
So what's the boarder line in those different circumstances?
In my opinion, this will be case by case.

I think the golden rule is to make every player have fun.
The minor group of people that often deprive the right of others' ability to have fun is not welcome.

well said mate

Do as you please if you wish just don't use glitches and have fun

meowko wrote: Sorry for my poor English.
I just saw some players talking about dropper issue.
In my opinion, it is case by case.
I am a player flying Fokker E. 1 without any upgrade.
I can not shoot any enemy up high since my plane will stall when I pitch up about 15~20 degrees.
If I am in BTH and I dropped, then this mission is meaningless for me.
On the other hand, if I keep the bomb, I will only be a sluggish target for enemies.
Also only toll number increase, nothing happens.

I know many other players with better planes do not have to drop.
So what's the boarder line in those different circumstances?
In my opinion, this will be case by case.

I think the golden rule is to make every player have fun.
The minor group of people that often deprive the right of others' ability to have fun is not welcome.

Dear MEAN FOKKER,
I don't understand what you mean.
I don't have a parachute yet.

(Repost from another thread)

....lets keep some facts straight:


* Nowhere does the description of a "BTB" game say anything about "bombing".

* The instructions say "first to destroy enemy airfield wins".

* The hangars can be destroyed by either bombs or by tank salvos.

* There are no rules about the methods you must use to reach the mission objective.

* The difference in the plane's performance when carrying or dropping is a game design which promotes the use of different tactics. Think about it: what other reason is there for the difference? If it was a glitch Zup could have fixed it a long time ago.


* It may be true that many players drop and only go after bomb laden reds. It is also true that some actually do use it to further the mission objective. If you try to say this is not true you are calling me a liar. Although I don't do it very often, I have done it very effectively to help my teammates be able to deliver their bombs. In my thinking it is a disadvantage to just go out to kill the reds because it makes them spawn back to the best position to defend from.

* If you do not change your tactics when you meet an enemy dropper you are usually at a disadvantage. (I say "usually" because a concerted wave of blue "marksmen" can still overcome a red dropper.) There are many ways you can coordinate your team to counter a dropper. It all depends on your ability to be strategically creative.

* Dogfight requires a mix of skill and strategy. Trying to limit the strategic element makes as much sense as trying to limit the skill element.

* No one has the authority to tell anyone how to play the game. If no rules are being broken, you cannot force anyone to play a particular way. By adopting any particular strategy someone is not forcing you to play their way. You can keep doing what you always do, but it is foolish if you are continually getting shot to pieces. Still, you have options.

* Games do not "go on forever" because people are dropping . The longest games are typically ones in which people stay in the valley of death. Looking through the posts of the longest games there is often (not always) a complaint of how someone eventually did a sneak to end it.

* There is no tangible gain form a high KDR and there is no tangible loss from having a low one and you do not lose any points from being shot down. If someone is "taking advantage" by shooting reds and not going for a win they are not actually harming anything except your ego.

* Historically speaking, war has always been fought not only on the battle field but also in the planning rooms and laboratories. There is a reason wars are no longer fought by long infantry lines facing each other on open ground. Is that dishonorable?

* If you just don't like the way games go when someone drops, I'm sorry but no one owes you a head-on up the middle game. The game is designed with options. It is up to you whether you would rather complain or if you would rather rise to the challenge.





And Finally:

* Lots has been said about the "Chivalry" of pilots in WW1. Sure there were cases where particular pilots would not finish off a disabled enemy. At the beginning of the war airplanes were used for reconnaissance and were unarmed. It was common for pilots from opposing sides to see each other as "fellow aviators". The trouble is that there was still a war going on and having the enemy able to see your ground troops was enough of a disadvantage that the "fellowship of aviators" was counterproductive for trying to win the war. In July of 1915 the interrupter gear made the German E111 able to fire straight ahead through the prop. They annihilated the allied pilots who were only outfitted with hand held weapons, chivalry be damned. It was known as " The Fokker Scourge " It was unfair to say the least.

From the article:
... hundreds, nay thousands of machines have been ordered which have been referred to by our pilots as "Fokker Fodder" ... I would suggest that quite a number of our gallant officers in the Royal Flying Corps have been rather murdered than killed.
— Pemberton Billing

The allies did not file a complaint and ask the Germans for mercy, they got busy and built new planes such as the DH2 and the Nieuport 11 which did not need to fire bullets through the propeller. What they did was to "innovate".

"Innovate": To make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas or products.

If the allies did not innovate and change their hardware and tactics they would have lost the war very quickly. If you do not change your tactics or hardware when someone chooses to drop you will probably have a hard time. "Chivalry" is a nice concept but it does nothing to bring anyone back from the dead.




* Cry or fly. Your choice.

Are you saying tanking in enemy territory is not a glitch in btb?if it wasnt a glitch then why can't everyone do it instead its a random tanking inside enemy lines.

[NLR] McFate wrote: (Repost from another thread)

....lets keep some facts straight:


* Nowhere does the description of a "BTB" game say anything about "bombing".

* The instructions say "first to destroy enemy airfield wins".

* The hangars can be destroyed by either bombs or by tank salvos.

* There are no rules about the methods you must use to reach the mission objective.

* The difference in the plane's performance when carrying or dropping is a game design which promotes the use of different tactics. Think about it: what other reason is there for the difference? If it was a glitch Zup could have fixed it a long time ago.


* It may be true that many players drop and only go after bomb laden reds. It is also true that some actually do use it to further the mission objective. If you try to say this is not true you are calling me a liar. Although I don't do it very often, I have done it very effectively to help my teammates be able to deliver their bombs. In my thinking it is a disadvantage to just go out to kill the reds because it makes them spawn back to the best position to defend from.

* If you do not change your tactics when you meet an enemy dropper you are usually at a disadvantage. (I say "usually" because a concerted wave of blue "marksmen" can still overcome a red dropper.) There are many ways you can coordinate your team to counter a dropper. It all depends on your ability to be strategically creative.

* Dogfight requires a mix of skill and strategy. Trying to limit the strategic element makes as much sense as trying to limit the skill element.

* No one has the authority to tell anyone how to play the game. If no rules are being broken, you cannot force anyone to play a particular way. By adopting any particular strategy someone is not forcing you to play their way. You can keep doing what you always do, but it is foolish if you are continually getting shot to pieces. Still, you have options.

* Games do not "go on forever" because people are dropping . The longest games are typically ones in which people stay in the valley of death. Looking through the posts of the longest games there is often (not always) a complaint of how someone eventually did a sneak to end it.

* There is no tangible gain form a high KDR and there is no tangible loss from having a low one and you do not lose any points from being shot down. If someone is "taking advantage" by shooting reds and not going for a win they are not actually harming anything except your ego.

* Historically speaking, war has always been fought not only on the battle field but also in the planning rooms and laboratories. There is a reason wars are no longer fought by long infantry lines facing each other on open ground. Is that dishonorable?

* If you just don't like the way games go when someone drops, I'm sorry but no one owes you a head-on up the middle game. The game is designed with options. It is up to you whether you would rather complain or if you would rather rise to the challenge.





And Finally:

* Lots has been said about the "Chivalry" of pilots in WW1. Sure there were cases where particular pilots would not finish off a disabled enemy. At the beginning of the war airplanes were used for reconnaissance and were unarmed. It was common for pilots from opposing sides to see each other as "fellow aviators". The trouble is that there was still a war going on and having the enemy able to see your ground troops was enough of a disadvantage that the "fellowship of aviators" was counterproductive for trying to win the war. In July of 1915 the interrupter gear made the German E111 able to fire straight ahead. They annihilated the allied pilots who were only outfitted with hand held weapons, chivalry be damned. It was known as " The Fokker Scourge " It was unfair to say the least.

From the article:
... hundreds, nay thousands of machines have been ordered which have been referred to by our pilots as "Fokker Fodder" ... I would suggest that quite a number of our gallant officers in the Royal Flying Corps have been rather murdered than killed.
— Pemberton Billing

The allies did not file a complaint and ask the Germans for mercy, they got busy and built new planes such as the DH2 and the Nieuport 11 which did not need to fire bullets through the propeller. What they did was to "innovate".

"Innovate": To make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas or products.

If the allies did not innovate and change their hardware and tactics they would have lost the war very quickly. If you do not change your tactics or hardware when someone chooses to drop you will probably have a hard time. "Chivalry" is a nice concept but it does nothing to bring anyone back from the dead.




* Cry or fly. Your choice.

Mean,

Where did I say anything about exploiting glitches? Is there more back story than is obvious here?

Very well stated. Glad to see their are others here who actually have a head on their shoulders.

If it was a glitch zup would have fixed it.that's what I read that's what you wrote...its not been fixed?

[NLR] McFate wrote: Mean,

Where did I say anything about exploiting glitches? Is there more back story than is obvious here?

Maybe he hasn't fixed it yet. Is there a time limit for fixes that i didnt hear about?

MEAN FOKKER wrote: If it was a glitch zup would have fixed it.that's what I read that's what you wrote...its not been fixed?

[NLR] McFate wrote: Mean,

Where did I say anything about exploiting glitches? Is there more back story than is obvious here?

.

I thought the same first time I read it Mean, and had to read it a few times, but I think he is talking about the plane performance, with or without bombs. Think he means that Zup could have left the planes to travel same speed and movement without bomb. That he gave them a difference in speed and movement when traveling without bomb on purpose to give you an upper hand in strategy. If I am not mistaken I have seen Fate post on the tank glitch problem and he is clear that it is not to be use.



.

MEAN FOKKER wrote: If it was a glitch zup would have fixed it.that's what I read that's what you wrote...its not been fixed?

[NLR] McFate wrote: Mean,

Where did I say anything about exploiting glitches? Is there more back story than is obvious here?

Oh, you mean this? :
* The difference in the plane's performance when carrying or dropping is a game design which promotes the use of different tactics. Think about it: what other reason is there for the difference? If it was a glitch Zup could have fixed it a long time ago.

Lol! I think I've missunderestimated the preponderosity of the potentiality for discombobulability and mispercepetantiousness of the reader. My humble apologies.



Btw, Acegirl got it spot on.
Though I don't think it is so much to give an "upper hand" to any particular style but to provide variation and depth rather than a "flat playing field". It would not be the only example of subtle tactical sophistication in the design of dogfight... it isn't just an arcade style shooter.

No big deal just wanted to be clear that glitches are used by alot of pilots in this game and didn't want another pilot thinking that it was fine to use them until zup fixed them

[NLR] McFate wrote:

MEAN FOKKER wrote: If it was a glitch zup would have fixed it.that's what I read that's what you wrote...its not been fixed?

[NLR] McFate wrote: Mean,

Where did I say anything about exploiting glitches? Is there more back story than is obvious here?

Oh, you mean this? :
* The difference in the plane's performance when carrying or dropping is a game design which promotes the use of different tactics. Think about it: what other reason is there for the difference? If it was a glitch Zup could have fixed it a long time ago.

Lol! I think I've missunderestimated the preponderosity of the potentiality for discombobulability and mispercepetantiousness of the reader. My humble apologies.



Btw, Acegirl got it spot on.
Though I don't think it is so much to give an "upper hand" to any particular style but to provide variation and depth rather than a "flat playing field". It would not be the only example of subtle tactical sophistication in the design of dogfight... it isn't just an arcade style shooter.

Thank you Fokker for the repost of the article. I enjoyed reading the article very much. The thoughts contained in the article causes me to write, " Thank you Zup for awesome game!