Cold

Best or worst pilot, we will never know

Hey Chicken, First of all, I enjoyed the gameplay. I noticed sometimes the AI was a bit oblivious of being shot at with a suppressed FN MAG from 50-150m away (squad of 8). In general, some EU1 gear got 'ported' over: Having a Xian at Martian looked a bit out of place. The Vehicles had EU1 gear as default in the inventory. If you could replace it with RACS assets, would be much appreciated. And lastly BLACK VEST PLZ! #BlameRickard I had a blast playing this refreshing setup for I&A, so it is much appreciated!

Problem (as I see it): When the EU1 has low population count, it is annoying to not have Medics available and Pilots satify the need for logistical support fast. Solution: Have a helicopter that can act as an 'mobile medical station', like the already available Ambulance (which rarely get used because of the wheels being destroyed hitting 1 bump/rock or get stuck on hills because of the long wheelbase) My suggestion would be the IDAP Mowawk to replace one of the 3 Ghosthawks at Main Base.

Looking at this post, I wished I could play next week , but cant

+1

I think clarification would help (mainly due to the "written between the lines" and relying on vocabulary of the reader), however I agree with you (all) that in most (almost all) cases the desired behavior is shown/exhibited. Thanks for all the constructive feedback. Dunno if a staffmember wants to close this topic or just leave it.

Hey LH, Thanks for your input. I'll try to be brief. I find it a perfect example of "Ad hominem". No this post isn't some weird justification for my behaviour. I'm trying to prevent this and other undesired behavior in the future in a constructive way. The proposed solution as I see it perfectly fits in with rule/guideline 1.1 and manages expectations for the 'limited' pilot slots and in addition leaves room for the desired 'grey areas'.

Thanks Possum (if I may call you that) for your remarks and suggestion! I get your stance on rules, but what could be read between the lines in my reply to Artemis it is also about managing expectations. I see it more fitting for the pilot role to give a rule of thumb to hold to (hence the wording ‘expect’) and allow the few side roles of the pilot to be requested by infantry (which from what I understand is desired by majority) The needed leeway for staff you describe and I agree on it’s usefulness is already in place by rules/guidelines: 1.1. These are rules that apply to all situations where you communicate to other AW members no matter what medium is used. They are not exhaustive and should be taken as a guideline on how to behave. We reserve the right to modify these rules and to defer to our own Judgement. “1.1.5. Follow guidance from Admins, they are there to ensure as many people have the best experience as possible.” “1.1.11. The admin team can change the rules as deemed necessary this can include bypassing rules for the sake of gameplay for the majority.” Regarding your remark rule 4.4.1: “4.4.1.If you are operating a support asset like a mortar or a CAS plane/helicopter you are not allowed to kill the entire AO. Support assets are there to support the infantry this means that infantry have to call these support assets in.” The second sentence mentions firstly support assets and their role then refers to ‘these’ support assets. So I interpret this as “if an asset is meant for supporting infantry (and isnt infantry) they need to be requested”. The rules/guidelines don’t specify logistical support being different from fire supports. So I don’t find it a far fetched conclusion. I think clarifying ‘fire support’ in 4.4.1 is a fantastic suggestion. I do think, keeping in mind the remainder of sub rules/guidelines under 4.4, specifying requirements to fulfill the primary of a pilot would fit the context. Or as I see most fitting, expand on “provide logistical support” somewhere in 4.3 and let 4.4.1 be the allowance of other behavior for all support assets (requested by infantry) Anyhow I can also see that this whole idea could be considered nitpicking, but I would rather call it fine tuning. In the end, my main goal is to make (new) pilots (/players) more intuitively aware of others’ expectations by writing down a commonly agreed on desired behavior in more plain/easier to understand words. (set default ‘behavior’ and allow for exceptions if conditions are fulfilled)

First of all, thanks for the feedback Artemis. It’s highly appreciated! Ill try to explain the issue by giving an example. Example for issue: I’ve seen several cases where newly connected players take a pilot seat and aren’t behaving as expected. (I’m pretty sure other players can relate to this. No hard proof for it at the moment. I personally think the 99% you mention is also biased because in my opinion it relies heavily on experienced players/pilots. Thus the argument of needing more guidance for (newer) pilots is still valid) Secondly (in addition to above example) aak yourself: If you would be faced with mentioned ‘awaiting-request’ behavior, what would you do? If the answer takes any action to change behavior, I could ask you why is ‘awaiting-request’ such a disruptive way of playing the pilot slot? And down the rabbit hole we go of edge cases. Personally I think it’s best to close this rabbit hole by managing expectations regarding pilots via communication. Also the undesirable behavior often causes the breaking of ‘waste of assets’ rule, denying destroyed assets when requested. Why I think the addition of ‘expected behavior’ for a stricter role like a pilot slot is needed is that: I as a player (and I think any staffmember would want to) don’t want to keep explaining why the wording of ‘Primary role of a pilot is to provide logistical support’ means that they have to ‘provide transport pro-actively’. And rule 4.4.1 refers to (as possibleEOD points out) fire support and not logistical support, which by current rules is unclear. Also keep in mind from their view it is just another player (non-staff) explaining, so almost no intrinsic motivation to heed the advice given. In addition alot of players on EU1 are non- native English speakers. Therefore I think an argument along the line of “it is in the rules if you look-up the meaning of several keywords” doesn’t look great. It should be more intuitive. I think expectations/unwritten rules should be included for the pilot role. This because: - Instructing on desired behavior will prevent breaking unwritten rules (which have been enforced). - Experience should teach when it’s desired to deviate from written rules, experience shouldn’t be needed to fulfill publicly available jobs. (Job is quotable from AhoyWorld’s guide on (helicopter) pilots and the wording speaks for the expected professional behavior) - The pilot role is very versatile so guidance on expectations for (newer) pilots helps to fulfill said expectations. - The guidance could help any new infantry aswell on questions regarding their (initial) logistical needs. (Initial because most experienced infantry choose to use other means of transportation because of increased firepower or cargo capacity) - The discussed unwritten rule contradicts the ‘casual server’ expectation of (new) pilots. Therefore I think it is better to become written. The issue of ‘bored pilots’ was not the motivation for my post, but like a true Dutchy I’ll respond to it anyways. ‘Awaiting-request’ could be considered the boring option out of the two mentioned behaviors. I tried to explain why it is also the undesirable option even though by current rules intuitively is the preferred option (in my opinion). Indeed dropping supply boxes keeps pilots busy with a useful task, but there is a limit to the need of infantry for supplies and when the droppings of supply get annoying/unnecessary risk of assets. Current rules suggests, as I interpret them, that CAS done by Pilots has to be called in and logistical needs of ground forces have to be fulfilled (within reason) before a Pilot tries to provide CAS. Proposed solution would emphasize your opinion on CAS and the priority of logistical support. When the logistical support isn’t provided, any player will have a clear (in my opinion) written rule to refer to when the player observes undesired behavior. Switching to infantry doesn’t have to fix the boredom of the player. It is not closing causal action for the player to take to fix the player being bored. Like I mentioned above. The unwritten rule/ expectation of pilots contradicts the casual nature of EU1. The majority of the player base arguably also expects to have a positive KD and expects the NATO to have air superiority. (Yes the sentence above is ridicilous, so please have a laugh and ignore it) The majority of the player base also expects pilots to behave ‘pro-active’, but not when providing fire support. This I think is the main issue and should be communicated clearly and not learned from experience. In closing: I think writing down expectations could also prevent the need of staff to watch for discussed undesired behavior, because the written guideline will communicate this and can be referred to by any player. Therefore fewer discussions between players that need interference by staff. (Isn’t this a primary reason why current written rules exist?)

Also mind I’m not a native english speaker, so choices of words can mostlikely be improved

Good point Stan! Changing: “… every pilot is being in a pilot seat ready to transport…” To: “… every pilot is being in a seat ready to transport…” Would solve this. (Removal of specification ‘pilot’ in front of ‘seat’)

First of all, I woud like to credit TacticalError for his feedback improving this idea/post/draft. Issue: Current rules&guidelines aren’t inline with unwritten rules/expected behavior of pilots. Issue also causes wrong instructions to (newer) pilots on whats expected of them on EU1. According to several staff: (transport) pilots shouldn’t be in the pilot spawn waiting to be requested. Instead they explained to me “Pilots should be in (pilot) seat ready to transport at ‘actively used’ ground spawn points or close to ground forces in likely need of transport”. The earlier mentioned ‘awaiting-request’ behavior is in my opinion more in accordance with current rules&guidelines. Below the rules that are in my opinion causing the issue to occur. Marked ambiguous parts in Bold “4.3.1.The primary role of a pilot is to provide logistical support to the infantry on the ground. Examples of logistical support are: transporting people, ammo, fuel, vehicles, …” & “4.4.1.If you are operating a support asset like a mortar or a CAS plane/helicopter you are not allowed to kill the entire AO. Support assets are there to support the infantry this means that infantry have to call these support assets in.” I think ‘provide’ and ‘the need for infantry to request’ are the rootcause. Provide means (according to google) “make available for use”. and “make adequate preparation for a possible event”. Above mentioned ‘awaiting-request’ and ‘pro-active’ behaviors are both valid ways of “providing logistical support”. ‘Awaiting-request’-behavior is valid because allows for faster custom-tailored logistical support. Pilot doesn’t have to park and possible travel to appropriate asset. Meaning pilot can provide requested support quicker. ‘Pro-active’-behavior because experience learns that this behavior can handle most requests (often even before request are made) quicker. Above mentioned guideline/rule 4.4.1 suggests ‘awaiting-request’ is the most desirable of the options. Additional arguments why ‘awaiting-request’ could be considered more appropriate: -Flying about ‘when no task at hand’ as pilot is also frowned upon. -Considering more hardcore MilSim way of waiting for transport request before entering a vehicle is within the rules/guidelines of ‘play your role’. Similar approach is expected of CAS & CAP. -‘Pro-active’ behavior could also include pilots needing to guesstimate when AO/Objective is about to be completed and fly towards it, so exfil is smooth as possible. This could be considered ‘waste of assets’, because unnecessary risk of said asset is taken. In summary: A grey area occurs in rules&guidelines for the pilot role and staff enforces unwritten rules. This grey area causes unwanted behavior to occur according to unwritten rules and in my opinion should be resolved. Proposed solution: Add guideline to ‘4.3 or 4.4’ which states accurate expectation of transport pilots. My suggestions for above mentioned: Edit: “4.3.1.The primary role of a pilot is to provide logistical support to the infantry on the ground. Examples of logistical support are: transporting people, ammo, fuel, vehicles, …” To (in Bold the edit) “4.3.1.The primary role of a pilot is to provide logistical support to the infantry on the ground. Expected behavior for every pilot is being in a pilot seat ready to transport at ‘actively used’ ground spawn points or close to ground forces to fulfill their likely needs of logistical support. Examples of logistical support are: transporting people, ammo, fuel, vehicles, …” OR Add guideline(s) to section 4.4: “If you are in a pilot slot, your highest priority is to ensure swift transport of ground assets. This means being in a pilot seat ready to transport at ‘actively used’ ground spawn points or close to ground forces to fulfill their likely needs of logistical support (when no passengers are on-board). Only deviate from above mentioned behavior when non-support elements or staff call for/request different behavior. “ This is a draft, please add your suggestions for the guideline if you think it adds value and should be communicated better. Goals of solution: Giving staff a written rule to enforce pro-active logistical support. Give inexperienced pilots more guidance to the role and a short “job expectation”. (In my opinion, this isn’t clearly communicated, but is expected) Give players a written guideline to refer to when they observe unwanted behavior. All feedback is welcome on this idea, feel free to comment your opinion.

I dont mind buying new map for a campaign, aslong the map is worth it. Like people say its "one to have" and not just for the campaign

This campaign in a nutshell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvwRGq9k2A

Blight Light iz dat (G.I.) joe?