[Discussion] It's the Basics, son. Just the Basics.

[NKato]

Have you ever wondered why the Allies drilled it into every fighter pilot's head that you need to fly in pairs when engaging targets?

The answer is, it's a tactic and a strategy. It ensures higher survival rates of your men, while also ensuring a higher mission success rate.

The problem with this idea in TEST? It requires discipline and knowing who you're assigned to.

I've been thinking about all this, and I think that it would be important to emphasize traveling in pairs at any given time, except when you're on a solo op (such as exploration in a Carrack) or traveling in high security systems. Repetition of a particular thing, makes it become second nature.

I think, in the opening weeks of the Persistent Universe, we'll have enough members to encourage flying in groups, irrespective of whatever ship they are flying. Should we make it a mandatory/strongly recommended thing according to certain criteria?

I propose that Pilots should be encouraged to travel in multiples of 2 (groups of 2, 4, 6, etc ships) if the following conditions are met:

1. The transit route between Point A and Point B have received any piracy/threat reports in the past 48 hours.
2. The pilot is operating in an area with known high-level threats, such as elite pirates, Vanduul, and player threats.
   
3. The pilot is participating in any TEST-centric combat operation.
4. The pilot is located in any low-security area, such as the Fringe, or systems such as Fora and Cathcart.

To facilitate these criteria, I would probably be willing to help compile a "daily system threat report" that could eventually be automated (by parsing known threat reports into a generated "game-wide" threat report) into a regular update that is posted on the internal organization forums.

Any thoughts on this, everyone?

 

[GrammarGestapo]

manditory, never. Not unless they're flying in valuable ships owned by the org. Strongly recommended? of course. We need to make it known that there will be people to fly with you if you think you'll need help, and that a TESTie can always come in to back you up.

 

[Yex]

TEST will be ultimate Zerg victory every time. Death by flaming Aurora

 

[Willem Default]

I agree with Grammar, we shouldn't make anything like this mandatory. Recommending something is a lot more in-keeping with the TEST philosophy, I feel.

 

[Op4ArcticFox]

I feel like this isn't a bad idea, but perhaps to keep things light have any of the dedicated Testies part of a more serious mindset, and maybe even in a different sub-division of the org. While all the casuals and limited use players can just go off and do whatever.
So anyone who flies/fights/mines/transports with one of the 3 groups you proposed for Org structure (Logi/Mil/Dist) all have flight guildlines. Work in pairs being one of them. This would be great for any number of groups from miners to scouts to explorers. But maybe have a different group for people who honestly are just there to play a game and don't really care what org they are in? It would be splitting our users, but given I would rather have a functional org that has guidelines AND high member count than I would one that is strictly functional, as the more players will allow for more created content and fun. IMO.

 

[NKato]

I feel like this isn't a bad idea, but perhaps to keep things light have any of the dedicated Testies part of a more serious mindset, and maybe even in a different sub-division of the org. While all the casuals and limited use players can just go off and do whatever.
So anyone who flies/fights/mines/transports with one of the 3 groups you proposed for Org structure (Logi/Mil/Dist) all have flight guildlines. Work in pairs being one of them. This would be great for any number of groups from miners to scouts to explorers. But maybe have a different group for people who honestly are just there to play a game and don't really care what org they are in? It would be splitting our users, but given I would rather have a functional org that has guidelines AND high member count than I would one that is strictly functional, as the more players will allow for more created content and fun. IMO.

Another reason I'm suggesting an encouraged policy like this in the OP, is to also give ourselves an out in the event a TEST member decides to go solo and gets his ass shot down hardcore, and he decides to bitch and moan to us that "we weren't there to help".

Basically, we need a slogan similar to "Loose Lips Sink Ships" that expresses the concept of flying in groups to a T, and makes it clear that TEST has plenty of people who may be willing to help cover your ass.

 

[Guss De Blöd]

I suggest a multiple of two with a minimum of 500. :D

That's my strategy.

jokes aside, that's not a good idea, not to make it mandatory or even "highly recommended", but to advise people to do so.

 

[Op4ArcticFox]

Another reason I'm suggesting an encouraged policy like this in the OP, is to also give ourselves an out in the event a TEST member decides to go solo and gets his ass shot down hardcore, and he decides to bitch and moan to us that "we weren't there to help".

Basically, we need a slogan similar to "Loose Lips Sink Ships" that expresses the concept of flying in groups to a T, and makes it clear that TEST has plenty of people who may be willing to help cover your ass.

While that's fair, all the people what want to cry about us not being there to protect them can go fuck themselves. And I wont stress about losing that kind of person from the Org either. We have a lot of people, and a lot of interest. And while it is a good idea to fly in minimum of pairs, that is something we can teach in our Test Official Flight Club (or whatever we call our training branch). We can reinforce good habits through non-requirement means. And if it does become a problem later, we can always re-evaluate it then.

 

[NKato]

I suggest a multiple of two with a minimum of 500. :D

That's my strategy.

jokes aside, that's not a good idea, not to make it mandatory or even "highly recommended", but to advise people to do so.

Recommendations are still considered advice. Just like how Recommended Specs are a form of advice when it comes to computer gaming.

While that's fair, all the people what want to cry about us not being there to protect them can go fuck themselves. And I wont stress about losing that kind of person from the Org either. We have a lot of people, and a lot of interest. And while it is a good idea to fly in minimum of pairs, that is something we can teach in our Test Official Flight Club (or whatever we call our training branch). We can reinforce good habits through non-requirement means. And if it does become a problem later, we can always re-evaluate it then.

Yup. The main issue is being able to ensure that we have at least a passable level of discipline so we don't come apart like a badly-glued Retaliator model kit the instant we hit some turbulence. :p

 

[Tortilla the Hun]

It's not a bad idea. Having a Goose for every Maverick. Except every Maverick is also a Goose.

All we need is a homoerotic volleyball montage.

 

[honcho12]

I think, in the opening weeks of the Persistent Universe, we'll have enough members to encourage flying in groups, irrespective of whatever ship they are flying. Should we make it a mandatory/strongly recommended thing according to certain criteria?

I think it's a really good idea as a suggestion, not a mandate. TEST is big enough that there will probably be at least one other person going to the same place as you are anyway.

We could have a propaganda campaign; "TESTies are happiest in pairs" ;)

 

[NKato]

I think it's a really good idea as a suggestion, not a mandate. TEST is big enough that there will probably be at least one other person going to the same place as you are anyway.

We could have a propaganda campaign; "TESTies are happiest in pairs" ;)

This is perfect. "TESTes are happiest in pairs." Show two Auroras flying at the viewer, with the lead Aurora blasting a Glaive to smithereens. :P

 

[Space Monkey]

I like the idea of laying down suggested flying practices when...

It would make TEST members crash less. At least for unintentional crashes.

These should definitely be suggestions as opposed to fixed rules because I don't think anyone would really want to deal with the eventual "He broke the rules...Waaaaa".

The two flyer concept may work fine but I would be interested to learn and more importantly practice formations with an actual wingman/squadron. I know that when some TESTies tried this a few months ago it was pretty TESTariffic. Meaning we crashed alot. It was great fun but still the crashes.

We could always start small. I know in AC there is the potential for using suggested flying practices like wingman/squadron formations. My experience in AC so far has been fire at anything that moves and that works fine for the sim but when in a public match, I try to cover people if I see a vanduul is going for them. I've had many unintentional crashes with people ramming me (or maybe it's the other way around) when going after a specific Vanduul.
I know that this thread is dealing with more on the PU interactions but since flying in pairs inherently refers to dogfighting, we could certainly try some form in AC.

Anyway, I found this a while back and thought it might be useful here.
https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/124804/zero-g-dogfighting-for-dummies/p1

 

[Space Monkey]

"TESTies are happiest in pairs" ;)

Precious.

 

[Space Monkey]

...Nothing beats a pair of TESTies.

Just couldn't resist.

 

[honcho12]

...Nothing beats a pair of TESTies.

Just couldn't resist.

It writes itself!

 

[NKato]

Thus far, I can see that encouraging pairings are an acceptable idea. Requiring them, however, is not a workable setup.

I think that by encouraging this kind of policy, we'll be able to make it easier on TEST's combat fleet commanders. You don't end up having to micromanage your fighters because someone ended up solo with no backup.

If members put themselves through enough situations to the point where they can easily adapt to a fleet, it takes a huge load off of the commanding officers' workload.

 

[MzHartz]

It's not a bad idea. Having a Goose for every Maverick. Except every Maverick is also a Goose.

All we need is a homoerotic volleyball montage.

Just, um, had to clarify. You know, in case someone didn't get the joke. Yeah, that's it...

 

[honcho12]

Just, um, had to clarify. You know, in case someone didn't get the joke. Yeah, that's it...

 

[MzHartz]

Thank you for clarifying...