I agree that the 0.1 and 10 multipliers are extreme, but they do serve an illustrative purpose, different values, say (0.5 and 2) (0.33 and 3) (0.25 and 4) (0.2 and 5), could be nice middle grounds, bc as we all know, “The Snail giveth, and the Snail taketh away”, so while the original suggestion calls it a “penalty” it would be more accurate to say that “this is the trade-off. UPFRONT. avoiding a shadow economy nerf/change later” for rewarding players for playing to their aircraft’s strengths/intended use. In short:
IT SHOULD BE IMPACTFUL ENOUGH TO SWAY PLAYERS INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES, BUT NEITHER OPPRESSIVELY PUNISHING FOR ‘UN-OPTIMAL/UNINTENDED’ PLAY NOR SHOULD IT BE SO ENTICING THAT PLAYERS STOP ENGAGING WITH OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE BATTLE SPACE.
As for those complaining about markers, the presence or removal of, they should remain in some form for accessibility, however currently they are far too powerful, a possible change: planes within a few km’s have a flashing dot above or next to them, to point out the existence of an enemy, that was not shared to allies unless they are in wingtip-to-wingtip formation, (fighter pilots Irl use hand signals to communicate under radio silence, that can be your roleplay for this limitation), would be an incredibly good change to gameplay.
This would massively limit 3rd parties ability to negate the progression of a dogfight.
Especially infuriating if the 3rd party arrives as their ally is about to lose from an advantageous position/circumstance. That is, for the one killed by the third party, right before they have got the kill from a disadvantage, not much takes more skill right?
While still allowing for IFF withing visual combat range. Top tier combat ranges can exceed this perfectly fine, as by the time the engagement range exceeds the range that markers would/should presented, most if not all aircraft have IFF equipped radars/rwr for longer range missile engagements.
This prevents (or at least reduces) the common occurrence of having someone in a losing position but not yet out of the fight from running at another aircraft several km’s away, that is either currently engaging enemies themselves, engaging other objectives, or in the process of rearming/repairing, if they are spotted by someone from outside “marker distance” fair game, but someone in the heat of a dogfight shouldn’t be rewarded, from a losing position, for simply pointing their plane at that red dot, waaay over there, and hoping that they last long enough to get a consolation kill, that doesn’t really promote learning, skillful or engagement gameplay does it?
A bit more fidelity could be used for fine tuning by the devs, for instance the most important information currently shown is “Distance, Aircraft, and how quickly Distance is changing”, knowing that a plane IS there, is more than enough to start reacting, not knowing what they are flying, not knowing how quickly they are closing to or separating from you, puts more emphasis on the players ability to both react to unexpected threats quickly, and the patience of methodically stalking a target and executing an attack pass.
Regardless of any change to markers UDS (Universal Dot Scaling) ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE IN GAME RIGHT NOW. As currently much like ULQ in ground battles, it provides such a massively unfair advantage to players with lowered graphics settings, that is not in any way accounted for, yes even in ARB currently players sometimes don’t show markers under certain circumstances, more noticeable later into games, as there are less sources of remote spotting, and when flying in the sun or in ground clutter.
Thanks for coming to my Ted™ talk.