Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 79

Thread: zzzzzz

  1. #1

    zzzzzz

    So, regarding the thread, how to get more people to play Clod...

    The first that comes to mind is that people need to reliably find combat. I just had my first little sojourn on the ATAG server in a couple months and despite there being 30 players, it was a real snoozefest. In the past I have found combat here and there, but today it was bad. I never fired my guns, and wasn't even shot at until I was parked on the ground trying to remember how not to "abandon" my aircraft when I was vulched. I had forgotten how people are so starved for action on the ATAG server they circle around runways at low altitude waiting for something to shoot at. Lesson learned.

    Fortunately, people were in one of the dogfight servers, and that was good fun. But the ATAG server is the only reliably populated server for Clod, so that's where people are going to end up frequently. I like the big-sandbox concept you guys have, but please, please consider some adjustments that might make it more exciting when there are so few people online. Here are some things I can think of:

    1. The contact positions that name a geographical location instead of a map coordinate are bewildering. Algebraic coordinates are more user friendly.

    2. The AI bomber streams could be sent down a predictable pipeline to concentrate combat. At the moment they seem to spread out the action by 30-40 miles North to South along the channel.

    3. Until TF releases the LOD fix, seriously consider some kind of minimalistic icon for the range/fov where aircraft disappear. Even if it's only black with no range information, it would help. I am spoiled by RoF and Falcon BMS where aircraft are still readily visible in a no-icon environment. In Clod they are not, and there have to be others who have equally cursed and moaned when a dot they saw a moment ago suddenly turned invisible.

    Well, those are some of my suggestions for improving attendance. A lot of the suggestions focus on people who are new to the game and haven't experienced much of what you have to offer. But there are many who have experienced it and just didn't see much reason to come back, and some of the above suggestions might change that.

    Thanks!

  2. #2

    Re: zzzzzz

    * Lack of localised 'action' - Many players have commented on this same experience (lack of contact/action even when several player online). It's a turnoff. To the above suggestions I would add Dynamic Ai spawning ie. More Ai spawn-in when there are fewer players, & progressively fewer Ai spawn-in as online player numbers increase. This keeps the action going even when player numbers are low. See http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...ead.php?t=4973

    * Target locations - I agree with the observation that the 'action' in most missions is too spread out. A mission with (say) 3 widely seperated targets means that 1/3 of players will be going to each target. This can only reduce the liklihood of air-to-air encounters. Not what you want to create an action-packed mission. Can I suggest that target numbers be reduce to (say) just ONE, or perhaps TWO but close together. Of course, some adjustment will be needed for the win objectives (say by increasing the number of object needed to be destroyed) so the mission is not completed too fast.

    * Mission length - There's probably no good reason why each ATAG mission should last for 5 hrs or so. This too is a turn-off for some players who log-on to find that a battle they don't favour is running. Perhaps consideration can be given to making battles (say) 2-3 hrs in length before the next rotation.

  3. #3

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    Here are some things I can think of:

    1. The contact positions that name a geographical location instead of a map coordinate are bewildering. Algebraic coordinates are more user friendly.

    2. The AI bomber streams could be sent down a predictable pipeline to concentrate combat. At the moment they seem to spread out the action by 30-40 miles North to South along the channel.

    3. Until TF releases the LOD fix, seriously consider some kind of minimalistic icon for the range/fov where aircraft disappear. Even if it's only black with no range information, it would help. I am spoiled by RoF and Falcon BMS where aircraft are still readily visible in a no-icon environment. In Clod they are not, and there have to be others who have equally cursed and moaned when a dot they saw a moment ago suddenly turned invisible.

    :
    1. Not sure what you are suggesting. The game *does* give map coordinates. The players themselves choose to use locations because that is what they prefer.

    2. You are being told where they were five minutes ago and what alt and bearing. Why dumb it down to aerial 'ducks in a row'? The SoW system where the controller gives you an intercept course is better and I am not sure why ATAG does not use it. It does not work perfectly all the time but neither does Tab-7.

    3. I kind of agree that some minimal aid could be put in place but I also get the impression the fix is very imminent so it is probably not worth the effort right now. It is silly to argue that icons are unrealistic when the LOD bug is also unrealistic. If possible the tag itself would just be a single grey character, maybe just a period, that does not even tell you what team the aircraft is and vanishes again when the target becomes visible; it just fills in that 'LOD gap'. The existing system allows you to switch to a better icon at closer range so needs to switch to 'no icon' instead. I suspect it does not allow that but if the aircraft is now close enough to see then I suppose a single pale grey dot above it would be hardly noticeable. If the dot could be positioned 'on' the aircraft instead of above it then it would be perfect but I am not sure how 'hackable' the icon system is.

    All three of Salmos ideas are good and I am looking forward to the day when he has the spare time to try them out.
    56sqn US@R
    Diary of a hopeless Pilot Officer http://roblex56raf.livejournal.com/


    nVidia GeForce 6100V > AMD Athlon II X4 605e @ 2300MHz
    Physical Memory : 3072MBDDR3-SDRAM > Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
    Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) > Windows Performance Index : 5.9 on 7.9

  4. #4
    Team Fusion indyscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    126

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by Salmo View Post
    * Lack of localised 'action' - Many players have commented on this same experience (lack of contact/action even when several player online). It's a turnoff. To the above suggestions I would add Dynamic Ai spawning ie. More Ai spawn-in when there are fewer players, & progressively fewer Ai spawn-in as online player numbers increase. This keeps the action going even when player numbers are low. See http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...ead.php?t=4973
    I give a big thumbs up to this! As a North American player, there is often 2-12 people on during the North American "Peak Hours". This can lead to some really boring game play, as it becomes more of a sight seeing flight than a combat sortie. I would love to see this implemented.

  5. #5

    Re: zzzzzz

    Thanks Salmo, you said it better than I did!

    Roblex, I'm talking about the orange messages that ask you to rendezvous with bombers for escort, etc. They use location names and not map coordinates. Sometimes I have really wanted to escort bombers but couldn't find the name on the map!
    Last edited by gavagai; 07-27-13 at 09:14.

  6. #6

    Re: zzzzzz

    Is there any reason that this thread has been started seperately....Folks following the 'How can we make more people play CLOD' thread won't find this one easily (I didn't) and there is some interesting points here..
    Life is about how well you can handle plan B
    CPU: Intel Core i7 2700K 3.50GHz Sandybridge overclocked to 4.80GHz, Motherboard: Asus Maximus IV Extreme -Z Intel Z68 (Socket 1155) PCI-Express DDR3,
    RAM: 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 Dual Channel Kit, Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GTX 580 1536MB GDDR,
    Joystick: Microsoft Sidewinder II ForceFeedback Joystick, Throttle: CH Products Pro Throttle

  7. #7

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by FS~Lewis View Post
    Is there any reason that this thread has been started seperately....Folks following the 'How can we make more people play CLOD' thread won't find this one easily (I didn't) and there is some interesting points here..
    I'll move my suggestions to the other thread if you think it would help.

  8. #8

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by Salmo View Post
    * Lack of localised 'action' - Many players have commented on this same experience (lack of contact/action even when several player online). It's a turnoff. To the above suggestions I would add Dynamic Ai spawning ie. More Ai spawn-in when there are fewer players, & progressively fewer Ai spawn-in as online player numbers increase. This keeps the action going even when player numbers are low. See http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...ead.php?t=4973

    * Target locations - I agree with the observation that the 'action' in most missions is too spread out. A mission with (say) 3 widely seperated targets means that 1/3 of players will be going to each target. This can only reduce the liklihood of air-to-air encounters. Not what you want to create an action-packed mission. Can I suggest that target numbers be reduce to (say) just ONE, or perhaps TWO but close together. Of course, some adjustment will be needed for the win objectives (say by increasing the number of object needed to be destroyed) so the mission is not completed too fast.

    * Mission length - There's probably no good reason why each ATAG mission should last for 5 hrs or so. This too is a turn-off for some players who log-on to find that a battle they don't favour is running. Perhaps consideration can be given to making battles (say) 2-3 hrs in length before the next rotation.
    Regarding your second point I think it would be better if only one side had AI bombers and targets per mission. Sometimes you can be escorting a flight of LW bombers back to France and as you arrive at Dungeness you see RAF bombers on their way out. Also it spreads out the fighting a lot. So on any given map there are multiple missions going on with both sides attacking/defending (on top of the low level scraps) and it is rare to ever see more than 2 or 3 RAF attacking a bomber formation which doesn't encourage people to group up and escort them. Maybe shorter missions which are simpler and diverse could be a good idea?

  9. #9

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    Thanks Salmo, you said it better than I did!

    Roblex, I'm talking about the orange messages that ask you to rendezvous with bombers for escort, etc. They use location names and not map coordinates. Sometimes I have really wanted to escort bombers but couldn't find the name on the map!
    Oh I see. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe there are only two places where bombers spawn and need an escort. For the Brits it is St Marys Bay, which is the area North of Dungeness aka English point, and for the Germans it is Coquelles, just inland of CapGriz Nez aka French Point. No real need to rewrite the code when there are only two places to learn
    56sqn US@R
    Diary of a hopeless Pilot Officer http://roblex56raf.livejournal.com/


    nVidia GeForce 6100V > AMD Athlon II X4 605e @ 2300MHz
    Physical Memory : 3072MBDDR3-SDRAM > Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
    Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) > Windows Performance Index : 5.9 on 7.9

  10. #10

    Re: zzzzzz

    I still don't know where either of those places are. Pulling up google maps in flight is not very convenient.

    This is how people are pushed away from Clod.

  11. #11

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    I still don't know where either of those places are. Pulling up google maps in flight is not very convenient.

    This is how people are pushed away from Clod.
    I made a map.

  12. #12
    Admin ATAG_Colander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Here, there and everywhere
    Posts
    5,421

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    I still don't know where either of those places are. Pulling up google maps in flight is not very convenient.

    This is how people are pushed away from Clod.
    You can press the "M" (default key) and it will bring up an ingame map.
    You can zoom in and out in the map and see more details (and more names).

  13. #13

    Re: zzzzzz

    Yes, it's on the in-game map that I have sometimes not been able to find location names. You have to remember that I also have to worry about being shot at during these times. That's why I suggested algebraic coordinates as a helpful thing for people who don't play a lot of Clod. I'm not going to argue the point any more, though. I'm not very invested in Clod and I'm simply trying to explain why.

    Good luck with your server missions!

  14. #14

    Re: zzzzzz

    OK I am confused again. I have pointed out that when you are told the bombers are over St Marys Bay you need to be North of Dungeness (or near Littlestone Airfield if you prefer) and if it says Coquelles then you need to be just East of Cap Gris Nez (Or just South of Calais if you prefer) That is it! Two places. You look at the map once, do it now, and then you never have to bring up a map again when escorts are asked for.

    The locations are only approximate, there is no need to position your aircraft exactly. Personally if the position was given as a grid reference *that* is when I would find myself continually bringing up the map to see where that is!
    56sqn US@R
    Diary of a hopeless Pilot Officer http://roblex56raf.livejournal.com/


    nVidia GeForce 6100V > AMD Athlon II X4 605e @ 2300MHz
    Physical Memory : 3072MBDDR3-SDRAM > Video Card : NVIDIA GeForce GT 430
    Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) > Windows Performance Index : 5.9 on 7.9

  15. #15

    Re: zzzzzz

    Well, let's not go shooting the messenger here. If gavagai is having difficulty with these issues then I imagine others are as well. If we're serious about getting new people into the game then it's important mission builders know these things.

  16. #16

    Re: zzzzzz

    Maybe this map helps you to identify and communicate important points along the French and English coast that are typical for ATAG and Storm of War Missions:

    clod_landmarks.jpg

    French coast (from East to West):
    - Dunkirk
    - LW Calais Marck
    - Calais
    - LW Coquelles
    - LW Pihen
    - French cliffs
    - Cap Griz-Nez ("French point")
    - Boulogne

    English coast (from South to North):
    - Dungeness ("English point")
    - RAF Littlestone
    - RAF Lympne
    - Folkstone with RAF Hawkinge
    - English cliffs between Folkstone and Dover
    - Dover
    - English Cliffs between Dover and Deal
    - Deal
    - RAF Manston + RAF Ramsgate
    - RAF Eastchurch
    Last edited by DUI; 07-28-13 at 12:26.

  17. #17

    Re: zzzzzz

    Turning on map icons and other easy mode stuff because someone can't be bothered to learn the map...

    This is what makes the sim so satisfying for most people who play.

  18. #18

    Re: zzzzzz

    why not just fly another server, gavagai?

    Some of them give you a grid reference, a map location a steering course and a time to intercept.

  19. #19

    Re: zzzzzz

    There are not so many popular servers - so please stay on ATAG or Storm of War, gavagai!

    I think you definitely have a point. For someone being new to Cliffs of Dover there is so much more important and interesting to learn in the first days than to study every detail of the map. For example, how to get the plane in the air, how to get it down in one piece and how to get bandits down in "several pieces".

    I like the idea of having grid coordinates added to the server messages - does not harm anyone and surely hardly makes any effort to the server admins. Of course, showing icons on the map would be something totally different.

  20. #20
    ATAG Moderator ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    4,420

    Re: zzzzzz

    I agree with the earlier post -- please don't shoot the messenger! It's instructive to see Cliffs of Dover through the eyes of someone coming fresh into the sim.

    Let's face it, during the BoB locations were never radio'd by actual geographical name or coordinates. Code names (changed daily) were used. That would ball ALL of us up!



    i7 4770K @3.5 GHZ, 12 Gigs DDR3 1600 DIMM, Gigabyte GTX680 2 Gig, Win 8.1, TM Warthog HOTAS, CH Quadrant, Saitek Pro Combat rudder pedals

  21. #21
    ATAG Member ATAG_Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    This Sceptred Isle
    Posts
    3,005

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by gavagai View Post
    I'm not very invested in Clod and I'm simply trying to explain why.
    Do you mean 'invested' or 'interested'?

    So, starting a seperate thread, relating it to Lewis' thread, and complaining that you can't read the map, is somehow constructive?

    Tell me Gavagai, as a dedicated RoFfer, how did you learn where all the places on the Western Front are? Or are all airfields, rendezvous points, targets, all given a map grid ref by all mission builders in RoF? Do you not know the locations of anything on that map without the help of a grid reference?

    This whole thread is coming across to me as a troll post.
    Intel i7-860@2.8GHz, 6Gb DDR3 RAM, EVGA GTX570 1.2Gb

  22. #22

    Re: zzzzzz

    All games have learning curves, If you join the guys on teamspeak it takes just a few sorties to understand where the main reference points are (English/French point, Dover, Calais etc) without even looking at the map, you can familiarise yourself with the terrain in a reasonable timeframe!

    The LOD is a bugbear for us all we just get on with it for now, adding icons would ruin the game however, you cant surprise an enemy when there's a coloured reference icon marching across the screen, diving into a dogfight would become childlike as you can identify who's who with no aircraft recognition skills whatsoever, that to me would be dumbing down to an unacceptable level.

  23. #23
    ATAG Member ATAG_Knuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Chandler Arizona
    Posts
    1,190

    Re: zzzzzz

    One of the first think I had to do was "Learn the Map" Pretty sure thats how it was done back in the day. Can't tell you how many time I was looking for an airfield while I was still in France, Now I know the lay out, Towns, Rivers ect Makes the immersion that much better

    Oh yeah: I still get lost from time to time

    Asus P-8Z68 MB, 8 GB Corsair RAM, 750 W Power Supply, Intel Core i5 2500K GeForce GTX 570 1280MB and about a dozen squirrels running on a wheel that I sometimes forget to feed !

  24. #24

    Re: zzzzzz

    Incidentally the "Channel Map" is one off most friendly map in "il-2's" (You can compare with fantasy map Pacific Islands), and is historical.

    -You see across the channel wheres is the "Indian country, are good land marks for reference (English point, French point...)
    -At least in 10/15 minutes you are in hot area (of course, if you know where to go).
    -Fly East to find german's.
    -Fly West to find british's.

    If someone want something easier than that, only the symmetric Scimitar fantasy map.

    Sokol1

  25. #25
    Veteran Combat pilot 4./KG53_saipan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    orange county, california
    Posts
    450

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by 1lokos View Post
    Incidentally the "Channel Map" is one off most friendly map in "il-2's" (You can compare with fantasy map Pacific Islands), and is historical.

    -You see across the channel wheres is the "Indian country, are good land marks for reference (English point, French point...)
    -At least in 10/15 minutes you are in hot area (of course, if you know where to go).
    -Fly East to find german's.
    -Fly West to find british's.

    If someone want something easier than that, only the symmetric Scimitar fantasy map.

    Sokol1
    I miss the pacific maps, a lot of the 3rd party ones were very good.
    ASUS Sabretooth z77, i5 3750k, CM haf-x, EVGA gtx 770 SC ACX, Antec HC 850, OCZ 120GB SSD Vertex 4 OS, WD Black 1TB, Corsair Vengence 8GB, Creative SB Recon, Creative G500 5.1, ASUS VS248h-P
    Me-110 Black 17 with Hptmn. Hans "AWAC" Warsteiner
    :
    Trust me , I fly a Me 110-C7

  26. #26

    Re: zzzzzz

    Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today.

    BATTLE
    * 5 red players & 5 blue players online.
    * Red briefing - The red brief asked pilots to destroy 3 targets while defending 5 targets
    * Blue briefing - The blue brief asked pilots to destroy 5 targets while defending 3 targets
    * Red objectives - 3 targets spread over 120 km2 enemy landmass
    * blue targets - 5 targets spread over 400 km2 enemy landmass
    * 4 & 1/2 hrs into a 5 hrs battle, and just one blue object objective achieved (no red objectives achieved)
    * Virtually all flyable planes were available from all spawn base
    * All players had either a Spitfire IIa or a Bf109-E4N

    Battle size
    Simple math will reveal that it's a virtual impossibility for any meaningful air engagements between red & blue players. It's not possible for 5 red players to attack/defend simultaneously at 7 locations. Similarly, it's not possible for 5 blue pilots to simultaneously attack/defend 7 locations. Have a look at the map, look at the total area that red & blue have to fly-in to cover their offensive & defensive targets. It's about 1,300km2. So for 10 pilots, thats just 1 pilot for every 130 km2, or if you like, 1 pilot for every 13 (10km) grid squares on the map. To achieve meaningful & frequent air encounters, I believe you'd need something like 1 pilot every 2-4 (10km) grid squares.

    It's a no-brainer. The targets are too numerous, & spread too far apart, & the objectives (attack/defend) are too many for anything less than very large (> 80) player numbers.

    Planesets
    What can I say? I think I'll go potty if I join the server again & find the same-old -> same-old. 'Best' red plane v's 'best' blue plane scenario. Surely, we can be a bit more creative with planesets than to just make all planes available at all bases.

    Spawn bases
    Large number of spawn bases for both sides. Most often I spawn-in & there's no-one else at the airfield so I warm-up & takeoff in what amounts to a 'sterile' airfield environment. Minimise spawn base numbers to create a bit a atmosphere at bases (multiple players warming up, taxiing etc) to liven up the place.

    Briefings
    The briefing texts are very long (most players don't read them anyway). How about shortening the text to just essential information.
    Last edited by Salmo; 08-01-13 at 03:43.

  27. #27
    Admin ATAG_Bliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    United States of China
    Posts
    3,435

    Re: zzzzzz

    Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today.

    BATTLE
    * 5 red players & 5 blue players online.
    * Red briefing - The red brief asked pilots to destroy 3 targets while defending 5 targets
    * Blue briefing - The blue brief asked pilots to destroy 5 targets while defending 3 targets
    * Red objectives - 3 targets spread over 120 km2 enemy landmass
    * blue targets - 5 targets spread over 400 km2 enemy landmass
    * 4 & 1/2 hrs into a 5 hrs battle, and just one blue object objective achieved (no red objectives achieved)
    * Virtually all flyable planes were available from all spawn base
    * All players had either a Spitfire IIa or a Bf109-E4N
    I don't agree with you Salmo. I initially started out putting all same side targets within a 20km radius of each other. This obviously put the fight in one spot on each side, but at the same time, it put the already vunerable mud drivers into an even worse situation. They don't even have a rear gunner that works right as it stands.

    The comments at the time were the BoB took place over many different parts of England. Many raids also historically went to multiple targets located much much further than any targets in the current missions. The idea of having spread out objectives is that a bomber guy actually has a chance of trying to fly a bomber. But it obviously gets harder to win the last few objectives when the opposing team is circling that one particular area where the last objective is. Now just imagine being a bomber pilot and your targets are constantly covered with fighters? How long is that going to make you want to fly anything with bombs?

    I understand your point about wanting to see action, but understand not everyone is a fighter pilot and there has to be concessions made for those types pilots as well. What maybe fun for you (shooting down people / fast action) isn't going to be fun for a bomber pilot who's already spent 45 minutes getting across just to run into the entire opposition defending a target area all in one spot.

    About the # of objectives for each side. This is all depends on target density and the difficulty in taking out targets. Generally if the Blue side has more targets to destroy it's because the planeset allows them to do it much more easily, such as having 109/B variants. Believe it or not, there is a reason why many of the missions are setup the way they are. If there is 3 targets for each side, and the 109's can sling bombs, how fast do you think 109's can take out the targets compared to the small bomb loadouts of the only bomber available to the Red side, the blenhiem? Lets just say the blue side will be taking out the targets much much faster. So instead of thinking in simple terms like number of targets per side, think of the big picture such as the distance certain aircraft have to fly to get to target, the planesets (those with bombs etc.) and then you'll soon see just how balanced those missions are as far as targets go. I've seen blue and red win as many times as each other.

    Battle size
    Simple math will reveal that it's a virtual impossibility for any meaningful air engagements between red & blue players. It's not possible for 5 red players to attack/defend simultaneously at 7 locations. Similarly, it's not possible for 5 blue pilots to simultaneously attack/defend 7 locations. Have a look at the map, look at the total area that red & blue have to fly-in to cover their offensive & defensive targets. It's about 1,300km2. So for 10 pilots, thats just 1 pilot for every 130 km2, or if you like, 1 pilot for every 13 (10km) grid squares on the map. To achieve meaningful & frequent air encounters, I believe you'd need something like 1 pilot every 2-4 (10km) grid squares.

    It's a no-brainer. The targets are too numerous, & spread too far apart, & the objectives (attack/defend) are too many for anything less than very large (> 80) player numbers.
    Sounds pretty realistic to me. You have to tactically think where the opponent is going to come from (from all the airfield choices), to what they are flying, what they are attacking, having to patrol, spending time searching for targets etc. Should I instead have airstarts that point towards each other and just let people duke it out and repeat? Is what is going on in the server not realistic? There are servers out there that have a flight time of 3 minutes to engage the enemy if you need that quick action. There are plenty of airquake type of servers out there etc, that can cater to what seems to be what you want. But we are still trying to give that BoB feeling.

    I also don't understand the mission time complaints either. If I were to be the lone bomber guy on the server, I could not complete all the objectives in a 6 hour window by myself on any mission. There isn't enough time to for all the flying required. So the entire point is to give those guys that like to fly bombers, some time to get their bearings and possible hit some targets. Do you have any idea how long it takes an He111 to get to altitude for level bombing? Then the time it takes to plan your route so you won't waste all that time for nothing? Then actually getting to target and possibly hitting the target? I've done He111 flights that lasted over 3 hours for a single sortie, and all that for a miss!! Please, you must think about other types of pilots when it comes to how missions are made. Again, not everyone is a fighter pilot, and we try to cater so everyone can have a chance at enjoyable time. Will that always happen? Of course not. But you really need to look at the big picture when you are talking about mission stuff because while you may make a certain group of pilots happy, you will completely alienate another with that way of thinking.

    Planesets
    What can I say? I think I'll go potty if I join the server again & find the same-old -> same-old. 'Best' red plane v's 'best' blue plane scenario. Surely, we can be a bit more creative with planesets than to just make all planes available at all bases.
    Don't know what to tell you. 50% of the missions have the E4n/IIa and the other 50% have an earlier planeset. I would say the "best vs best" is only there 1/2 the time. What's wrong with that?

    Spawn bases
    Large number of spawn bases for both sides. Most often I spawn-in & there's no-one else at the airfield so I warm-up & takeoff in what amounts to a 'sterile' airfield environment. Minimise spawn base numbers to create a bit a atmosphere at bases (multiple players warming up, taxiing etc) to liven up the place.
    This is done for several reasons. I'm sorry that your time from the other side of the world doesn't get the amount of players on the server as the rest of the day, but there needs to be a plentiful amount of bases for people making low level airfield attacks. If there was only a few places to spawn and one particular side was camping the small amount of airfields to spawn at, people would never be able to get off the ground. This type of thing happens on both the front line bases all the time. Now couple this with the fact that there also needs to be a few bomber bases to take off from in case the scenario happens where one of those bases is being perched on, and you start to see why it's a must have to have multiple spawn bases. Again, this was very thought out.

    Briefings
    The briefing texts are very long (most players don't read them anyway). How about shortening the text to just essential information.
    How do you know this? You're on at the time of day when hardly any players are around, why would you make the assumption that noone reads the briefing? And if noone did truly read the briefing, how would it's length bother anyone when it's going to show up regardless if there's any text in it in the 1st place?
    Last edited by ATAG_Bliss; 08-01-13 at 05:57.


    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself. - Archibald Macleish

  28. #28
    Team Fusion Kling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    2,176

    Re: zzzzzz

    Well I still think we should skip the british bomber formations and instead have twice as big german bomber formations each time...

  29. #29

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by Salmo View Post
    Can I point out to ATAG some flaws in their mission designs that, quite frankly, are killing player interest. Let me summarising the mission I found when I entered the ATAG server today.

    BATTLE
    * 5 red players & 5 blue players online.
    * Red briefing - The red brief asked pilots to destroy 3 targets while defending 5 targets
    * Blue briefing - The blue brief asked pilots to destroy 5 targets while defending 3 targets
    * Red objectives - 3 targets spread over 120 km2 enemy landmass
    * blue targets - 5 targets spread over 400 km2 enemy landmass
    * 4 & 1/2 hrs into a 5 hrs battle, and just one blue object objective achieved (no red objectives achieved)
    * Virtually all flyable planes were available from all spawn base
    * All players had either a Spitfire IIa or a Bf109-E4N

    Battle size
    Simple math will reveal that it's a virtual impossibility for any meaningful air engagements between red & blue players. It's not possible for 5 red players to attack/defend simultaneously at 7 locations. Similarly, it's not possible for 5 blue pilots to simultaneously attack/defend 7 locations. Have a look at the map, look at the total area that red & blue have to fly-in to cover their offensive & defensive targets. It's about 1,300km2. So for 10 pilots, thats just 1 pilot for every 130 km2, or if you like, 1 pilot for every 13 (10km) grid squares on the map. To achieve meaningful & frequent air encounters, I believe you'd need something like 1 pilot every 2-4 (10km) grid squares.

    It's a no-brainer. The targets are too numerous, & spread too far apart, & the objectives (attack/defend) are too many for anything less than very large (> 80) player numbers.

    Planesets
    What can I say? I think I'll go potty if I join the server again & find the same-old -> same-old. 'Best' red plane v's 'best' blue plane scenario. Surely, we can be a bit more creative with planesets than to just make all planes available at all bases.

    Spawn bases
    Large number of spawn bases for both sides. Most often I spawn-in & there's no-one else at the airfield so I warm-up & takeoff in what amounts to a 'sterile' airfield environment. Minimise spawn base numbers to create a bit a atmosphere at bases (multiple players warming up, taxiing etc) to liven up the place.

    Briefings
    The briefing texts are very long (most players don't read them anyway). How about shortening the text to just essential information.
    I agree with Salmo on a lot of points here.

    RE. Battle Size:

    Offering such wide area targets for bombers is certainly helpful to those who would like to make an attack run without being harrassed by fighters, but making those targets meaningful to the outcome of the mission seems a bit much. Especially considering what defending pilots would have to do in order to prevent those targets from being hit. For example, on one map there is a target of some tanks near Wilmington. A few of us decided to try defending that target which essentially resulted in us flying around in circles for nearly two hours before a single low flying JU88 that wasn't spotted by any radar came in and destroyed it before we could catch and shoot him down. I doubt that even the LOD fix rumoured to be coming would have changed this result. We could just as easily spent the entire mission time flying around in that area and not seen ANY action if Blue didn't have any bomber pilots or just didn't get time to attack that target. It is literally miles and miles and miles away from any of the other action. And yet we're, as RED, expected to devote pilots to defend it. When some players only have an hour (if that) to play, those targets may as well be in Scotland. There are plenty of attack vectors that can be taken against targets. Covering all attack vectors to any target is a pretty huge problem for a defending force that doesn't have working RDF when you consider the height of attack as well as the approach.

    RE Planesets:

    There's not much you can do about this unfortunately. Whatever plane set you supply, the best aircraft available will be the ones selected. Also, unfortunately, many people simply don't want to take up an aircraft they feel is 'inferior' to its opposition. Hence the disappearance of many players when the set is 1a 100oct vs E1 / E3. So to keep players playing, you have to give them what they want to fly and we end up with IIa vs E4/N (not much fun for a Hurricane pilot, I can assure you). The only thing I can think of that might mitigate this is to have the best aircraft taking off from rear airfields so that the people who want to take up the better aircraft have to spend time getting to the front. This will likely have the effect of reducing the numbers of those aircraft overall to something more reasonably approximating the ratios of the war. Even a diehard pilot who takes up a Spitfire IIa may switch to a Ia to get back into action after being shot down.

    RE Spawn Bases:

    Multiple bases to spawn at is generally an answer to the complaint of 'vulchers' lurking over an airfield, or as a deterant for concentrating combat entirely to a single area at low altitude. I think an appropriate number of airfields would be three. Two relatively near the front ( Hawkinge & Manston / Audembert & Calais Marck for example) and then one rear airfield (Eastchurch / Tramecourt). Put the IIa and the E4/N at Eastchurch and Tramecourt and keep any bomber targets contained within (or very close to within) the triangles created by those airfields.

    RE Briefings:

    People read the briefings I think, but mostly they just scroll until they see sector co-ords, so definitely a shorter briefing would make reading it easier and perhaps encourage more players to participate by making the objectives of each map easier to identify. Maybe standardize the briefing style into three headings.

    AIRFIELDS
    Hawkinge - Spitfire Ia (100oct) , Hurricane Rotol (100oct)
    Manston - Spitfire Ia (100oct) , Hurricane Rotol (100oct)
    Eastchurch - Spitfire IIa

    TARGETS
    BB 20 - HE111's at Caffiers
    BB 21 - Landing barges at Calais Docks
    BE 17 - German Army Command Post north east of Fruges

    DEFENSE POINTS
    AY 23 - CH Radar station near Dover Castle
    AX 25 - British Infantry Base north west of Sandwich
    AT 25 - Merlin engine parts factory near Sittingbourne

    And then offer a similar briefing for the BLUE side. There's no reason not to include more in the briefings, but put this information at the top so that people don't need to scroll for it. This is especially helpful for people who like to switch between the map and briefing while flying.

  30. #30

    Re: zzzzzz

    Quote Originally Posted by ATAG_Kling View Post
    Well I still think we should skip the british bomber formations and instead have twice as big german bomber formations each time...
    A good suggestion. And have the bombers target active airfields and their spawn points to give taking out the bombers something worth doing in lieu of having air targets be valued against the mission result.

    IE:

    In the above suggestion of the three airfields (Hawkinge, Maston, Eastchurch):

    15minutes into the map
    9 Do17s attack Manston @ 15,000 ft
    9 He111s attack Hawkinge @ 17,000 ft

    45minutes into the map
    9 Ju88s attack Hawkinge @ 20,000 ft
    9 Ju87s attack Manston @ 10,000 ft

    1h15minutes into the map
    6 BR20s attack Hawkinge @ 18,000 ft
    6 Do17s attack Eastchurch @ 19,000 ft
    6 He111s attack Manston @ 16,000 ft

    1h45minutes into the map
    9 Ju88s attack Manston @ 20,000 ft
    6 Do17s attack Hawkinge @ 16,000 ft
    6 He111s attack Eastchurch @ 18,000 ft


    Or, if those are spaced too far apart, halve the numbers of aircraft and double the rate at which they attack (every 15 min instead of every 30).

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •