Any chance of reducing mission lengths?

[Roblex]

It has taken me 10 hours of flying since Wednesday to finally see the new map then after 1 hours play it switched to the one where Germany has taken the channel ports and all but 4 people logged off and the server said there were over 5 hours to go (I thought the limit was 4?)! I could not even hurry it up by destroying all the targets as the red objective in this map is to just survive until the end. Surely two hours is enough for any map?

[ATAG_Bliss]

Hi Roblex,

We've been discussing this. Many of the maps take a while to complete the objectives and they can chug along if everyone is only interested in dog fighting at the time. How about having a feature that allows the player to be able to vote to the next mission? We're trying to figure out what percentage of players to use. Obviously one or 2 people can't simply rotate the map as I feel it would be abused. Would a vote system work? 2 hour mission time is simply too short to be able to complete most objectives. Especially on a red defensive mission. I asked the question on our server thread at 1c as well. Hoping for some feedback from everyone.

[[FFCW]Urizen]

if you go for a vote system, a majority based system is a must. i recommend at least a majority of 2/3. anything less usually is a no go for most users.

[ATAG_Colander]

The problem is the non-english speakers in the server.
Is hard to coordinate a 2/3th when 1/2 does not speak the same language :)

[ATAG_Septic]

Just some thoughts;

It might immensely frustrating to have the mission roll when you've taken an hour to get your bomber near the target, or five of you have got together in formation and are half way across the drink. This happens now of course, and it's a major frustration caused by the net code requiring restarts (as I understand it from the boffins amongst us) but there would be no way of knowing whether it's worth investing the time before warming up at a faraway airfield.

This has to be balanced with the frustration people are feeling when some maps won't roll. There might be pressure from some to vote roll whilst others might feel strongly against, there's plenty of potential for conflict I fear (maybe votes can be anonymous?)

If a voting system is the answer to current frustrations, and I have no alternative to suggest, it would need to be carefully designed.

Septic.

[ATAG_Colander]

Good point Septic,

How about a veto system?
To roll the map, 1/3 of players is needed unless 1 player vetoes it. Then is vote reset to 0

[Roblex]

I wonder if it would work for the vote to include a time element?

Everyone votes on whether they want the map to change in 1 minute or in 5 minutes or at normal mission end.
If the majority voted for a change then the longest time is taken as it means there is someone who is just about to drop some bombs or a few minutes away from getting a kill.
You must also give two minutes for all the replies to come back as someone may be in a dogfight or lining up a drop when the question is asked.

Alternatively just make the reset delay always at least 5 minutes (with the two minutes decision time first) That means a minimum of 7 minutes to reset which is not as long as it sounds as the biggest agitators will spend the first two minutes discussing how they voted and how they hope everyone agrees then once the vote is in the five minutes will fly by as they congratulate each other and land or decide to look for one last victim knowing they don't have to put up with the map much longer :-)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Good point Septic,

How about a veto system?
To roll the map, 1/3 of players is needed unless 1 player vetoes it. Then is vote reset to 0

I expect there would always be one person willing to veto. Anyone stalking a target would have incentive veto.

For me, generally shorter (2 or 3 hours, as opposed to 4 or 5) mission run times would be better than a voting system. Then people can <tl before deciding if it is worthwhile forming up for a long bomber mission.

[Doc]

I expect there would always be one person willing to veto. Anyone stalking a target would have incentive veto.

For me, generally shorter (2 or 3 hours, as opposed to 4 or 5) mission run times would be better than a voting system. Then people can <tl before deciding if it is worthwhile forming up for a long bomber mission.

Often 1 bomber run is 1 hour long to bomb at altitude - you have people in the server that use their 111's at 5000 meters and it take a long time to get there.

That's the problem with short time.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Often 1 bomber run is 1 hour long to bomb at altitude - you have people in the server that use their 111's at 5000 meters and it take a long time to get there.

That's the problem with short time.

Yes... a fair point.
It's a difficult one getting the balance right. Someone like me is always going to have a difference of opinion with the poor guys who run the server! :salute:

Although I would add, the more dynamic the mission and the more historically based it is, the easier it is to fly it for an extended period of time.

[III./ZG76_Keller]

I think it would be better to just remove the missions that are not popular from the server via a vote on these forums.

The few pilots on each side that are bombing the mission objectives and escorting the human controlled bombers will constantly have the map changed right out from under them to suit the whims of those that just wish to dogfight.

[Doc]

Not if 1 no vote cancels it.

[Roblex]

Often 1 bomber run is 1 hour long to bomb at altitude - you have people in the server that use their 111's at 5000 meters and it take a long time to get there.

That's the problem with short time.

OK I did not think of that. I only fly RAF in COD and that means I only have the Blenheim to bomb with and it is useless as a high alt level bomber but in IL2 I often flew B17s & B24s or even FW200s so I remember how annoying it was to climb to altitude (though never for am hour!) and have the map close.

Here is a thought:- Everyone gets a vote and if one person votes to delay the mission it stays up but only for as long as that person is moving ie if he crashes or lands then the 5 minute countdown starts. Perhaps we should also allow that person to cancel his veto in case he drops his bombs and does not want everyone to wait for him to RTB and does not want to deliberately crash. Nobody else gets to change their vote to a veto though or it could go on all day! It does occur to me though that we could end up with everyone on the map trying to find that bomber just to shoot it down :-)
To avoid griefers deliberately putting in a veto then hiding over the North Sea with full tanks just to annoy people maybe the veto should have an upper limit of 30 minutes. If you are more than 30 minutes from your target then you can'y really expect everyone to wait for you.

[Catseye]

I think it would be better to just remove the missions that are not popular from the server via a vote on these forums.


I would be in favour of having only one continual mission running using Operation Sunlight as the core. Updates could be applied at a regular interval and posted so pilots would know when not to enter until the update is complete and those that are in the mission would receive a banner headline advising of updating in 30 minutes (or something like that).

If the mission were continual and had a moving front it would not matter when you entered or how long you stayed up until the daily update.

Just a thought.