PDA

View Full Version : Mission ideas



Bear Pilot
Jul-30-2013, 13:36
Hello all,

Before I get started I'll just go ahead and put it out there that I have flown many hours on both sides, lately just a shade more on the blue side. Everything below is to help improve gameplay for us all.

Recently I've heard, had, and discussed thoughts for missions with guys and I just thought it might be interesting to see if some of the ideas are as widespread as I think they might be as well as some that I think may be more in the middle. So anyway....

1. Landing kills

I think if we enjoy the full real servers we fly in then why not take our virtual lives a little more seriously and try and make it home in order for those hard-earned kills to count? This wouldn't be forcing to fly any one way, they just have to come home if they want to keep their kills. Now some say landing should be the only way but I think anytime you can make it back to friendly lines... i.e. Crash landing in friendly territory and surviving, bailing over friendly territory, or maybe even ditching or bailing in neutral territory and having a scripted chance based on how close you are to friendly lines of avoiding capture. Any death regardless of capture should wipe the slate clean and also being captured in firmly held enemy territory.

2. Centralized Mission objectives

Lately this one has really struck me as a huge intensity multiplier. In most of the missions now there are several objectives for each side and sometimes 4 for the blue side. Maybe reducing this number while increasing the size of the objectives will localize the action and provide even more action. As it is, even with 50 guys online, I feel like it can sometimes be more difficult than it should to find much of anything. Yes I'm on TS. Now I know what you might be thinking and no I fully don't expect non stop action from take off to landing but it would be nice every once in a while to have a reliable target that we know the enemy is going to hit. It's very difficult to organize a defense of 3 or 4 targets especially when numbers dwindle in the evening hours before others in time zones ahead get back on. 1 or even 2 if they are near each other say....Hawkinge airfield and ships off of Dover. With fewer targets I would absolutely expect more tonnage to be needed and quite simply bigger targets. This would also lend itself to human flown flights of level bombers (a row of tanks is very difficult to hit and damn small from 6,000m). Maybe the London docks? Airfields? Maybe a combination of primary and secondary objectives but both being needed to win and the primary being something large like factories and half a dozen ships being a secondary (this would be for the blues). I don't think the Red side should ever have more than one objective although I think it should be somewhat less difficult than a primary blue objective. Maybe just defending say Eastchurch and Southend from attacking bombers could be the objective for red and escorting the main objective for blue.

A 110 can fly almost as fast if not faster than a Blenheim and carry more tonnage. And let's face it, the only dedicated Blenny flyer I know of is the one and only Snarglepuss :salute: Although I've flown and escorted many a Blenny raid so they do occur. I do think it is important to keep the Blenheim available though as it is the only red bomber. And with the Hispanos or even just a gun pack of .303s in future releases they could be a force! It may even be worth considering not having a red objective other than to defend. After all, the Germans are on the offensive here. I've never found myself too upset after losing a hard fought round when I could look back and say, "man that was some intense stuff." It's when you fly around for an hour and a half and a 109 B has rolled the map and I've guessed wrong on where he's going the first 3 times :grrr: and the last one was a suicide run for him. :banghead: I don't knock anyone for doing so and I certainly fly them on occassion but almost only with several wingmen and we go over in a group. Increasing target strength and size would make the 109 B less of a force but still effective

Overall, I think this idea will do at least a couple of things......

Force greater teamwork and coordination on both sides. Give everyone an area where they know they can expect action, a "hot-zone" if you like.

3. Time reduced

Hopefully with targets closer together they will be the main focus so time won't be such an issue. Over that last few weeks I've really noticed guys logging off after coming on and asking which mission is currently playing. Not that you can please everyone or ever will but if you could tell them, "Ya I know you don't like this map but there's some great dogfights over our armor and we think a new wave of bogeys is coming soon. How fast can you get here" might get their attention. Sometimes they just get on TS to ask, sigh, and never even get in the game. If 6 hours has gone by and no one has won, either everyone is having a blast bomber chasing/using them for bait or a low fight over the ships or something to that effect. Or the majority of those on when the map came on have logged off or are waiting for the next map to rotate in.

I realize I'm one one of the younger guys flying Cliffs and I've loved every second of it. I also am acutely aware that I do not possess the brain power nor the time to create missions and soon I will be back at school but I see the potential in the game. Not having the mission building ability I'm very grateful for what we already have and will keep flying regardless. Also thanks to Team Fusion for their great work so far and the work to come!

As I stated earlier, these are just some things I've talked about with guys on TS and some I've expanded on. Anyway, if you've gotten this far thanks for reading my novel. I hope I didn't stir any pots, my intentions are only to get some juices flowing! :) :thumbsup:

Happy Hunting

Bear Pilot

ATAG_Snapper
Jul-30-2013, 14:31
Excellent ideas, Bear.

Kling
Jul-30-2013, 14:37
Great ideas!! I really like idea nr1 and have proposed it before.
Maybe Bliss or Colander can tell us if this is possible.

ATAG_Colander
Jul-30-2013, 14:39
Great ideas!! I really like idea nr1 and have proposed it before.
Maybe Bliss ot Colander can tell us if this is possible.

It is possible but we have a limited amount of free time to work on fixes and improvements so we try to prioritize on what brings more to the game over what would be nice to have.

Kling
Jul-30-2013, 14:51
It is possible but we have a limited amount of free time to work on fixes and improvements so we try to prioritize on what brings more to the game over what would be nice to have.

Like a nightime Blenheim ?!? ;)

ATAG_Snapper
Jul-30-2013, 15:24
Like a nightime Blenheim ?!? ;)

I'm sure you realize that the TF member working on the night time Blenheim is not the TF member working on stats. What the first TF member does has absolutely no effect on the priorities or workload of the other TF member.

Kling
Jul-30-2013, 16:24
I'm sure you realize that the TF member working on the night time Blenheim is not the TF member working on stats. What the first TF member does has absolutely no effect on the priorities or workload of the other TF member.

I know, hence the smiley...
But it can look a bit weird when the reason given why time is not used to squash this bug, is priorities... It would make sense to indicate that the most annoying bugs, percieved my the CLOD community, were given highest priority. Better would probably be to say that other bugs are easier to fix and TF will therefor squash the easier but maybe less annoying bugs first.

For most people this bug probably is one of the most annoying bugs together with the LOD bug and should probably be given priority before new content etc etc is added.
However as you say, the guy working on the extra planes has nothing to do with finding the code for the cloud bug.
I just wish I were as good with code cracking as I am loud on the forum :(

Kling
Jul-30-2013, 16:29
To change the direction a little, wasnt there one or two of the official patches where the cloud bug didnt exist?? Or is my memory failing me?

ATAG_Snapper
Jul-30-2013, 20:02
To change the direction a little, wasnt there one or two of the official patches where the cloud bug didnt exist?? Or is my memory failing me?

By golly, that's right! I'd forgotten that. I can't remember which patch specifically because concern with the porked FM's overshadowed that fix. Good catch. If it was done once, it follows that it can be done again. :thumbsup:

VMF214_Jupp
Jul-31-2013, 14:55
3465