9./JG52_J-HAT
Oct-22-2013, 13:19
Hey guys,
I have been wondering for sometime now what is possible with multiplayer missions in CoD.
Do you guys know the Domination maps that are available in ARMA II? It is a coop style mission where the mission objectives on a map change as the previous objective is accomplished: the team needs to destroy all enemy units in and around a specific town.
What happens is, there are people who take helicopters to carry the troops, tanks, apcs and equipment to the next target and the infantry and cavalry then pushes to the target. In a semi-organized way, everyone works to accomplish this single assigned objective until they move on to the next when the current one has been accomplished. Action is concentrated within an area of the map and there is always movement from the spawn base to the target area. There is no human opposition though, but the great advantage is the concentrated action, with lots of players working for a single objective.
We have had lots of discussions regarding the number of targets on our servers, with the most different point of views and opinions. My personnal opinion is, having multiple targets on both sides waters down the number of players in a specific area. We also usually have many reds who just take off and stay low around their bases. I would say because they know the blues will eventually get there and the blues know they can go there for action (it is sort of a vicious cycle) . The rest of the players try to go for the targets, on both sides, in a uncoordinated way. If you have 4 targets on each side, the number of players near each target will be proportionally smaller than if there were only a single target.
My point is, would it be possible to make a dynamically changing objective, which allows for many targets on a map (without resetting the server) but which are only active one at a time?
The first advantage of not having the server start a new mission when an objective is accomplished is having continuity. Fights that are going on will not need to be interrupted so the mission can change. This would avoid frustration. One would just aknowledge the new objective, finish his sortie and move on to the next objective. It happens already when there is a flight going for target A, which gets destroyed, so the flight just changes heading towards target B. Defending forces would act like this to, as there would not be almost anything anymore around the old target.
But what about bomber pilots who do not want to take 40 minutes to get to a target area and then just get shot because there is a furball going on over the only target? Well, the fighters would be going the same place too. But within this certain area, there is no need to only have a single target, but multiple ones. The important thing is, they are close enough together to allow the action not to be spread across southeast England, but say 4 (2x2) grid squares?
We see this in a form already in Reddog's latest mission (which is a lot of fun, BTW). We blues have been flying to the target area and whenever for example the Oil Power Plant gets destroyed, we just head down to Seven Oaks, Biggin Hill or Kenley. Targets are still far apart, but it is easier than going for targets that are completly far away from one another.
The problem that would still remain is: why should I persue the mission objective (i.e. head toward the target area) if I can get into action over or near my own airbase?
If targets were closer to the forward spawn bases, maybe players would head to target? Say, a 5 minute flight (around 2,5 grids). And what would stop bomber pilots from taking a longer route instead of heading directly towards it, if they feel the direct route is too short and dangerous? Even to Seven Oaks (in Reddogs latest mission, to stay with the same example) I would never head in a straight line from Calais Marck. Many other maps also have forward and rear bases to prevent vulching. Maybe rear bases should be 10 minutes out? Maybe a third row of bases 20 minutes away? Maybe this configuration would allow for scalable spawns and thus let bombers and fighters take off when the other side has air superiority over target area?
The most fun missions I have had are when there is only one target left or the one with both convoys which need to be destroyed.
And as already has been commented by some, not everyone wants to fly bombers for 40 to 60 minutes to destroy a target and come back, while the rest of the server players kill each other at tree top level over Hawkinge.
From my experience, poeple just head to Folkestone / Dover because it is a sure thing there will be planes to shoot at. Why don't we try to move this focus to a single target area? Maybe even switching which side is defending? I think this kind of Domination style mission would be an option if madeable.
What do you guys think about this? Is it technically possible to script this kind of thing? And what kind of problems can you forsee with this arrangement?
I have been wondering for sometime now what is possible with multiplayer missions in CoD.
Do you guys know the Domination maps that are available in ARMA II? It is a coop style mission where the mission objectives on a map change as the previous objective is accomplished: the team needs to destroy all enemy units in and around a specific town.
What happens is, there are people who take helicopters to carry the troops, tanks, apcs and equipment to the next target and the infantry and cavalry then pushes to the target. In a semi-organized way, everyone works to accomplish this single assigned objective until they move on to the next when the current one has been accomplished. Action is concentrated within an area of the map and there is always movement from the spawn base to the target area. There is no human opposition though, but the great advantage is the concentrated action, with lots of players working for a single objective.
We have had lots of discussions regarding the number of targets on our servers, with the most different point of views and opinions. My personnal opinion is, having multiple targets on both sides waters down the number of players in a specific area. We also usually have many reds who just take off and stay low around their bases. I would say because they know the blues will eventually get there and the blues know they can go there for action (it is sort of a vicious cycle) . The rest of the players try to go for the targets, on both sides, in a uncoordinated way. If you have 4 targets on each side, the number of players near each target will be proportionally smaller than if there were only a single target.
My point is, would it be possible to make a dynamically changing objective, which allows for many targets on a map (without resetting the server) but which are only active one at a time?
The first advantage of not having the server start a new mission when an objective is accomplished is having continuity. Fights that are going on will not need to be interrupted so the mission can change. This would avoid frustration. One would just aknowledge the new objective, finish his sortie and move on to the next objective. It happens already when there is a flight going for target A, which gets destroyed, so the flight just changes heading towards target B. Defending forces would act like this to, as there would not be almost anything anymore around the old target.
But what about bomber pilots who do not want to take 40 minutes to get to a target area and then just get shot because there is a furball going on over the only target? Well, the fighters would be going the same place too. But within this certain area, there is no need to only have a single target, but multiple ones. The important thing is, they are close enough together to allow the action not to be spread across southeast England, but say 4 (2x2) grid squares?
We see this in a form already in Reddog's latest mission (which is a lot of fun, BTW). We blues have been flying to the target area and whenever for example the Oil Power Plant gets destroyed, we just head down to Seven Oaks, Biggin Hill or Kenley. Targets are still far apart, but it is easier than going for targets that are completly far away from one another.
The problem that would still remain is: why should I persue the mission objective (i.e. head toward the target area) if I can get into action over or near my own airbase?
If targets were closer to the forward spawn bases, maybe players would head to target? Say, a 5 minute flight (around 2,5 grids). And what would stop bomber pilots from taking a longer route instead of heading directly towards it, if they feel the direct route is too short and dangerous? Even to Seven Oaks (in Reddogs latest mission, to stay with the same example) I would never head in a straight line from Calais Marck. Many other maps also have forward and rear bases to prevent vulching. Maybe rear bases should be 10 minutes out? Maybe a third row of bases 20 minutes away? Maybe this configuration would allow for scalable spawns and thus let bombers and fighters take off when the other side has air superiority over target area?
The most fun missions I have had are when there is only one target left or the one with both convoys which need to be destroyed.
And as already has been commented by some, not everyone wants to fly bombers for 40 to 60 minutes to destroy a target and come back, while the rest of the server players kill each other at tree top level over Hawkinge.
From my experience, poeple just head to Folkestone / Dover because it is a sure thing there will be planes to shoot at. Why don't we try to move this focus to a single target area? Maybe even switching which side is defending? I think this kind of Domination style mission would be an option if madeable.
What do you guys think about this? Is it technically possible to script this kind of thing? And what kind of problems can you forsee with this arrangement?