PDA

View Full Version : London Raids v2



SoW Reddog
Oct-26-2013, 20:42
Hi all, S!

I've been working on v2 of my London Raids mission now I'm back from holiday. The new version has had the following addressed and changed:

- Anti-vulch script now has no warning, if a Red crosses the line his plane should disintegrate immediately.
- Blue spawn points in the bugged little hangers have hopefully all been rendered inoperable with static aircraft.
- Blue spawn points should now allow any squadron markings required.
- RDF bandit messages have been truncated significantly.
- RDF only picks up larger formations, (5+) instead of every single aircraft.
- AI Bomber spawn has been made into a dynamic system which will spawn bigger, but fewer raids the more players are on the server. Under 20 people on the server, the raids should be between 6 and 12 aircraft strong, every 10 minutes. Over 60 players then raids should be BIG (27 aircraft usually) but spawned only every 25 minutes.
- AI Bombers will now target other "non objective" targets as well as Kenley and Biggin Hill. They *may* not be enough to knock the airbases out now.
- Increased the number of AA guns across England.
- Added a couple of barrage balloons.
- Messages referring to a location should now have a grid location included.
- Blues will get 10 minute warning messages for AI bombers with rendezvous & target information, as well as a 5 minute reminder.
- Reduced mission length to 4 hours

I think this covers almost all the points raised thus far except giving the Blues an update on where their bomber raids are. I have something in development for this, but I can't get it to work right just now.

Is there anything I've missed or that wasn't previously raised which needs to be?

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-26-2013, 20:45
I think you sumed all up. It is a major feature for those who fly blue and come in the server late/get shot down/go to land, to know where the bomber formation is. Or else reds keep having a field day as it has been so far ;)

PFT_Endy
Oct-27-2013, 04:21
- Anti-vulch script now has no warning, if a Red crosses the line his plane should disintegrate immediately.


Good mission idea but there's always a but :)

Am I correct to assume there is some invisible line in the middle of the channel that makes you go boom?

No disrespect mate but this is a very very bad solution to anti vulching. What if someone just chases a 109 over the channel? He'll just blow up with no warning midfligth? What if people are looking for fights or wants to intercept enemies over the channel or France, like many people do (not necessarily over airfields themselves or vulching).

If you don't want vulching over the airbases maybe put more AAA there or AI fighters flying CAP there or whatever, something realistic but not this...

This solution reminds me of some game like Battlefield "return to the action!" only without the warning now. This is not a sandbox simulator that CloD is supposed to be sorry...I know what you're trying to achieve here but being gamey like that simply doesn't fit...

Kling
Oct-27-2013, 05:01
Awesome reddog! I love your mission!!!
Just a hint, makse sure the bombers(the big bomber formtion) dont include the he111 as it has a tendancy to spread out like seagulls(with new AI settings in TF4.0)making them impossible to escort.

Do you have any chance to set the AI level for the bombers?!

Second, is it not possible to make planes on the ground invunerable instead of having a death border over France? No idea what the script allows..

Never the less, it should be great great fun!!!!:)))

Thank you!!

Kling
Oct-27-2013, 05:03
Good mission idea but there's always a but :)

Am I correct to assume there is some invisible line in the middle of the channel that makes you go boom?

No disrespect mate but this is a very very bad solution to anti vulching. What if someone just chases a 109 over the channel? He'll just blow up with no warning midfligth? What if people are looking for fights or wants to intercept enemies over the channel or France, like many people do (not necessarily over airfields themselves or vulching).

If you don't want vulching over the airbases maybe put more AAA there or AI fighters flying CAP there or whatever, something realistic but not this...

This solution reminds me of some game like Battlefield "return to the action!" only without the warning now. This is not a sandbox simulator that CloD is supposed to be sorry...I know what you're trying to achieve here but being gamey like that simply doesn't fit...

Just look at the instant disintegration as very very accurate flak! ;)

SoW Reddog
Oct-27-2013, 06:32
Endy,

The line is the "front line" on the map, so not exactly invisible and pilots should be aware of it as it's in the briefing. Secondly, this line is just off France, so Red pilots still have 95% of the channel width to play with. Besides, the targets you are defending are around London so why would you be loitering off French point?? Lastly, we had a system of warning to turn back and then boom, but it wasn't working I suspect because of the way I'd coded the warning. Thus, it is now instant.

You can please some of the people some of the time. As I said in relation to the request for red ai bombers, if you don't want to play the mission, or ATAG feel the mission isn't right for their server then so be it, but there are plenty of missions on the server where red flights over France are possible. In mine they aren't.

SoW Reddog
Oct-27-2013, 06:34
Awesome reddog! I love your mission!!!
Just a hint, makse sure the bombers(the big bomber formtion) dont include the he111 as it has a tendancy to spread out like seagulls(with new AI settings in TF4.0)making them impossible to escort.

Do you have any chance to set the AI level for the bombers?!

Second, is it not possible to make planes on the ground invunerable instead of having a death border over France? No idea what the script allows..

Never the less, it should be great great fun!!!!:)))

Thank you!!

Kling, at the moment all bombers are included. I will run some tests on the 111s. I can set the ai levels at will, and will have to investigate which ones are optimal.

Kling
Oct-27-2013, 06:45
Kling, at the moment all bombers are included. I will run some tests on the 111s. I can set the ai levels at will, and will have to investigate which ones are optimal.

Copy that! Try the QM London raid to see what I mean! ;)


Btw do we have any ETA for v2.0?

Kling
Oct-27-2013, 06:54
Also if possible try to find the best setting to stop the bombers to bail out or turn home with just a little bit of damage. Usually the 27 formation doesnt even make it to the english coast. By the time they are there they are so scattered out that ir can longer be called a formation.

The new info for Blues will certainly help as well and give us time to form up to escort properly! :)

SoW Reddog
Oct-27-2013, 07:26
Copy that! Try the QM London raid to see what I mean! ;)


Btw do we have any ETA for v2.0?

All being well this weekend coming I hope.

PFT_Endy
Oct-27-2013, 07:31
Reddog, I don't disagree with your wish to funnel people to certain areas and discourage them from being in others, that's normal mission maker's intention. I strongly disagree with the used method though.

If the targets are in England then mostl people will be there anyway, though I suspect it'll end up near the english airfields as it inevitably does for most people on ATAG. But when I'm chasing that pesky 109 I want to finish off I surely don't want to to see my plane just pop after crossing some invisible line. It just doesn't belong in a sim like that, sorry.

If some people intercept enemies around the middle of the channel then there surely can't be any artificial line near French coast that the blues can run behind and show reds the finger and sing funny songs. The script you introduced does twice as damage as it helps against vulching mate.

What's the point of the rule by the way? What's the percentage of players you see around French airfields in your mission? Is it a large portion of the playerbase? If not then how does it break the mission to make you think of something so artificial as a solution? I'm sorry if it sounds negative to you mate but something like that should never be used in a sim trying to be realistic. Again, I'm not attacking your mission idea but that one thing. If you want to discourage people from being around French airfields (although I can't see how that's breaking the mission, do people come there in droves and the blues are somehow unable to take off at all?) just use some other solution, not some insta pop artificial thingy...

SoW Reddog
Oct-27-2013, 07:49
Endy, your objection is noted. Since v1 went live I've had zero complaints about it except to say that it wasn't working in all occasions.

If you want to discuss it further, please feel free to pm me.

Basha
Oct-27-2013, 08:18
Could you make the flak at German fields Uber deadly ? it would achieve the same thing but in a more natural war kinda way, btw nice to see my home town Dartford part of the mission, Dartford could do with bombing today as it happens(bit of a dive), she was heavily bombed throughout with Vickers Armament factories in "Powdermill Lane" a prime target.

http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/20th_century/military_ww2.shtml

9./JG52_J-HAT
Oct-27-2013, 08:28
Hey Reddog, nice to see you working on the next version. Your mission is really nice. I had the most fun flying red, though.

You mentioned you are setting 10 minute messages and 5 minute reminders for the bomber positions. Is that the normal message we get "Bomber requesting escorts at Calais @6000m in 10 minutes"?

The reason I had the most fun flying red is because as a blue player you don't get the current formation's position. Or are these 10 / 5 minute messages an actual position report for just spawned players to RV with the bombers? I think having these constant updates ( each 5 minutes, for example) would add a lot to blue players flying with the bombers.

Imagine the following scenario (assuming it is the bombers spawning requesting escort message): message about bombers shows up about when they spawn with information so players can organize themselves and RV. A player has usually 10 minutes to do so. But some players spawned (or joined the server; point is, they did not acknowledge the message) 5 minutes after the message was shown and start their plane. They don't know where to go to because they didn't see any message and don't want to just wait for the next message (which would be in 20 minutes, as bombers are spawning every 25 minutes). So these players just take off and head somewhere. Maybe some will try to find the bombers (do we know from the briefing what their path or just where they are headed?) but many will head towards some RAF airfield to look for fighters. Because it is easier.
These players will not be even near the actual mission objectives, as they don't know where to go. Which detracts from the mission's goal: reds intercepting and blue escorting for the most part and bombers hitting their targets.
Or within this scenario, a couple of players took off towards Folkestone area to look for action and in the middle of an engagement they see the message: "bombers needing escorts at etc in 10 minutes". They eventually finish their flight some 15 minutes later and want to go for the bombers. They will need to start their planes, head to some point between the position where the bombers were requesting escort and the target, roughly basing their actual position on the time that went by since the message. This over and over again, looking for the bombers everytime. Sometimes being lucky, sometimes not finding them (too far away from France already, for example) and just switching back to "let's dive over Hawkinge" again.

The difference from what the Germans had then was they all started based on a mission plan, with synchronized times, knowing where their bombers to be escorted would be, where RV was, when it would be and they were there for that. We don't have that on the server.

Kling
Oct-27-2013, 08:50
Hey Reddog, nice to see you working on the next version. Your mission is really nice. I had the most fun flying red, though.

You mentioned you are setting 10 minute messages and 5 minute reminders for the bomber positions. Is that the normal message we get "Bomber requesting escorts at Calais @6000m in 10 minutes"?

The reason I had the most fun flying red is because as a blue player you don't get the current formation's position. Or are these 10 / 5 minute messages an actual position report for just spawned players to RV with the bombers? I think having these constant updates ( each 5 minutes, for example) would add a lot to blue players flying with the bombers.

Imagine the following scenario (assuming it is the bombers spawning requesting escort message): message about bombers shows up about when they spawn with information so players can organize themselves and RV. A player has usually 10 minutes to do so. But some players spawned (or joined the server; point is, they did not acknowledge the message) 5 minutes after the message was shown and start their plane. They don't know where to go to because they didn't see any message and don't want to just wait for the next message (which would be in 20 minutes, as bombers are spawning every 25 minutes). So these players just take off and head somewhere. Maybe some will try to find the bombers (do we know from the briefing what their path or just where they are headed?) but many will head towards some RAF airfield to look for fighters. Because it is easier.
These players will not be even near the actual mission objectives, as they don't know where to go. Which detracts from the mission's goal: reds intercepting and blue escorting for the most part and bombers hitting their targets.
Or within this scenario, a couple of players took off towards Folkestone area to look for action and in the middle of an engagement they see the message: "bombers needing escorts at etc in 10 minutes". They eventually finish their flight some 15 minutes later and want to go for the bombers. They will need to start their planes, head to some point between the position where the bombers were requesting escort and the target, roughly basing their actual position on the time that went by since the message. This over and over again, looking for the bombers everytime. Sometimes being lucky, sometimes not finding them (too far away from France already, for example) and just switching back to "let's dive over Hawkinge" again.

The difference from what the Germans had then was they all started based on a mission plan, with synchronized times, knowing where their bombers to be escorted would be, where RV was, when it would be and they were there for that. We don't have that on the server.

Maybe a reminder every 2 mins?

9./JG52_J-HAT
Oct-27-2013, 11:56
I take you are being sarcastic, Kling. But maybe every 2 minutes having a message with a position update for the bombers wouldn't be bad at all.

We can't ask for directions from ground control when we want to know where they are at, so constantly updating important information isn't a bad idea at all.

Kling
Oct-27-2013, 12:43
I take you are being sarcastic, Kling. But maybe every 2 minutes having a message with a position update for the bombers wouldn't be bad at all.

We can't ask for directions from ground control when we want to know where they are at, so constantly updating important information isn't a bad idea at all.

Actually I was not sarcastic ;)

If we get a message that the bombers will spawn in 10 mins at a certain point. Maybe a reminder every 2 mins would also include players who joined after the initial messaged was sent. After, this reminder would only be seen 4 times.
1. first message ->ten mins until spawn
2. reminder one->8mins until spawn
3. reminder two -6mins until spawn
4. reminder three -> 4 mins until spawn
4. reminder 4 -> 2 mins until spawn.
5. the bombers spawn.

Then it will be difficult to miss! ;)

9./JG52_J-HAT
Oct-27-2013, 13:17
Ok :)

Yeah, but what about after the bombers have spawned? Wouldn't it be better to have a way of knowing where they are?

This could be in the Tab menu, like SOW has, or constant messages showing up.

EG14_Marcast
Oct-28-2013, 03:46
If possible, it would be nice if RDF messages came from "voice" instead of "server", to don't let them mix with many other messages and keep longer on screen. And congratulations again for this map, really one of the most immersive.

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-28-2013, 12:21
If possible, it would be nice if RDF messages came from "voice" instead of "server", to don't let them mix with many other messages and keep longer on screen. And congratulations again for this map, really one of the most immersive.


~S~ Reddog

That is my pet hate as I was explain to Losav the other night when we were winging..

I try to keep those boxes to a minimum as I don't want that all over my screen but yes whenever I ask for a RDF message and it comes I don't even have time to look at it before the message has scrolled up to someone leaving the server of X kills X..

If this could come up as 'Voice' it would be a great help

SoW Reddog
Oct-28-2013, 12:28
I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's not going to be easy either. Certainly won't be in the next version released as I want to get those improvements rolled out asap to fix the IMO currently broken version online at the moment.

Talisman
Oct-28-2013, 12:57
Reddog,

Very many thanks for all your work to update this map. Looking forward to version 2 with great anticipation, along with many others I suspect. This gem of a map will get brighter and brighter as you polish it I am sure!

P.S. I like the fact that you are stopping the RAF fighter pilots going to France. This is very historic IMHO and helps with realism, immersion and good map play. The RAF Fighter Command chaps were under orders not to go to France and many who did not follow that order, by going too far over the Channel, did not return!

Happy landings,

Talisman

9./JG52 Jamz Dackel
Oct-28-2013, 14:07
I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's not going to be easy either. Certainly won't be in the next version released as I want to get those improvements rolled out asap to fix the IMO currently broken version online at the moment.

Np..

Its just a pet hate as I say, there are ways I could fix it by having larger server screens but don't really want to do that

AKA_Knutsac
Oct-28-2013, 20:44
Reddog,

Very many thanks for all your work to update this map. Looking forward to version 2 with great anticipation, along with many others I suspect. This gem of a map will get brighter and brighter as you polish it I am sure!

P.S. I like the fact that you are stopping the RAF fighter pilots going to France. This is very historic IMHO and helps with realism, immersion and good map play. The RAF Fighter Command chaps were under orders not to go to France and many who did not follow that order, by going too far over the Channel, did not return!

Happy landings,

Talisman

+1...keep the invisible fence

And I'm a Red pilot who's been known to fly over occupied France once or twice looking for trade.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

SoW Reddog
Oct-29-2013, 08:26
Hi all.

This morning I've spent a good portion of my "work" time refactoring a large proportion of the code behind the mission, much of which you as the end user don't see any difference from. However I've also made some changes which revise the changelog to this (bold is a new or changed entry from original post):

- Anti-vulch script has hopefully (Still needs testing) been fixed in its original format, so a warning will be given and you have a minute to cross back. Many thanks to Salmo for this.
- Blue spawn points in the bugged little hangers have hopefully all been rendered inoperable with static aircraft.
- Blue spawn points should now allow any squadron markings required.
- RDF bandit messages have been truncated significantly.
- RDF only picks up larger formations, (5+) instead of every single aircraft.
- AI Bomber spawn has been made into a dynamic system which will spawn bigger, but fewer raids the more players are on the server. For example; Under 20 people on the server, the raids should be between 6 and 12 aircraft strong, every 10 minutes. Over 60 players then raids should be BIG (27 aircraft usually) but spawned only every 25 minutes.
- AI Bombers will now target other "non objective" targets as well as Kenley and Biggin Hill. They *may* not be enough to knock the airbases out now.
- Increased the number of AA guns across England.
- Added a couple of barrage balloons.
- Messages referring to a location should now have a grid location included.
- Blues will get 10 minute warning messages for AI bombers with rendezvous & target information, as well as a 5 minute reminder.
- Reduced mission length to 4 hours
- ALL Red spawn bases are destroyable, however ONLY Kenley and Biggin Hill are objectives. - Should all Red spawn bases be knocked out, then a NON destructable base will be created elsewhere-hint to Reds. DON'T let the Blues destroy all your bases!
- Added a small amount of Flak to French Coast to encourage/remind Reds not to get too close.
- Blues should have a TAB 4-1 option which will give the current grid, height and heading of the 3 nearest AI Bomber groups

Many thanks for the discussion regarding the "Invisible wall of death". This feature will remain (and fingers crossed be effectual now!). I'm hopeful that a testing session will be run this weekend. I will further update you on the time and date when this is known.

9./JG52_J-HAT
Oct-29-2013, 09:14
Perfect, Reddog! really looking foward to flying it!

Kling
Oct-29-2013, 09:51
Hi all.

This morning I've spent a good portion of my "work" time refactoring a large proportion of the code behind the mission, much of which you as the end user don't see any difference from. However I've also made some changes which revise the changelog to this (bold is a new or changed entry from original post):

- Anti-vulch script has hopefully (Still needs testing) been fixed in its original format, so a warning will be given and you have a minute to cross back. Many thanks to Salmo for this.
- Blue spawn points in the bugged little hangers have hopefully all been rendered inoperable with static aircraft.
- Blue spawn points should now allow any squadron markings required.
- RDF bandit messages have been truncated significantly.
- RDF only picks up larger formations, (5+) instead of every single aircraft.
- AI Bomber spawn has been made into a dynamic system which will spawn bigger, but fewer raids the more players are on the server. For example; Under 20 people on the server, the raids should be between 6 and 12 aircraft strong, every 10 minutes. Over 60 players then raids should be BIG (27 aircraft usually) but spawned only every 25 minutes.
- AI Bombers will now target other "non objective" targets as well as Kenley and Biggin Hill. They *may* not be enough to knock the airbases out now.
- Increased the number of AA guns across England.
- Added a couple of barrage balloons.
- Messages referring to a location should now have a grid location included.
- Blues will get 10 minute warning messages for AI bombers with rendezvous & target information, as well as a 5 minute reminder.
- Reduced mission length to 4 hours
- ALL Red spawn bases are destroyable, however ONLY Kenley and Biggin Hill are objectives. - Should all Red spawn bases be knocked out, then a NON destructable base will be created elsewhere-hint to Reds. DON'T let the Blues destroy all your bases!
- Added a small amount of Flak to French Coast to encourage/remind Reds not to get too close.
- Blues should have a TAB 4-1 option which will give the current grid, height and heading of the 3 nearest AI Bomber groups

Many thanks for the discussion regarding the "Invisible wall of death". This feature will remain (and fingers crossed be effectual now!). I'm hopeful that a testing session will be run this weekend. I will further update you on the time and date when this is known.

Absolutely perfect!! Now bring it on!! :)
How many tons are required to bring down the coastal airfields(non targets) ??

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-29-2013, 10:25
Absolutely perfect!! Now bring it on!! :)
How many tons are required to bring down the coastal airfields(non targets) ??

Go on Kling. Make a bee-line for the coastal airfields..... I dare you.

9./JG52_J-HAT
Oct-29-2013, 10:29
I hope not too many Ju 88 dropping all their bombs at the same time are needed to make the "runways" at those fields unusable. It will be quite fun disabling the coastal airfields :)

Do bombs actually leave craters in multiplayer, making take off and landing dangerous?

SoW Reddog
Oct-29-2013, 11:16
All Airfields are disabled with 10000kgs of bombs. Low, and I'm expecting to have to increase it but it'll do for now.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-29-2013, 11:26
All Airfields are disabled with 10000kgs of bombs. Low, and I'm expecting to have to increase it but it'll do for now.

As long as there are flak guns located on the APPROACH towards the airfields then it's not so low. hint: the "corvettes" make for reasonable off-shore AA guns...

SoW Reddog
Oct-29-2013, 12:49
Not all airfields are going to be targetted by AI, so players will have to do the work themselves. There's Flak around them, and I'm sure I can add a few corvettes to the channel.

Catseye
Oct-29-2013, 13:10
Hi all, S!

I've been working on v2 of my London Raids mission now I'm back from holiday. The new version has had the following addressed and changed:

- Anti-vulch script now has no warning, if a Red crosses the line his plane should disintegrate immediately.


Hi Reddog,
I think this is very unrealistic and is an artificial way to control the way participants fly. My understanding of the ATAG server guidelines was not to constrain pilots in how they fly at all costs.

Doesn't this "fly" in the face of ATAG server protocol?

Maybe Bliss can answer this one.

Kling
Oct-29-2013, 13:23
Sure its unrealistic. Of course BUT, in the summer of 1940, the allied were not flying to France so if red side doesnt go to France, there will be no issue. See it as very strong and accurate AAA! :P

PFT_Endy
Oct-29-2013, 17:18
Sure its unrealistic. Of course BUT, in the summer of 1940, the allied were not flying to France so if red side doesnt go to France, there will be no issue. See it as very strong and accurate AAA! :P

There were cases of pilots chasing down German planes over France:

Sgt J. František report from 26.09.1940 r (the translation is mine, from Polish, which in turn was probably translated from British intelligence report but I don't have access to the original source)

I attacked an He 111, which burst into flames after a short while. I then proceeded to attack another He 111 and did not notice that I was over France already. I shot down the enemy which crashed to the ground in France. I then noticed that I am over France, so I turned back and flew back to Northolt. Ammo used: 2600 pcs.

Source: No. 303 (Polish) Squadron. Combat Reports, 1940 August - 1943 August, NA, AIR50/117, k. 49.

Of course, he did not strafe any airfields that day, but was also not destroyed by "very strong and accurate AAA" or a death wall as he crossed the shore.

Anyway, such episodes happened and I doubt sincerely that was the only one. Pilots chasing after damaged planes were a commonplace over the channel, and some undoubtedly ended like this one, over France itself. Nobody's claiming that was commonplace but still, by using a script like that you're eliminating a part of what happened in the real battle. If you place mission objectives deep in England then most fighting will take place there anyway, which is good and according to the mission designer's wish, and I don't think you need to fear of flocks of red pilots flying over France suddenly. But a few pilots now and then will happen just how it happened occassionally in the BoB.

Of course, it should not be a safe place to be, and I have no doubt blue pilots will quickly fix the situation on their own, by either shooting down or chasing away the intruder, just like they would in real life. But of course you can have the script as well which is just a very artificial means of achieving your goal that doesn't seem to belong really. Ah, and please don't claim it's historical that nobody ever flew over France because that's simply not true. I'll say again, not commonplace but it did happen.

Kling
Oct-29-2013, 18:01
There were cases of pilots chasing down German planes over France:

Sgt J. František report from 26.09.1940 r (the translation is mine, from Polish, which in turn was probably translated from British intelligence report but I don't have access to the original source)

I attacked an He 111, which burst into flames after a short while. I then proceeded to attack another He 111 and did not notice that I was over France already. I shot down the enemy which crashed to the ground in France. I then noticed that I am over France, so I turned back and flew back to Northolt. Ammo used: 2600 pcs.

Source: No. 303 (Polish) Squadron. Combat Reports, 1940 August - 1943 August, NA, AIR50/117, k. 49.

Of course, he did not strafe any airfields that day, but was also not destroyed by "very strong and accurate AAA" or a death wall as he crossed the shore.

Anyway, such episodes happened and I doubt sincerely that was the only one. Pilots chasing after damaged planes were a commonplace over the channel, and some undoubtedly ended like this one, over France itself. Nobody's claiming that was commonplace but still, by using a script like that you're eliminating a part of what happened in the real battle. If you place mission objectives deep in England then most fighting will take place there anyway, which is good and according to the mission designer's wish, and I don't think you need to fear of flocks of red pilots flying over France suddenly. But a few pilots now and then will happen just how it happened occassionally in the BoB.

Of course, it should not be a safe place to be, and I have no doubt blue pilots will quickly fix the situation on their own, by either shooting down or chasing away the intruder, just like they would in real life. But of course you can have the script as well which is just a very artificial means of achieving your goal that doesn't seem to belong really. Ah, and please don't claim it's historical that nobody ever flew over France because that's simply not true. I'll say again, not commonplace but it did happen.

While I agree that a death border is by no means a realistic solution, I dont think anyone does, it is however "A" solution until a better one has come up...

SoW Reddog
Oct-29-2013, 18:05
Dear lord give me strength. You've found evidence of one sortie, out of how many flown through the BoB?

You're absolutely right that the Blues can fix the issue, but that means that they're over France, not escorting their bombers, which means that Red's get bored shooting AI, and go to France, where the Blues have to defend to fix the issue and so on. And so on. And so on.

Is it relevant to have noticed that you seem to spend a large proportion of your time over France Endy? At least when I've seen you online. Not saying it's commonplace of course...

PFT_Endy
Oct-29-2013, 18:22
Dear lord give me strength. You've found evidence of one sortie, out of how many flown through the BoB?

I don't see why you're even arguing here. I proved it happened and that's all it is. Earlier you claimed allied pilots over France never happened and that I don't care about historical gameplay by saying something different. It would be nice to hear some apology from you now and admitting that indeed, that could happen and no, you were wrong.

I think I also made myself pretty clear that it was not a commonplace occurence did I not? Nevertheless, it was a possibility in some cases. By cutting out that possibility out of the mission by using death walls and other arcade stuff you destroy the sandbox AND disable something that is historically correct ie. possible fighters over shores of France. That's a fact. It's your call but people will be free to criticise you on it same as you have the right to design the mission how you like, simple as that.

I know what you're trying to achieve just don't claim pilots never went there and it never happened. Ah, and again, I appreciate your mission idea but using artificial stuff like that is honestly just cheap and you heard it from other people as well, not only me. You could have used many more means to avoid it, like flak or whatever else but you chose a script just because it's convenient. And you're very mistaken if you think that many red pilots will go to France if you allow it. It's not common now in any other mission and you won't suddenly get 20 red planes over french cliffs. You're just scared of ghosts here.

Anyway, do what you like, it's your mission and you can put as much stuff like that as you want. Just don't expect everyone to cheer at you for it. Some will cheer, like Kling and some will criticise you for it, like me. That's life.

Kling
Oct-29-2013, 18:37
I don't see why you're even arguing here. I proved it happened and that's all it is. Earlier you claimed allied pilots over France never happened and that I don't care about historical gameplay by saying something different. It would be nice to hear some apology from you now and admitting that indeed, that could happen and no, you were wrong.

I think I also made myself pretty clear that it was not a commonplace occurence did I not? Nevertheless, it was a possibility in some cases. By cutting out that possibility out of the mission by using death walls and other arcade stuff you destroy the sandbox AND disable something that is historically correct ie. possible fighters over shores of France. That's a fact. It's your call but people will be free to criticise you on it same as you have the right to design the mission how you like, simple as that.

I know what you're trying to achieve just don't claim pilots never went there and it never happened. Ah, and again, I appreciate your mission idea but using artificial stuff like that is honestly just cheap and you heard it from other people as well, not only me. You could have used many more means to avoid it, like flak or whatever else but you chose a script just because it's convenient. And you're very mistaken if you think that many red pilots will go to France if you allow it. It's not common now in any other mission and you won't suddenly get 20 red planes over french cliffs. You're just scared of ghosts here.

Anyway, do what you like, it's your mission and you can put as much stuff like that as you want. Just don't expect everyone to cheer at you for it. Some will cheer, like Kling and some will criticise you for it, like me. That's life.

Ok lets not go down this road again. Ideally lots of flak would be used but it eats lots of FPS as mentioned earlier. So what is your solution if you cant use flak Endy?

PFT_Endy
Oct-29-2013, 18:53
Ok lets not go down this road again. Ideally lots of flak would be used but it eats lots of FPS as mentioned earlier. So what is your solution if you cant use flak Endy?

Well Kling, first of all I don't think there is a problem. Reddog and you seem to believe that if you allow red players to go over France then you will somehow have half the players there. This is not true. As you can see for yourself during normal ATAG day, very few people go over France. I believe you complained in another thread that all of them are defensive, stay in England, circle airfields, doing whatever but not going to France right? And that's during missions where going to France is allowed. So either it's this or that.

I personally believe that it will be a very minor part of the red playerbase going to France, just as it is now. And if it's only a minority going there then it is not a problem and it is not unrealistic as well, because if a lonely player or a pair of pilots find themselves over France from time to time then that might have happened in reality, just like in the report I quoted. And those few will quickly get shot down anyway, by other players. And it's really nothing to fear about while you guys seem to think it will totally break the mission and you will have most players there most of the time, which is not really probable.

Besides, if you create incentives to go elsewhere and I believe large bomber raids will lure players pretty well, then you've got nothing to fear, most players will be deep within England. But if sometimes, someone chases a 109 or anything else over the channel and into France then that's really not something breaking the mission, and what's more it's not unrealistic and could have happened.

I simply object to putting artificial scripts like that in, especially that they solve nothing or at least a very very minor problem and such an arcade solution is simply not needed.
Reddog will do whatever anyway but to paraphrase a saying, it's like curing an imagined headache with cholera.

SoW Reddog
Oct-29-2013, 19:10
As I said in pm, congrats Endy. You win. There will be no death wall. There will be no new mission for the ATAG server from me. I've just spent 6 hrs straight on code for this fecking thing listening to my squadron mates actually playing the game and have probably wasted over 100 hrs on it in total which could have been so much better spent.

Yes I'm spitting my dummy out and no I'm not proud of it.

Kling
Oct-29-2013, 19:15
Well Kling, first of all I don't think there is a problem. Reddog and you seem to believe that if you allow red players to go over France then you will somehow have half the players there. This is not true. As you can see for yourself during normal ATAG day, very few people go over France. I believe you complained in another thread that all of them are defensive, stay in England, circle airfields, doing whatever but not going to France right? And that's during missions where going to France is allowed. So either it's this or that.

I personally believe that it will be a very minor part of the red playerbase going to France, just as it is now. And if it's only a minority going there then it is not a problem and it is not unrealistic as well, because if a lonely player or a pair of pilots find themselves over France from time to time then that might have happened in reality, just like in the report I quoted. And those few will quickly get shot down anyway, by other players. And it's really nothing to fear about while you guys seem to think it will totally break the mission and you will have most players there most of the time, which is not really probable.

Besides, if you create incentives to go elsewhere and I believe large bomber raids will lure players pretty well, then you've got nothing to fear, most players will be deep within England. But if sometimes, someone chases a 109 or anything else over the channel and into France then that's really not something breaking the mission, and what's more it's not unrealistic and could have happened.

I simply object to putting artificial scripts like that in, especially that they solve nothing or at least a very very minor problem and such an arcade solution is simply not needed.
Reddog will do whatever anyway but to paraphrase a saying, it's like curing an imagined headache with cholera.

Sure I have been strafed in France. It does happen, just not very common. I do like it for its realism, just not at this time of the war.

Kling
Oct-29-2013, 19:18
As I said in pm, congrats Endy. You win. There will be no death wall. There will be no new mission for the ATAG server from me. I've just spent 6 hrs straight on code for this fecking thing listening to my squadron mates actually playing the game and have probably wasted over 100 hrs on it in total which could have been so much better spent.

Yes I'm spitting my dummy out and no I'm not proud of it.

What?!?!?! U wont upload the new version of the mission?!? At all?!?

AKA_Recon
Oct-29-2013, 20:05
I support the 'line in the sand' concept - as someone who flies for both sides when I started flying German He111 - two nights in Operation Homeplate I spent getting vulched.

Great concept.

Maybe in extra time, as this is definitely beyond the call of duty, some sort of warning might be good in flight. "you have crossed the line, if you continue you will be destroyed' etc...

Sometimes AKA would go out over the channel at 20k+ looking for bombers.

Just curious, you are able to know 'where' the plane is to do this - you wouldn't happened to be able to get their altitude would you ? Would be cool to say 'you can fly to France, but if you drop under 5000 ft you will get 'destroyed'

lol, again, just ideas here, great concept - glad to see you doing this - this sort of mission setup is what makes flying at ATAG fun

Salute!!!!
Recon

AKA_Recon
Oct-29-2013, 20:07
As I said in pm, congrats Endy. You win. There will be no death wall. There will be no new mission for the ATAG server from me. I've just spent 6 hrs straight on code for this fecking thing listening to my squadron mates actually playing the game and have probably wasted over 100 hrs on it in total which could have been so much better spent.

Yes I'm spitting my dummy out and no I'm not proud of it.

Reddog, reconsider mate. Think about all the people that enjoy this variety of mission and the fun stuff being provided for free.

Some people in this forum seem to forget lately that this is all volunteer work here

Dutch
Oct-29-2013, 20:31
Yes I'm spitting my dummy out and no I'm not proud of it.

I know that feeling very well mate and I sympathise.

The Anti-Vulching 'Death Wall' is in my opinion not a good idea. The whole point of the ATAG server has always been that everyone flies as they want to fly. This would remove that versatility and freedom.

I have no doubt at all that your mission will be well worth the wait. I flew briefly on what I think was your mission the other day (I've been away for a while), and there was a 'Chain Home' facility available. Just a fantastic contribution to the progression of the game. (Having said that, it may have been one of Salmo's, I don't know, as I say I'm not in touch currently, nor have I sampled the SoW server recently).

Please don't give up with your missions. Being incredibly patronising, it's a fact of life that you'll hear from the complainers a hell of a lot more than you'll hear from the blokes who're loving what you do. So please don't give up.

But an anti-vulching 'death wall'? :(

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-29-2013, 20:39
But an anti-vulching 'death wall'? :(

Dutch that was a elegant compromise solution to have less objects on the map, allowing the map to have a bigger stream of bombers, from what i understood, directly related with fps wise, not a problem for the game engine itself, but to some players pc´s.

In one hand flak and a script trigger + more AI bombers

the other hand, the usual, less bombers and flak on both sides. Wich one you want to try?

Catseye
Oct-29-2013, 20:47
I know that feeling very well mate and I sympathise.

The Anti-Vulching 'Death Wall' is in my opinion not a good idea. The whole point of the ATAG server has always been that everyone flies as they want to fly. This would remove that versatility and freedom.

I have no doubt at all that your mission will be well worth the wait. I flew briefly on what I think was your mission the other day (I've been away for a while), and there was a 'Chain Home' facility available. Just a fantastic contribution to the progression of the game. (Having said that, it may have been one of Salmo's, I don't know, as I say I'm not in touch currently, nor have I sampled the SoW server recently).

Please don't give up with your missions. Being incredibly patronising, it's a fact of life that you'll hear from the complainers a hell of a lot more than you'll hear from the blokes who're loving what you do. So please don't give up.

But an anti-vulching 'death wall'? :(

Hi Reddog,
As Dutch said - please don't give up work on your fine missions.

My only concern is the choice made of the wall-of-death which does not support the ATAG guidelines of not forcing people to fly in a certain way. The dictate is that anyone comiing on the server may choose any aircraft available and fly to any location on the map at any time.

I fully understand the desire to have Red protect old Blighty and the Blues attack - but the reality is that many do not come on the server to do only that and therefore it contravenes the Guidelines.

If there was some other way to "encourage" pilots to participate in the activity you are designing it would IMHO work better for all as it would also not interfere with those just coming on for short engagements.

I really enjoyed capping the inland targets and trying to determine from where the bombers might arrive. For me, that's very enjoyable as my preference is to go bomber hunting as soon as I'm airborne. Others just want to dogfight. From time to time, I take a sortie over France by a certain route and watch from where the AI bombers usually come. But that in no way compares to human piloted bombers. Now it requires some wit to determine by what route and altitude they are arriving and will they be escorted.

I made my submission as a critique as you wanted in this forum and that was all I wanted to do - no more. However, it seems that a certain "Badger" makes it difficult for all by continually harping on issues.

So stick at it mate - I have no doubt that a great number here, including me, support your work.

Have a pint or three, a good nights rest and also a "little", and see how that works. :)

Cheers,
Cats . . .

ATAG_Snapper
Oct-29-2013, 21:02
@Reddog, by all means take a break, have some fun. You know what they say about opinions...and we all have one. I figure my opinion is as good as the next guy's, and I say let's give your idea a whirl. I see it as no different than Control ordering me to turn about immediately even when I'm in pursuit over the Channel and nearing the coast. Trained pilots were too dear to lose (not to mention the Spits and Hurries) for the sake of chasing a 109, or even a damaged bomber, over the enemy coast. It's a cool mechanism you're employing, as Lolsav indicated, to conserve object resources and put them possibly into increased AI formations.

To everyone here: remember, mission designers as well as Team Fusion members are valuable assets around here and all too few. Meanwhile, the rest of us whiners are a dime a dozen. :D

I admire your innovative work, Reddog. Please take a breather and hopefully consider carrying on. :thumbsup:

Salute,

Snapper :salute:

Dutch
Oct-29-2013, 21:05
Dutch that was a elegant compromise solution to have less objects on the map, allowing the map to have a bigger stream of bombers, from what i understood, directly related with fps wise, not a problem for the game engine itself, but to some players pc´s.

In one hand flak and a script trigger + more AI bombers

the other hand, the usual, less bombers and flak on both sides. Which one you want to try?

I'll try any mission which does not restrict where I am able to fly. If I chase a 109 back across the channel for 20mins, I don't want to reach a point where my wings fall off, simply because I'm a member of the Red Team, and the rules of the mission state that 'this is not allowed'.

I appreciate what you say regarding the compromises, but if the compromises involve me not being allowed over France, that's a 'Rule'. I'm sure many of us will have read recent posts by certain people who say that ATAG was set up because the founders were so fed up of 'rules' in 1946.

An anti-vulching 'death wall' introduces a rule. And surprise surprise, it disadvantages the RAF. Now there's a first......

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-29-2013, 21:13
Well in that case i propose to Reddog to make a poll. Because what we tought it was a worth to try it seems its not. You are correct in your opinion there Dutch but, at same time, it cuts out other experiments. Why should Reddog have so much work if players dont agree with it?

Maybe the script can still be used/converted to something else, so he doesnt waste all the work.

What about that Dutch? A poll and the outcome dictates the direction of that particular map? Its not a rule to all maps, its just for 1, i underline that. Im not pulling the leg of anyone and i am afraid how my poor english will be understood.

Seems fair? it´s all up to Reddog´s really. He is the mission maker, and god knows how we need new maps on the roll.

Dutch
Oct-29-2013, 21:36
What about that Dutch? A poll and the outcome dictates the direction of that particular map?

It depends on how the poll is phrased.

If the question is 'Do you want Reddog to produce a mission with lots of opportunities to shoot down Luftwaffe Aircraft over London?' you'll get one result.

If you ask 'Do you want Reddog to produce a mission whereby no RAF aircraft are allowed over France?' you'll get a very different one.

But if you ask 'Is the idea of an ''Anti-Vulching Death Wall' contrary to the fundamental values of the ATAG group?'', you'd get a different result again. But poll away, I won't fly a mission with area restrictions.

Feel free to post your poll. :salute:

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-29-2013, 21:50
Feel free to post your poll. :salute:

Its not my poll :)

As a matter a fact i will request your assistance, Dutch. Can you please come out with a phrase that would be fair? Help me out here, my english can be dubious.

Dutch
Oct-29-2013, 22:05
Can you please come out with a phrase that would be fair? Help me out here, my english can be dubious.

I've already given you three choices mate. Go for it! :D

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 03:08
Sorry for the vent last night. I was tired and pissed off. This morning I'm just pissed off. :)

You are right Catseye and Dutch with your assessment of the death wall vs ATAG concept. I've made no secret of its inclusion and have repeatedly said that it is up to ATAG to choose whether my mission is worthy of hosting.

There are three IMO very good reasons why the death wall is necessary.

1) in order to keep the mission file size low. Bliss impressed upon me the absolute priority for this to be done. More objects equals greater size. Would you rather see flak over England, or France?

2) the ai bombers are spawning in much greater numbers than other missions. They also spawn in dynamic locations so it's not like you can loiter off Calais and wait for them to pop in. You could easily have 27 bombers spawn right next to you if you're allowed free rein and believe it or not I've been trying to make sure that the mission works well for all players.

3) Despite Endy's protestations that flying over France is an uncommon thing, and can be left to the blue players to deal with, from my observations it is NOT uncommon. He's given example of one such occurrence in history (and I'm sure there are more) but I would hazard that the percentage of sorties flown during the Battle of Britain which went over French soil was almost certainly below 5%, probably below 1% but I'm completely guessing here admittedly. With no way of tracking player activity on the server we'll never know for sure what the game reality is.

@Dutch specifically. The accusation that I'm deliberately disadvantaging the Reds is ludicrous when you look at my tags and think about it for more than 5 seconds.

THIS mission was all about trying to offer a more historical view of the Battle of Britain. Clearly I have been mistaken in my understanding of what the player base wanted and should have realized much earlier what I wanted to see was incompatible with the ATAG creed. The mission might have more success on Storm of War which to me seems more geared up to realistic play. (Please note, this is not knocking ATAG)

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 03:16
As I said in pm, congrats Endy. You win. There will be no death wall. There will be no new mission for the ATAG server from me. I've just spent 6 hrs straight on code for this fecking thing listening to my squadron mates actually playing the game and have probably wasted over 100 hrs on it in total which could have been so much better spent.

Yes I'm spitting my dummy out and no I'm not proud of it.

And as I said in my PM I don't "win" anything. But if you're getting all worked up and treat it in categories of winning or not and if a little critique of ONE of your mission elements makes you pack your toys and leave then perhaps you should not be making missions indeed because it seems you take any criticism in a very unhealthy and personal way.

You can clearly see that there are people who oppose any idea if restricting the players via artificial and gamey means. Some think it's alright while others strongly object and there are even claims it's against what ATAG does (not trying to restrict any player's playstyle) but it can be interpretted differently I guess. It'd be good if you thought about it. I will always strongly object to anything like that, as is my right, and am doing just that. Perhaps that could influence you to change that part of the mission design and perhaps not. Perhaps you think it's better to just complain that people don't appreciate your work and walk away instead of looking at it from another angle and maybe just change it which would be a very simple solution which would not cause any further controversy.

Anyway, getting all worked up like you do is just silly. Look at the mission again. Think if one or two planes crossing the channel in a chase will totally break your mission (because it's been already established that's NOT unrealistic and could happen in reality as well). Think if a lonely vulcher (will happen online, of course) who can be very easily shot down is a deal breaker. I also wrote why I don't think this is the case and you need only to look at normal ATAG missions, there are no flocks of red players over France coming en masse, it doesn't seem blue players are unable to take off at all. That's why any gamey stuff like your script is not needed, pretty simple mate.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 03:40
1) in order to keep the mission file size low. Bliss impressed upon me the absolute priority for this to be done. More objects equals greater size. Would you rather see flak over England, or France?

Remove the unnecessary flak over France then. It doesn't do all that much anyway and let the players deal with an occasional intruder. From my experience, whenever a red player goes to France he only has a few minutes there and is pretty easily shot down sooner or later by the many blue players who jump on the occasion. And that's how it should be and nothing more is needed.


2) the ai bombers are spawning in much greater numbers than other missions. They also spawn in dynamic locations so it's not like you can loiter off Calais and wait for them to pop in. You could easily have 27 bombers spawn right next to you if you're allowed free rein and believe it or not I've been trying to make sure that the mission works well for all players.

Storm of war had missions wth 40 AI bombers and no death wall scripts. Besides, if you make bomber raids like that, you can be sure even more players will chase them or escort them, so even fewer will be bored enough to go to France. Nevertheless it's still a possibility and good. You're not restricting player activity this way and you're providing incentives to do something else. A carrot not a stick is what works.


3) With no way of tracking player activity on the server we'll never know for sure what the game reality is.

Sure, we can speculate about it. You claim it's a lot and I claim it's not. Sure, there will be players in France. But the more reasons you provide for them to not be there but instead do something else the fewer will be bored enough to try that. Again, a carrot not a stick and you're not introducing any gamey stuff.


THIS mission was all about trying to offer a more historical view of the Battle of Britain. Clearly I have been mistaken in my understanding of what the player base wanted and should have realized much earlier what I wanted to see was incompatible with the ATAG creed. The mission might have more success on Storm of War which to me seems more geared up to realistic play. (Please note, this is not knocking ATAG)

A noble cause. And it doesn't really require death walls you know. And you need to take a different apporach towards it.

You look at the whole thing in a very wrong way, because it seems you think it's better to restrict player choices in order for them to do what you want instead of making them actually WANT to do what you want them to. So far it almost looks like you're afraid nobody's gonna be interested in your mission goals and thus you must restrict them. Is that the idea?

Just try and switch your perspective for a moment to this. Would you rather like to be doing something because you have no other choice or would you like to be doing something because you enjoy it? I think the answer is pretty obvious here. Make the players WANT to do your mission objectives, to go for bomber formations over England etc. because walling them out of France and thus trying to funnel them this way twards your goals will just make them dislike the mission as the one with unrealistic restrictions. Work to make the mission interesting enough so that most players will like to play as it's designed. Of course, there will be those who find themselves outside of your desired activity zones, whether by accident or by design, but that's player choice. You then have a well made mission, one that players want to play and complete objectives in and at the same time they're not afraid to cross some invisible no-go zone when they're in a chase or just looking to stir something up on the French coast. Everybody wins then.

Hoots
Oct-30-2013, 03:49
The only problem with "the odd vulch" is that if you are a bomber pilot and you've spent a chunk of your valuable online time getting your mission set, plane warmed up etc and are then strafed on the ground as you taxi out its inevitable that a certain FFS! Will cross your mind. It's a royal pain in the arse. So it's my strong opinion that the barrier is a good idea for this mission, especially as there are numerous other missions where it isn't in place. Something for everyone.
Having a strong opinion is fine but repeating it over and over again probably isn't. Make your case, then respect the mission designers choice, it's his mission to do with as he pleases after all. If it's chosen to be used on the server then it's probably not that awful and it's felt that it will appeal to more people than it won't.

Snappers simple advice to agree to disagree works here too I think

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 04:02
The only problem with "the odd vulch" is that if you are a bomber pilot and you've spent a chunk of your valuable online time getting your mission set, plane warmed up etc and are then strafed on the ground as you taxi out its inevitable that a certain FFS! Will cross your mind. It's a royal pain in the arse. So it's my strong opinion that the barrier is a good idea for this mission, especially as there are numerous other missions where it isn't in place. Something for everyone.
Having a strong opinion is fine but repeating it over and over again probably isn't. Make your case, then respect the mission designers choice, it's his mission to do with as he pleases after all. If it's chosen to be used on the server then it's probably not that awful and it's felt that it will appeal to more people than it won't.

Snappers simple advice to agree to disagree works here too I think

Well, then have some friends cover you if you're getting strafed. A lone bomber is as unrealistic as a vulcher over France don't you think? Or switch to another airbase, very easy. I've been vulched many times, also in bombers and never complained about it. And vulching is not all that common over France, you don't need a special trick to protect you from it but if it happens to you during your flight well then tough luck, try again.

I could also say the same, you or Reddog are repeating your opinion over and over as well you know, it goes both ways. I've the same right to do it as you or anyone other mate. And no, this has nothing to do with "respecting designer's choice". If I don't like a certain choice I can criticise it as much as I want and offer other solutions, namely positive incentives to do what the designer wants and not punishment for not having fun his way. The mission designer can, in turn, either listen to feedback or not care, and that is his choice.

The biggest problem here is the attitude of trying to force players into a certain playstyle not by encouraging them to do so but by essentially telling them "do it my way or die when you cross the line". It's a very fine difference but one that makes a difference between a great mission and a worse one. I'm trying to make Reddog see that, that he can achieve his goal through other means and I think he'll get there eventually and realise that he doesn't need scripts like that if his mission is entertaining on its own. But if we don't talk about it then nothing will happen.

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 04:17
Endy the problem is not the opinions you have. You have every right to have one on any subject. But please remember that those people making missions or improving the game do it freely. You might want to change the way you are talking to them. You are very rude and it' s perfectly normal that people get pissed of. Instead of criticizing everything, show us what YOU can do for once: Do your own mission, the way you like it...

Hoots
Oct-30-2013, 04:28
Erm endy.... I've made this point exactly once.... And other airbases for certain bomber types aren't always available and like you time is limited so it's usually one flight only for me, but yeah that's just me obv. You have made your point to the mission designer, he disagrees. Agree to disagree, I get that it's annoying for you, but equally it's not for me. One might almost say we cancel each other out in the opinion stakes?

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 04:41
Endy the problem is not the opinions you have. You have every right to have one on any subject. But please remember that those people making missions or improving the game do it freely. You might want to change the way you are talking to them. You are very rude and it' s perfectly normal that people get pissed of. Instead of criticizing everything, show us what YOU can do for once: Do your own mission, the way you like it...

Gringo, I find it fascinating that some people, like you in this case are afraid of discussion and try to That's another person using a logical fallacy, sorry mate.
If you go to the movies you have every right to criticise it, despite you not being a film director yourself. Ah, but you'll say that you pay for it therefore purchase the right to criticise right? What about stuff that comes for free then? What if I see a painting then or another piece of art? I don't pay for it so can I criticise it or do I need to become a painter myself? Am I allowed to criticise the looks of a building or do I need to become an architect or a mason? Am I allowed to express my opinion on anything at all without becoming an expert in the area first? Do you think life is long enough to do that or that an individual is not allowed for his independent thought and opinion until he does something? Do you even see how absurd that whole argument is?

If at any point you disagree please prove me wrong, but do it in a logical way, not using generalities and false statements like that. Because criticising mission design, or for that matter anything else, has NOTHING to do with the ability to do it oneself, as long as it's done in a logical manner.

Also, why am I being rude tell me? Is it because I don't agree with others like you, Reddog or Kling? Do I insult anyone? Do I use swear words? How is having a different opinion and trying to prove I am right and somebody else is wrong rude? Please tell me because somehow it's difficult for me to see, perhaps I'm blind in some way?

By the way, such comments as yours add nothing to all this, just so you know. You're not even discussing the issue, not saying why you like or dislike that idea. Instead you try to make it personal and belittle your opponent. Now THAT is what you can call rude. Instead of concentrating on what I've got to say you prefer to ignore it and just imply that all the arguments are invalid somehow because I'm being rude. That's very bad for any discussion mate, the moment you stop replying to arguments and try to "win" in as cheap a way as possible.

Anyway, back to the topic shall we?

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 04:55
Erm endy.... I've made this point exactly once.... And other airbases for certain bomber types aren't always available and like you time is limited so it's usually one flight only for me, but yeah that's just me obv. You have made your point to the mission designer, he disagrees. Agree to disagree, I get that it's annoying for you, but equally it's not for me. One might almost say we cancel each other out in the opinion stakes?

Well then I must have thought it was more then once that you expressed said opinion, sorry for that, perhaps I mixed up threads and saw your opinion elsewhere as well.

As for other airbases, true, not always available but very rarely. I can't actually recall a mission where bombers or fighters are in only one base but perhaps I'm wrong? And like I said, I sympathise with your pain of getting strafed but that's part of the game. Nobody said it's gonna be all roses.

Anyway, it's also not only about agreeing or disagreeing. I know you may not like if someone criticises something you like but you can't always say "agree to disagree" and just end it. First of all, if we were discussing if something is correct or not, where you can be only wrong or right then opinions don't cancel each other. If someone thinks 2+2=4 and someone that 2+2=5 the opinions neither cancel each other nor is the truth in the middle. Someone is right and someone is wrong. This is a pure digression of course for future reference and has got nothing to do with this discussion, just telling you that argument doesn't fit all sizes every time :)

As for this particular discussion, sure, it's all a matter of opinion. But no, they also don't cancel each other. I have mine and you have yours. And I will continue to have it unless proven wrong or convinced otherwise. Therefore I can continue to express it for as long as I like no? If something is not to my liking then I can criticise it. As long as the mission is on the server I can criticise it unless all critique is disallowed but I believe it isn't right? The person responsible for the mission can ignore it. You can also ignore it or continue to argue, preferably using arguments though, not insults, not personal stuff, logially, calmly etc. So how does it hurt you exactly and why does it hur you so much that someone else is saying something that is not to your liking?

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 04:56
Well I dont say your arguments are invalid. But do you NEED to be rude? Are you not able to express your opinion in a nicer way? That is all i m asking for.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:00
Well I dont say your arguments are invalid. But do you NEED to be rude? Are you not able to express your opinion in a nicer way? That is all i m asking for.

I'll repeat what I said in my previous post. How exactly am I being rude?

Hoots
Oct-30-2013, 05:02
It's phrases like "proving I'm right" that get people's backs up endy, you're not right, you're not wrong. That's the point here. The feature you dislike is one that others like. No one is right or wrong. You have made your point and are now trying to "prove you are right" over and over again, that is what people find unnecessary.

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 05:03
I'll repeat what I said in my previous post. How exactly am I being rude?

Your education seems to be lacking somehow. You don t need to use swearing to be rude...

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:04
It's phrases like "proving I'm right" that get people's backs up endy, you're not right, you're not wrong. That's the point here. The feature you dislike is one that others like. No one is right or wrong. You have made your point and are now trying to "prove you are right" over and over again, that is what people find unnecessary.

Please re-read my last post. I said specifically it's got nothing to do with this discussion which is mostly based on opinion, sorry.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:05
Your education seems to be lacking somehow. You don t need to use swearing to be rude...

Then tell me specifically, how am I being rude? Because now you're being rude by implying that my education is lacking. See? I pointed specifically what is wrong with your comment, your turn.

Hoots
Oct-30-2013, 05:06
Oh and the whole 2+2 thing doesn't work here as that has a definite answer, an argument based on opinion doesn't have a definite answer. Quite why you think people are afraid is beyond me.

EG14_Marcast
Oct-30-2013, 05:07
You're absolutely right that the Blues can fix the issue, but that means that they're over France, not escorting their bombers, which means that Red's get bored shooting AI, and go to France, where the Blues have to defend to fix the issue and so on. And so on. And so on.



I totally agree. Yes, ideal would be to have plenty of sniper AA in the airfields and spread all over the coast of France, but as this would greatly affect the system's performance, the death wall is the best solution. The great interest of this mission is that it is very close to the spirit of the Battle of Britain: RAF fighters intercepting incoming german bombers escorted by fighters. Let's not spoil it.

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 05:10
Then tell me specifically, how am I being rude? Because now you're being rude by implying that my education is lacking. See? I pointed specifically what is wrong with your comment, your turn.

Sadly i m not your mother... not my job to educate you. I m just saying you might want to improve your social skills. They seem to be lacking.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:10
Oh and the whole 2+2 thing doesn't work here as that has a definite answer, an argument based on opinion doesn't have a definite answer. Quite why you think people are afraid is beyond me.

Exactly, please re-read the post again, or shall I quote it:


This is a pure digression of course for future reference and has got nothing to do with this discussion, just telling you that argument doesn't fit all sizes every time

As you can see I specifically mentioned that. I have to ask, did you even read what I wrote then? Or do you take from it what's convenient for your own sake even if it's irrelevant? :)

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:11
Sadly i m not your mother... not my job to educate you. I m just saying you might want to improve your social skills. They seem to be lacking.

No you're not my mother and it's also not your job to educate me, that much is true. Still, you're evading the question. If you want to insult me or imply that I'm rude point specifically where I was. Otherwise your argument is invalid.

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 05:13
There are 5 possible routes now.


1) The death wall stays - this gets up some peoples noses and violates the ATAG "sandbox" concept.
2) I make flak in France so deadly that any Red over there WILL die. This cripples everyone's machine, the mission is unplayable, and the idea probably violates the ATAG "sandbox" concept.
3) I make Red sorties over France tied to the victory conditions. I reckon in the BoB it was probably under 1% of the time. So, if a Red crosses the frontline we see how many sorties have been flown, how many have crossed the line. If it's more than 1% then the Blues win the map and we rotate to the next mission. This idea probably violates the ATAG "sandbox" concept also.
4) I remove all restrictions compromising my idea, and we end up with another map where the fight will be over Hawkinge and France. AGAIN.

And lastly, the fifth option which is what I favour. I admit defeat, there is no mission and we continue with the unhistorical missions we currently have.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:14
See, it's very easy to hmm, let's call it "dicsuss" with you guys since you're just shooting blindly, apparently don't read or miscomprehend posts and when asked for specifics you just back out of it and go into more generalities which have no relevance or any truth behind it whatsoever. If you seriously want to do this then you've really got to try better than that...

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:19
4) I remove all restrictions compromising my idea, and we end up with another map where the fight will be over Hawkinge and France. AGAIN.


Why exactly is that compromising your idea?

I told you in one of the previous posts, if you want a good mission and if you want people to do mission objectives then provide incentives for doing so. I'm guessing you want a mission people are gonna enjoy. Then do so! If your objectives are interesting there will be very few reasons to go to France frequently and in numbers. People will still do it, but not often.

I'll ask again then, are you so afraid your mission will be uninteresting that you want to force people to do what you want them to? Or are you confident in the idea that your mission goals are interesting and well constructed enough so that people will have no reason to do much else? Then you have no reason to use stuff like that script right? It's all a matter of making the mission interesting enough, which I assume you want right?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 05:19
On the "anti-vulch";

Reddog is trying to achieve an objective with this mission which is,

(1) to keep the fight over the area between the south coast and London, AND
(2) to ensure that blue pilots (including AI raids) have a safe place to form up and begin their flight towards England.

Now, if you can suggest a constructive way of achieving those goals that does not require the anti-vulch then please suggest such a method.

I think we all get the point that you don't like the method that's being used. However, in the absence of an alternative, this round-about just seems like a waste of Reddog's reading time.

So, how's about we suggest a workable alternative that meets the two objectives above?

Hoots
Oct-30-2013, 05:20
I'm afraid constant "yes it is, no it isn't" arguments bore me rigid. I had to listen to my kids do that. All I have said, once, in these posts is that I like the barrier and then that there is no need for you to continually repost your opinion. You seem to be thinking that if you have the last word then you get what you want, winning by attrition if you like. To use the 2+2 argument, this is a case of opinions not definites so agree to disagree does work. Shall we try it and see?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 05:21
I told you in one of the previous posts, if you want a good mission and if you want people to do mission objectives then provide incentives for doing so. ?

What specific incentives do you have in mind?

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 05:24
I'm afraid constant "yes it is, no it isn't" arguments bore me rigid. I had to listen to my kids do that. All I have said, once, in these posts is that I like the barrier and then that there is no need for you to continually repost your opinion. You seem to be thinking that if you have the last word then you get what you want, winning by attrition if you like. To use the 2+2 argument, this is a case of opinions not definites so agree to disagree does work. Shall we try it and see?

But Hoots, this method has been proven to work. Just look at all the recently closed threads that Endy's "contributed" to. (all he ever has contributed).

I've just read some of his other posts (there were too many to read before I posted my previous). It's clear he personally wants a free path to fly to France and to kill what he finds there. I mean come on, he even suggests removing the Flak FROM france.

I've made my decision.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:25
I'm afraid constant "yes it is, no it isn't" arguments bore me rigid. I had to listen to my kids do that. All I have said, once, in these posts is that I like the barrier and then that there is no need for you to continually repost your opinion. You seem to be thinking that if you have the last word then you get what you want, winning by attrition if you like. To use the 2+2 argument, this is a case of opinions not definites so agree to disagree does work. Shall we try it and see?

Exactly Hoots, like I said, either continue or not.

Ah, and which part exactlt of 2+2 DOES NOT APPY to this discussion did you not understand? The biggest problem I see is that you don't even read posts you try to reply to. That certainly makes communication more difficult.

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 05:26
What specific incentives do you have in mind?

Clearly the existing mission MUST be boring and have no incentives as people are currently complaining that Reds are over France in the current version. As I don't want to inflict on the community a BORING and UNFUN mission, the answer is clear. I've emailed Bliss to remove the mission from the rotation.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 05:30
Endy, looking forward to your constructive ideas to achieve the intent of this mission.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:35
But Hoots, this method has been proven to work. Just look at all the recently closed threads that Endy's "contributed" to. (all he ever has contributed).


Oh yes Reddog, let's go personal, why not? I see we're playing psychologists now. Shall I try to discover the hmmm,, doubtful qualities of your character as well not basing on anything much but getting pissed by the discussion? Bravo, go that route and we'll start throwing stuff at each other soon. If you lack the skills to dicsuss without resorting to personal insults then better stop posting at all, or continue in a decent manner. If you've a problem with other threads I've posted in by all means, go into specifics. But make sure there is something more there than your feelings when you start to insult someone on that basis. Or is a general implied insult good enough for you?


I've just read some of his other posts (there were too many to read before I posted my previous). It's clear he personally wants a free path to fly to France and to kill what he finds there. I mean come on, he even suggests removing the Flak FROM france.

Ah yes, reading intentions from my mind. Can you read my mind and what I'm thinking of you now then? :) (I'm finding you're a charming person by the way :) )
Awesome, you need to teach me that trick. Dude, you're pathetic using "arguments" like that. Got any proof perhaps? Do you know why I suggested removing flak from the COAST NOT AIRFIELDS? Because you complained it takes too much FPS. And also, like I posted I believe other players will do the trick. Unless you mean to say flak is very effective in bringing fighters down?

Reddog, your style of discussion is getting more and more dirty as we speak, you ignore arguments, try to resolve the discussion with insults like a small child and imply intentions not basing it on anything specific. Pathetic dude, really...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 05:39
Endy,

How about those constructive ideas to make the mission work according to its objectives?

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:42
Endy, looking forward to your constructive ideas to achieve the intent of this mission.

Big AI bomber raids are a good idea and central to this mission design. Good. Many people will be interested in shooting them down and many people will try to escort them, because that's where the fights are gonna be. Also, make sure to put in a mechanism that allows both red and blue players to easily locate them. Many don't go for bombers because they're difficult to find.

And that's pretty much it, nothing else is needed. Most action will be concentrated around bomber raids this way which is the point right?

And if people don't find it interesting you ask? Well then why make a mission that is not interesting? Or would you like to just force people to do something that is not interesting to them at all? Either you're sure this mission will have goals interesting enough to center the action where you want it or... it's not gonna be an intersting mission perhaps? If you find at some point that people are not doing what you intended them to do then maybe the fault lies with the mission not being suited to likes and dislikes of the audience?

So yeah, make the goals interesting and if bomber raids will not be interesting for most people up to the point they try doing anything else but that then why bother at all?

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 05:43
Obvious troll is obvious...

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 05:52
Big AI bomber raids are a good idea and central to this mission design. Good. Many people will be interested in shooting them down and many people will try to escort them, because that's where the fights are gonna be. Also, make sure to put in a mechanism that allows both red and blue players to easily locate them. Many don't go for bombers because they're difficult to find.


Ok, I understand the thinking, but this has been tried. It's not as effective as one might think.

A while back, we used to have "big" bomber raids (25+), for a short time before it was realised that with more than about 50 players online, the game/server would not cope. However, in that short time, while these formations were still in use, a few red guys learned where they spawned and would just fly up to that location, and clobber the bomber formation just when it spawned in.

It became a race between the reds to see who could get to the spawn points first. If there were 109s about at the spawn, the reds would then just have one or two guys drop on their bases. Keep the 109s busy lower down. 109s responded by flying to hawking to keep the reds pinned at their base. The result, after a few weeks.... low-level scraps at Hawkinge. We essentially ended up with the same situation as now, but wit a few more AI bombers flying about. Yawn.

We still need to work on more imaginative ideas. The "more bombers" solution is demonstrably not successful as a stand-alone option.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 05:53
Obvious troll is obvious...

Oh, are we insulting again? Yessir, best way to call someone a troll, a nazi, a racist or say someone's rude and you're not gonna discuss and "win" this way. Discussion skills over 9000 sir!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 05:53
So yeah, make the goals interesting

OK.. but this is kinda vague, you've gotta admit. What constitutes an "interesting" objective?
Throw us a bone here....

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 06:01
Oh, are we insulting again? Yessir, best way to call someone a troll, a nazi, a racist or say someone's rude and you're not gonna discuss and "win" this way. Discussion skills over 9000 sir!

Look Endy, you don't have to point out every ad-hominem you spot on the internet. We can all spot a fallacy when we see one, we don't need your help pointing them out.

Focus yourself on the real question here which is; how can the mission be, made to WORK in the absence of an anti-vulch? Employ your obvious critical skills in that direction so that we can ALL benefit. If you can suggets some robust alternatives, that can be successfully implemented then maybe you can influence the mission in a positive manner.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 06:09
Ok, I understand the thinking, but this has been tried. It's not as effective as one might think.

Thank you, I appreciate you at least try to argue in a normal way unlike some others.


A while back, we used to have "big" bomber raids (25+), for a short time before it was realised that with more than about 50 players online, the game/server would not cope. However, in that short time, while these formations were still in use, a few red guys learned where they spawned and would just fly up to that location, and clobber the bomber formation just when it spawned in.

Maybe the problem is with static spawns then? If you make them random then the problem will be at least partially solved. As for server performance, if it didn't work then then how was Reddog expecting them to work now? Or did something change in the netcode?


It became a race between the reds to see who could get to the spawn points first. If there were 109s about at the spawn, the reds would then just have one or two guys drop on their bases. Keep the 109s busy lower down. 109s responded by flying to hawking to keep the reds pinned at their base. The result, after a few weeks.... low-level scraps at Hawkinge. We essentially ended up with the same situation as now, but wit a few more AI bombers flying about. Yawn.

Well, with static spawns I agree, it'll be a race. With something more dynamic, maybe not but only maybe. But there needs to be a way to find the bombers, especially forn the escorts.

Pulling the escorts down is a normal tactic though, I'd do the same when trying to intercept, pull em down with some planes and the rest takes care of the bombers. The escorts need not bother with the low flying allies do they? And I think with 50 players per side there's enough players to provide cap over own bases and provide escort to bombers. Provided that players find both activities equally engaging.

Unfortunately, if you'd like the bombers to always reach deep into England, you'll never be sure of that. Or you would have to make them invulnerable all the way, but just how realistic is that?


We still need to work on more imaginative ideas. The "more bombers" solution is demonstrably not successful as a stand-alone option.

Probably not. But the main question is if killing bombers or escorting them is engaging for all/most players? Do you think players will want to do it or not if you provide them with tools for it? Will some prefer strafing Hawkinge, going over the channel ignoring bombers, over France even? I have no doubt. The point is, is that majority or minority? Does it break the mission that not everyone goes for objectives or not? Do you think forcing players to do objectives you like EXCLUISVELY is good for the server for a few hours or should players be free to do what they want?

It seems the main idea of the mission and the script is based on an uncertainty that the players will do the goals willingly. And If they don't want to them or behave exactly how you like it then what? Is restricting areas and making them do what you want good for it or not? Or is it better to make sure that the playerbase does it willingly?

I would love to have fights at high altitudes with escorts or to shoot at bombers, but does everyone want that? Of course not. But does it break the mission that someone is gonna be over Hawkinge, channel, French airfields? I don't think so. You'll get mostly what you wanted with a large part of the players around the bombers probably, with some players doing other stuff if they're bored. But what exactly is wrong with it if it doesn't break the main mission core? That's very difficult for me to see here.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 06:13
OK.. but this is kinda vague, you've gotta admit. What constitutes an "interesting" objective?
Throw us a bone here....

Interesting means something else for different people obviously. Are bomber raids interesting for most of the player base? I think yes, it would be interesting, but we don't know for sure until we test it. But what if it proves not? Do you keep the mission and force people to do ONLY what you want or do you allow alternatives, obviously without them being the main focus of the mission? Does any alternative behaviour break your mission totally even if some small number of players engages in it? Or perhaps, if players are looking for alternative goals the main goals are just not interesting enough? Or maybe there's another problem with it?

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 06:17
Look Endy, you don't have to point out every ad-hominem you spot on the internet. We can all spot a fallacy when we see one, we don't need your help pointing them out.

Thank you Philstyle but I sort of do. Some people here have a manner of dicussing which I utterly despise, going all personal, insulting when they're out of meaningful stuff to say etc. Anger is a decent enough tactic I guess but rarely serves anything good, and such stuff needs to be pointed out and ridiculed tbh.


Focus yourself on the real question here which is; how can the mission be, made to WORK in the absence of an anti-vulch? Employ your obvious critical skills in that direction so that we can ALL benefit. If you can suggets some robust alternatives, that can be successfully implemented then maybe you can influence the mission in a positive manner.

Please refer to my previous post. (edit: actually two posts up :) )

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 06:31
Well it's your manner of discussing that I utterly despise... No one is denying you the right to express your opinion. But it is your way of doing it that is provoking the reactions you see here. You are totally unrespectful of the work others do for YOU. Here is the problem. It was even more pronounced in MP' s thread about the E4N. You might want to do something about it, otherwise all your arguments, as true and wise as they could be, won' t ever be heard.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Oct-30-2013, 06:32
T
Maybe the problem is with static spawns then? If you make them random then the problem will be at least partially solved. As for server performance, if it didn't work then then how was Reddog expecting them to work now? Or did something change in the netcode?... Well, with static spawns I agree, it'll be a race. With something more dynamic, maybe not but only maybe. But there needs to be a way to find the bombers, especially forn the escorts.

Dynamic spawns take a lot of work, and the subsequent coding to "advertise" the locations of the bombers also has to be adjusted. The AI are prone to doing some very stupid things (like crashing, for example) when left to dynamically spawn. There might be ways around this, but as far as I am aware, all servers use a fixed, or "close to fixed" set of AI bomber spawn points.



Pulling the escorts down is a normal tactic though, I'd do the same when trying to intercept, pull em down with some planes and the rest takes care of the bombers. The escorts need not bother with the low flying allies do they? And I think with 50 players per side there's enough players to provide cap over own bases and provide escort to bombers. Provided that players find both activities equally engaging.

Unfortunately, if you'd like the bombers to always reach deep into England, you'll never be sure of that. Or you would have to make them invulnerable all the way, but just how realistic is that?

OK, let's not lose sight of the mission concept here which is precisely that, to try and bring the fight to new areas of the map, commensurate with the middle and later stages of the BoB. Obviously, and invulnerable bomber force would be a disincentive anyways, so there's no need to push the example to an obviously ridiculous extreme to make the point. We also want to make sure that the mission works when there is only 20 people online too. There are many players (Aussies and Americans for example) who don't often play in the "full server" timezone. One of the biggest initial complaints about home-plate was that it catered poorly to the lower-player-count environment,. That mission was adjusted accordingly.



Probably not. But the main question is if killing bombers or escorting them is engaging for all/most players? Do you think players will want to do it or not if you provide them with tools for it? Will some prefer strafing Hawkinge, going over the channel ignoring bombers, over France even? I have no doubt. The point is, is that majority or minority? Does it break the mission that not everyone goes for objectives or not? Do you think forcing players to do objectives you like EXCLUISVELY is good for the server for a few hours or should players be free to do what they want?

Firstly, we're pushing to an extreme here to make a point, which is not necessary. Reddog's mission does not "force" "exclusive" adherence to the objectives. As far as I can tell, only one aspect of gameplay is excluded. The presumption that you've argued against does not exist in this mission. So there's no real need to go down that patch.

Secondly, taking a less extreme approach, I think your question is really about how much restriction is too much.. You're not the first to ask this question, I can assure you. However, I'm yet to see from anyone, a consistent framework for answering this question. We all live happily with many restrictions already. You cannot land on water. You cannot air spawn. If you get hit, you get damaged. You only have enough fuel for a certain time. Plane-sets are restricted. The mission time is dictated to you. The weather is dictated to you. The map is a set geographical area. etc.. etc...


It seems the main idea of the mission and the script is based on an uncertainty that the players will do the goals willingly. And If they don't want to them or behave exactly how you like it then what? Is restricting areas and making them do what you want good for it or not? Or is it better to make sure that the playerbase does it willingly?

We know from experience that players will not willingly pursue mission objectives. It's not an assumption that is in any way unwarranted. It's an assumption that's almost necessary, based on the experience of most who have ever flown this game online.

So far the only "solution" we have is "larger bomber raids", a solution which you are pointing out a number of problems with, namely;
1. It appears to depend on high player count
2. It can (and probably will) still be ignored by a minority of players
3. It requires players who are "active and willing"


So, to my mind, we're still lacking in a robust solution. But, let's keep talking, one (or a series of) might be found..

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 06:42
Well it's your manner of discussing that I utterly despise...

Which is exactly what? See, you're dealing in generalities again with nothing substantial and now when I call you on it you will just back out again. If it's my "manner" then describe what it is exactly that is a problem for you.


No one is denying you the right to express your opinion.

Thank god for that.


But it is your way of doing it that is provoking the reactions you see here. You are totally unrespectful of the work others do for YOU.

HOW am I unrespectful? Point it out, quote, because right now you're saying I'm unrespectful without pointing exactly what it is that is unrespectful. See what I mean? You throw a general insult my way without anything to back it up. And you can't base this stuff on your feelings because you can't even know what tone my words are as we're talking via posts, not in real life or TS. That's the problem here, you insult me without even giving cause for it other than that it's your gut feeling.


It was even more pronounced in MP' s thread about the E4N.

You are free to revisit that post and point exactly what it is that was "even more pronounced". Other than that, it's again your gut feeling and generalities. Show me and everyone here what it was exactly that is unrespectful, either here or there. I'm not insulting you in some general ways then don't do the same. Facts mate facts, or will you again call me a troll and back out of it?


You might want to do something about it, otherwise all your arguments, as true and wise as they could be, won' t ever be heard.

Again, about what exactly? What would you like to be changed? Exactly, specifically. Perhaps it's some words I used? Which ones? It's really difficult to discuss with you if you're all generalities and no specifics you know? You have a feeling and stick to it but nothing substantial whatsoever...

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 06:44
Ok then if you think you are speaking in a respectful manner, show your good-will, and try to be even nicer ;)
And do we really have to use quotes for you to understand?

Kling
Oct-30-2013, 07:13
PFT_Endy
I think everyone here percieves you as loud and yelling and quite aggressive.
That is the issue!
We dont really get that feeling from other posters. I think enough people have given you hints that you are indeed percieved "louder" and more disrespectful in your way of arguing. We all see each other as friends here but you seem to think everyone is against YOU and start these "fights" in every second thread.

Some research has revealed that this is not the first forum where you have been known for this.

So just as you ask Reddog to listen to your advice, I will kindly ask you to listen to ours and try to be more respectful and friendly in you posts and not go attack-defend-attack-defend-attack-defend etc etc. This is not a forum where people have to fight to death and only the one who is the loudest will come out as the winner.
We try to treat each other with respect and good manners. As most of us have been taught since childhood.
We all want a better game experience so lets all work towards this goal without upsetting each other!

Kling out

ElGringo
Oct-30-2013, 07:30
PFT_Endy
I think everyone here percieves you as loud and yelling and quite aggressive.
That is the issue!
We dont really get that feeling from other posters. I think enough people have given you hints that you are indeed percieved "louder" and more disrespectful in your way of arguing. We all see each other as friends here but you seem to think everyone is against YOU and start these "fights" in every second thread.

Some research has revealed that this is not the first forum where you have been known for this.

So just as you ask Reddog to listen to your advice, I will kindly ask you to listen to ours and try to be more respectful and friendly in you posts and not go attack-defend-attack-defend-attack-defend etc etc. This is not a forum where people have to fight to death and only the one who is the loudest will come out as the winner.
We try to treat each other with respect and good manners. As most of us have been taught since childhood.
We all want a better game experience so lets all work towards this goal without upsetting each other!

Kling out

:salute:

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-30-2013, 07:53
Why in any thread where PFT_Endy comes to reply he is doing multi-quotes, replying anyone whos posts, hijacking threads? Do you have your own Agenda Endy? Too much free time.

We like to welcome new players, people interested to fly with us and to have fun. We dont like to have a disturbing guest at hour houses and this is what you have been doing in any post you have made. What is your idea? What makes you happy is just to piss off the others? Thats a really low objective.

It is clear to many of us that you have some sort of terrorrist semi-polite, experienced should be the best word, in forum trolling. Seems like a professional - take it as a compliment. Who is paying you? Why anyone answering to any thread as to take your opinion on top? Cant you wait to see what the others think?

Finally: If you dont have anything nice to say, just shut up, that´s what mom used to say. And you know what? She was right!

P.S. You have free to have a opinion. Not a opinion on evryones opinion. That´s trolling.

ATAG_Septic
Oct-30-2013, 08:18
I hope not too many Ju 88 dropping all their bombs at the same time are needed to make the "runways" at those fields unusable. It will be quite fun disabling the coastal airfields :)

Do bombs actually leave craters in multiplayer, making take off and landing dangerous?

It seems so Jhat old bean. My pilot died on take-off after running in to them at Eastchurch. I saw them but didn't suspect they would be an actual crater. I don't know whether they were caused by the raid that had just bombed the airfield or whether they are already placed. Whichever, it is a great immersion feature!

Septic.

Edit, sorry I was referring to a different mission.

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 08:23
It seems so Jhat old bean. My pilot died on take-off after running in to them at Eastchurch. I saw them but didn't suspect they would be an actual crater. I don't know whether they were caused by the raid that had just bombed the airfield or whether they are already placed. Whichever, it is a great immersion feature!

Septic.

Septic,

I suspect that's in Salmo's mission which has a scripted solution to placing craters at the point of impact. My mission unfortunately does not have that (and while it's a nice immersive and realistic thing to want to have, I don't want to copy Salmo's mission in every detail.)

Besides, you can't even spawn at Eastchurch in my mission :)

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 08:25
Dynamic spawns take a lot of work, and the subsequent coding to "advertise" the locations of the bombers also has to be adjusted. The AI are prone to doing some very stupid things (like crashing, for example) when left to dynamically spawn. There might be ways around this, but as far as I am aware, all servers use a fixed, or "close to fixed" set of AI bomber spawn points.

I see, although what about Salmo's mission, is that fixed spawns as well? I see that it's not easy but well, just an idea then. Fixed spawns could work as well, as long as the blue players guard them right? But are they interested in providing escorts as well because that's a relevant question?


OK, let's not lose sigh of the mission concept here which is precisely that, to try and bring the fight to new areas of the map, commensurate with the middle and later stages of the BoB.

Like I said, I am all for that goal.


Obviously, and invulnerable bomber force would be a disincentive anyways, so there's no need to push the example to an obviously ridiculous extreme to make the point.

Actually, it's not that bad example. Because sooner or later the bombers will get intercepted right? Do you have any precise area that you want them to be intercepted at? So far from what you're saying you wouldn't like them to be hit above France. What about shortly after crossing the shore, or is that also too early? See, to push it exactly where you want it you'd need to resort to many artificial means, similar to that script. Will you just be pushing it further and further to reach the proper area or is early channel battle good enough? The problem is you can't control player actions without using such means but when you start then where does it stop? How scripted do you want the mission to become and how much of a sandbox with general guidelines?


We also want to make sure that the mission works when there is only 20 people online too. There are many players (Aussies and Americans for example) who don't often play in the "full server" timezone. One of the biggest initial complaints about home-plate was that it catered poorly to the lower-player-count environment,. That mission was adjusted accordingly.

Ok, a fair argument, I agree. Do you think that a lower player count will influence the fights around bombers somehow? That's a genuine question. It seems there will be more trouble shooting them all down but is there anything else here? You will also have problems with unequal numbers of players on both sides but you can hardly predict that unfortunately.


Firstly, we're pushing to an extreme here to make a point, which is not necessary. Reddog's mission does not "force" "exclusive" adherence to the objectives. As far as I can tell, only one aspect of gameplay is excluded. The presumption that you've argued against does not exist in this mission. So there's no real need to go down that patch.

True to a degree. You exclude only a few types of possible behaviour, namely vulching over France and the possibility of chasing someone too far with the possibility of being blown up by an invisible wall.


Secondly, taking a less extreme approach, I think your question is really about how much restriction is too much.. You're not the first to ask this question, I can assure you. However, I'm yet to see from anyone, a consistent framework for answering this question. We all live happily with many restrictions already. You cannot land on water. You cannot air spawn. If you get hit, you get damaged. You only have enough fuel for a certain time. Plane-sets are restricted. The mission time is dictated to you. The weather is dictated to you. The map is a set geographical area. etc.. etc...

It's a matter of setting a border somehwere. I believe stuff like invisible walls should not exist on ATAG missions.


We know from experience that players will not willingly pursue mission objectives. It's not an assumption that is in any way unwarranted. It's an assumption that's almost necessary, based on the experience of most who have ever flown this game online.

Philstyle, then how can you say such missions should be made at all? If players don't willingly for mission objectives then what's the whole point? Shouldn't the mission be actually fun with fun enough objectives? If it's not fun for the majority of players then what's the whole point? Either the mission objectives are fun for the players or there's just no justification for including them.


So far the only "solution" we have is "larger bomber raids", a solution which you are pointing out a number of problems with, namely;
1. It appears to depend on high player count
2. It can (and probably will) still be ignored by a minority of players
3. It requires players who are "active and willing"

Some mission will, inevitably be better suited for large player counts, can't avoid that. Unless there are some scripts that adjust it. As for ignoring objectives, if you say they will be ignored anyway then it's pointless basing a mission around it. Or include the objectives, some will do them and others will not, but restricting player choices here is doubly wrong in this case. If objectives are boring and there's even less possible stuff to do then how fun will the mission be?


So, to my mind, we're still lacking in a robust solution. But, let's keep talking, one (or a series of) might be found..

Sure, as long as it doesn't devolve into petty arguments and name calling like it seems of late by some people.

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 08:35
Should probably have said in the changelog that the "Dynamic" ai bomber raids are not truly dynamic and totally random, there's currently 2 spawning locations chosen for their distance from two recognisable and easily found RV points and consistent flying time to said RV. the target is chosen from a list of targets (some objectives, some not), and then the Landing point is chosen from a list of Non player spawning airfields in France. Each step is randomly generated, and those targets which are objectives removed from the list if the objective is completed.

So not totally random and dynamic, but certainly expandable if required to include more spawn and RV pairs.

The issue with random spawn locations is that while the Red's can't find them, neither can the Blues.

Organising and coordinating a bomber mission with escorts takes time. Something that's not available if Red's are milling around the Tripods.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 08:48
PFT_Endy
I think everyone here percieves you as loud and yelling and quite aggressive.
That is the issue!

Kling, I can't be responsible for your impressions. How can I be yelling on an internet forum? If I was yelling at you on TS now that I could understand but here? What in my posts constitues as yelling again sorry? If you feel I'm aggressive, please quote the part that angered you. From my side I can only assure you that whatever "aggression" you feel is your own impression and not my intention. It would be nice to see that in the other direction as well as some posters refer to insults very easily.


We dont really get that feeling from other posters. I think enough people have given you hints that you are indeed percieved "louder" and more disrespectful in your way of arguing. We all see each other as friends here but you seem to think everyone is against YOU and start these "fights" in every second thread.

The thing I can't understand is why you see it as fights or anything else. We're exchanging arguments, or at least some of us are but some people prefer obvious name calling etc. Like kids in a kindergarten. "You're a troll and I feel bad about your posts"... This is really not the way it should look like.

Unfortunately your feelings are your own and I will not change them whatever I say. If you choose to see aggression in my every post then it's purely what you imagine. I really can't be responsible what you or another person feels. If something I wrote hurt you, by all means, say exactly what it was, I'll explain what it meant if that will make you feel better.


Some research has revealed that this is not the first forum where you have been known for this.

The problem with internet forums is that usually all factual discussions tend to devolve into name calling very quickly just as this one did. You can't find more arguments? Then let's call someone a troll, why not?
That's also a problem when a person doesn't give up easily and it gets heated quickly by nobody taking a step back. The "research" or whatever you're doing just proves one thing, that you're just looking for something to discredit my arguments in this discussion. Somehow you seem to think it's in any way relevant to what's posted here? I think you're very keen to apply generalities like that to discredit your opponent, I don't blame you, it's an easy way out. But I'd ask you to try and be more specific in your accusations. If you have anything against me in this very thread just say it. Quote what it was exactly that hurt you so much or made a bad impression, I'll try to help you.


So just as you ask Reddog to listen to your advice, I will kindly ask you to listen to ours and try to be more respectful and friendly in you posts and not go attack-defend-attack-defend-attack-defend etc etc. This is not a forum where people have to fight to death and only the one who is the loudest will come out as the winner.
We try to treat each other with respect and good manners. As most of us have been taught since childhood.
We all want a better game experience so lets all work towards this goal without upsetting each other!

Kling out

I would want that too Kling but unfortunately you see what the chat turned into. Like a bunch of kids repeating the same stuff, calling names etc. I've been nothing but respectful in this thread and instead received a treatment I did not expect, full of name calling, petty insults etc.

Yes, I would really this to be a factual discussion. So how about that then? Please reply to what you think about the mission and why you think I'm wrong in my perception of the "death wall" as that seems to be the main point. If we manage to come back to a normal discussion it would do us much good.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 08:58
Why in any thread where PFT_Endy comes to reply he is doing multi-quotes, replying anyone whos posts, hijacking threads? Do you have your own Agenda Endy? Too much free time.

Lolsav, I find quoting what I reply to a sign of respect for the other person. This way I can reply to all his arguments and I would honestly expect anyone to do the same. If you see it as something else then it's a shame. The problem starts when someone posts a long-winded post and get one sentence in reply, preferably in reply to the out of context thing which is a cheap way to "win" an argument.


We like to welcome new players, people interested to fly with us and to have fun. We dont like to have a disturbing guest at hour houses and this is what you have been doing in any post you have made. What is your idea? What makes you happy is just to piss off the others? Thats a really low objective.

What do you think is my aim? I think I stated pretty clearly. I argue against the "death wall" and that's pretty much it.


It is clear to many of us that you have some sort of terrorrist semi-polite, experienced should be the best word, in forum trolling. Seems like a professional - take it as a compliment. Who is paying you? Why anyone answering to any thread as to take your opinion on top? Cant you wait to see what the others think?

Sorry but I would like you to stop throwing insults like that. I'm not implying you're a troll or any other stuff like that so it'd be nice to have the same respect back. And terrorist? Wow...


Finally: If you dont have anything nice to say, just shut up, that´s what mom used to say. And you know what? She was right!

P.S. You have free to have a opinion. Not a opinion on evryones opinion. That´s trolling.

No, because if I'm getting replies like yours I have a right to defend specifically. You get all worked up, call me whatever so what do you expect from me? To stay quiet? By the way, what you're saying is not "nice" so it would be nice if you heed to your own mother's advice right?

Again, I'm looking for a normal discussion, not that kind of attitude you present. I don't appreciate being called a troll, a terrorist or whatever other names you can come up with. If you have something specific to say about my arguments do it, but going ad personam like this serves nothing.

ATAG_Lolsav
Oct-30-2013, 09:02
On all that quoting you didnt reply to a single question and went on a "Im a victim" atitude. Doesnt work well. Btw congratulations, you were the first, in over 4000 members on this forum who made me do unpleasant response to someone.

Joly good show. You are on the way to have a dedicated thread.

Archie
Oct-30-2013, 09:07
Is there any way of coding in that any kills over France by red fighters in that mission score no points?
I know its a sandbox, but to me its the Battle of Britain, and the RAF were not doing fighter sweeps into France during that period.

PFT_Endy
Oct-30-2013, 09:15
On all that quoting you didnt reply to a single question and went on a "Im a victim" atitude. Doesnt work well. Btw congratulations, you were the first, in over 4000 members on this forum who made me do unpleasant response to someone.

Joly good show. You are on the way to have a dedicated thread.

The only questions you asked were what my agenda was, and I answered that, and some accusations of yours about trolling which I also answered. Did I forget something? Are there any other questions you'd like me to answer? And as for "I'm a victim", it's not me calling you a troll but the other way around.

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 09:19
Is there any way of coding in that any kills over France by red fighters in that mission score no points?
I know its a sandbox, but to me its the Battle of Britain, and the RAF were not doing fighter sweeps into France during that period.

Unfortunately not that I'd have any control over. The in-game netstats are AFAIK un-influenceable (is that even a word?) by the game code, and the ATAG web site stats are Colander's domain. I'm not sure that would be any better solution anyway, as it still violates the "sandbox" concept and has vociferously been denounced in any discussions regarding a new stats system previously (With regards to landing kills etc "Forcing" someone to play a particular way).

Skoshi_Tiger
Oct-30-2013, 09:24
How about when a red player crosses the front line it is assumed that they have willfully disregarded orders (as stipulated in the brief) and get court marshaled. This could be dealt with summarily by automatically kicking them from the server.

As an habitual Red player I really find this mission refreshing and immersive.

I am also of the firm opinion if some doesn't like the mission they can always wait till the next one comes along or they could even make their own the way they would like it and submit it for possible acceptance and inclusion on the server.

Mission making is hard work and I am grateful to all the talented people in the community who do it.

Thanks RedDog!

Archie
Oct-30-2013, 09:25
Thanks Reddog, it was just a thought. I wish people would be more 'historically' minded though. BoB for me was always about LW on fighter sweeps over Britain, and escorting large bomber formations, and the RAF intercepting, not hooning around all over France waiting for bombers to spawn and vulching LW planes at the airfields.
Thats not the BoB, thats arcade mentality.

No.401_Wolverine
Oct-30-2013, 10:41
Hey, if you're a red pilot and you enjoy this sort of mission and would like to have players not going to France because they shouldn't rather than because they can't, then join a squadron participating in the current slate of Storm of War Campaign missions.

- Human Fighter Command dispersing RDF vector solutions to player squadron leaders
- Emphasis on pilot lives vs. aircraft
- Coordinated RAF Squadron response to unpredictable LW bomber raids and fighter sweeps over England (If you're on the Blue side, you help design the bomber missions and employ tactics to ensure they hit their targets)
- Persistant airfield damage over campaign duration
- The closest thing you're going to get to a true Battle of Britain experience in Cliffs of Dover to date

http://www.stormofwar.net/

Otherwise, my thoughts on Reddog's mission: if it's not actually broken (ie the system isn't functioning the way Reddog has intended it to) then it's his mission to design the way he would like it. People will either play it or not. If the server consistently empties when his mission appears, then I doubt it will last long.

Survival of the fittest. No one is stopping anyone else from designing a better mission. Let's the best missions win.

But Reddog shouldn't have to compromise unless he wants to. I know that when I design missions, I design ones that I would like to play. If other people like them, then great. But I'm the one making the mission, so I get to make it how I like it.

I'm sure there's someone out there making missions to everyone's taste.

Catseye
Oct-30-2013, 12:38
Sorry for the vent last night. I was tired and pissed off. This morning I'm just pissed off. :)

You are right Catseye and Dutch with your assessment of the death wall vs ATAG concept. I've made no secret of its inclusion and have repeatedly said that it is up to ATAG to choose whether my mission is worthy of hosting.

There are three IMO very good reasons why the death wall is necessary.

1) in order to keep the mission file size low. Bliss impressed upon me the absolute priority for this to be done. More objects equals greater size. Would you rather see flak over England, or France?

2) the ai bombers are spawning in much greater numbers than other missions. They also spawn in dynamic locations so it's not like you can loiter off Calais and wait for them to pop in. You could easily have 27 bombers spawn right next to you if you're allowed free rein and believe it or not I've been trying to make sure that the mission works well for all players.

3) Despite Endy's protestations that flying over France is an uncommon thing, and can be left to the blue players to deal with, from my observations it is NOT uncommon. He's given example of one such occurrence in history (and I'm sure there are more) but I would hazard that the percentage of sorties flown during the Battle of Britain which went over French soil was almost certainly below 5%, probably below 1% but I'm completely guessing here admittedly. With no way of tracking player activity on the server we'll never know for sure what the game reality is.

@Dutch specifically. The accusation that I'm deliberately disadvantaging the Reds is ludicrous when you look at my tags and think about it for more than 5 seconds.

THIS mission was all about trying to offer a more historical view of the Battle of Britain. Clearly I have been mistaken in my understanding of what the player base wanted and should have realized much earlier what I wanted to see was incompatible with the ATAG creed. The mission might have more success on Storm of War which to me seems more geared up to realistic play. (Please note, this is not knocking ATAG)


Hi Reddog,
Thanks for coming back with some of the details for your mission building choices.

With the code for points and displaying such in an unfinished state it places those valiant and determined enough to design missions between a rock and a hard-place.

I was thinking yesterday of ways to "encourage" players to go after bombers over England and thereby provide and end to the mission designers methods.

Here is what I came up with:

I am not literate with scripts nor where in the code this might be, but for those in the know perhaps some of the following is possible. Some was even done in old IL2.

Here is what I came up with:
Points are awarded by engine type. ie., 1 engine aircraft = 1 point - 2 engined aircraft = 2 points - 4 engined aircraft = 4 points. (old IL2 if I recall).
I would like to see these captured in the online stats then ported over to a "results of your flight" screen when a pilot exits his aircraft.

Options:
A scripted multiplier eg., 1.5 x, 1.75 x, 2.0 x within the mission that would apply to where the aircraft is on the map. (latitude/longitude? or map coordinates?).
For example:
Over the aircraft's home turf (France for LW or England for RAF) either a multiplier of 0 or a minus -0.5 applied to the engine type score.
Over the Channel 1.0 x the engine type score (no increased or decreased value)

But here is the big one and it probably is a code issue:
When over the channel and still having bombs onboard multiply by 1.5 x - or over enemy territory apply a 2.0 x multiplier if the bombload is still onboard. (The bomber has not dropped yet.)
If the bomber has dropped and is still over enemy territory then the multiplier drops down to 1.25 for example and then as it gets closer to home 1.0 x and if over friendly territory -0.5 (minus).

The above should encourage targetting bombers either over the channel or over enemy territory as many pilots love to see the score tally mount in their stats. It also should make a fighter decide whether it is of any value to chase or vulch over enemy territory as a minus multiplier is not beneficial.

Thanks again for getting back in the fray.
I look forward to flying your next mission.

Cheers,
Catseye

Catseye
Oct-30-2013, 12:50
Oh, are we insulting again? Yessir, best way to call someone a troll, a nazi, a racist or say someone's rude and you're not gonna discuss and "win" this way. Discussion skills over 9000 sir!

Hooray!
The banana forum is alilve and well.

It was always fascinating on that forum to count the amount of posts before someone brought up the Nazi or racist ploy. Usually the loser (in many more ways than one!)

Snapper, time to put the hammer down on this disruptive individual. He is not ATAG forum material!!

Catseye
Oct-30-2013, 12:53
There are 5 possible routes now.


1) The death wall stays - this gets up some peoples noses and violates the ATAG "sandbox" concept.
2) I make flak in France so deadly that any Red over there WILL die. This cripples everyone's machine, the mission is unplayable, and the idea probably violates the ATAG "sandbox" concept.
3) I make Red sorties over France tied to the victory conditions. I reckon in the BoB it was probably under 1% of the time. So, if a Red crosses the frontline we see how many sorties have been flown, how many have crossed the line. If it's more than 1% then the Blues win the map and we rotate to the next mission. This idea probably violates the ATAG "sandbox" concept also.
4) I remove all restrictions compromising my idea, and we end up with another map where the fight will be over Hawkinge and France. AGAIN.

And lastly, the fifth option which is what I favour. I admit defeat, there is no mission and we continue with the unhistorical missions we currently have.

Hi Reddog,
There may be a possibility of a scoring route?
You may have already read my long-ish post on this already.

Cats . . .

ATAG_JTDawg
Oct-30-2013, 13:00
Hooray!
The banana forum is alilve and well.

It was always fascinating on that forum to count the amount of posts before someone brought up the Nazi or racist ploy. Usually the loser (in many more ways than one!)

Snapper, time to put the hammer down on this disruptive individual. He is not ATAG forum material!!

+1 he went from like 20-30 posts of drama( trolling) to over 150 , now if I see his name I don't read , really a shame

SoW Reddog
Oct-30-2013, 13:18
Hi Reddog,
Thanks for coming back with some of the details for your mission building choices.

With the code for points and displaying such in an unfinished state it places those valiant and determined enough to design missions between a rock and a hard-place.

I was thinking yesterday of ways to "encourage" players to go after bombers over England and thereby provide and end to the mission designers methods.

Here is what I came up with:

I am not literate with scripts nor where in the code this might be, but for those in the know perhaps some of the following is possible. Some was even done in old IL2.

Here is what I came up with:
Points are awarded by engine type. ie., 1 engine aircraft = 1 point - 2 engined aircraft = 2 points - 4 engined aircraft = 4 points. (old IL2 if I recall).
I would like to see these captured in the online stats then ported over to a "results of your flight" screen when a pilot exits his aircraft.

Options:
A scripted multiplier eg., 1.5 x, 1.75 x, 2.0 x within the mission that would apply to where the aircraft is on the map. (latitude/longitude? or map coordinates?).
For example:
Over the aircraft's home turf (France for LW or England for RAF) either a multiplier of 0 or a minus -0.5 applied to the engine type score.
Over the Channel 1.0 x the engine type score (no increased or decreased value)

But here is the big one and it probably is a code issue:
When over the channel and still having bombs onboard multiply by 1.5 x - or over enemy territory apply a 2.0 x multiplier if the bombload is still onboard. (The bomber has not dropped yet.)
If the bomber has dropped and is still over enemy territory then the multiplier drops down to 1.25 for example and then as it gets closer to home 1.0 x and if over friendly territory -0.5 (minus).

The above should encourage targetting bombers either over the channel or over enemy territory as many pilots love to see the score tally mount in their stats. It also should make a fighter decide whether it is of any value to chase or vulch over enemy territory as a minus multiplier is not beneficial.

Thanks again for getting back in the fray.
I look forward to flying your next mission.

Cheers,
Catseye

Catseye,

I really like this idea. The problem is that it wouldn't get recorded anywhere. The netstats would continue to work the way they do, and the ATAG website stats also.

Having said that, the fundamental problem seems to be that the camp is divided between those who want ATAG to remain a free and "anything goes" type of place 100% of the time, and those who would like to see some sort of mission with a bit more of a nod towards history. I'm not sure that your scoring system doesn't still fall foul of the former, as it'll force people down a certain playstyle pathway. Additionally, as I say, the scripting side of it would need developing and it wouldn't count for anything in the global scale of things. The death wall at least has the advantage of being coded and ready to go.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the coding behind the stats could comment on this?

Catseye
Oct-30-2013, 13:27
Catseye,

I really like this idea. The problem is that it wouldn't get recorded anywhere. The netstats would continue to work the way they do, and the ATAG website stats also.

Having said that, the fundamental problem seems to be that the camp is divided between those who want ATAG to remain a free and "anything goes" type of place 100% of the time, and those who would like to see some sort of mission with a bit more of a nod towards history. I'm not sure that your scoring system doesn't still fall foul of the former, as it'll force people down a certain playstyle pathway. Additionally, as I say, the scripting side of it would need developing and it wouldn't count for anything in the global scale of things. The death wall at least has the advantage of being coded and ready to go.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of the coding behind the stats could comment on this?

Hi Reddog,
I understand you perspective.

I'm thinking that if scoring similar to what I described was possible, it would be a "gentle" way of applying incentives to participants to get into the mission idea without compromising those who just prefer to get it on in a dogfight.

I'll drop a line to some of the TF types as a discussion topic to see if any ammendments to scripting code would be of benefit and of particular benefit to mission builders. I really do think that perhaps for TF5.0, since much has been accomplished already, that some concentration in this area might be possible.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

Hoots
Oct-30-2013, 13:44
Hey reddog, for what it's worth I think the mission rotation would be worse without your mission. I don't have time to join a squad although the SOW idea is tempting, but that doesn't mean that I always want to jump into a dogfight, I mostly fly blenheims or 88s so I like to plan and have an objective, so the total sandbox idea doesn't appeal to me as much as others. I hope there is space for both types of missions. Fingers crossed and keep up the good work.

Kling
Oct-30-2013, 15:21
I think the stats of the game need to be completely redone not only the stats of specifc mission or ATAG site. The game stats need a complere overhaul in general.

The old il2 way is not bad at all. You need to land your kills to get the points. Bailout and survive/crashland or ditch on friendy territory and you get half the points. Crash ur plane or bail on enemy territory and you get only 10% of your points.

This way people would really make an effort to make it back to their own lines to ditch or bailout etc etc.

Salmo
Oct-30-2013, 17:21
<snip> ... I admit defeat, there is no mission and we continue with the unhistorical missions we currently have.

General note to people critising mission builders & their missions.

As a mission-builder, I concur with RedDog's last statement. I too, have reached a point where 100's of hours spent coding mission scripts seems a pointless exercise because 1 or 2 people seem to think it's acceptable to overtly critisise the mission builder because they did not get a mission that is to their personal liking. This is simply NOT acceptable.

There is a diference between providing constructive feedback or ideas & critisising or attacking the mission builder for his decisions when making the mission. There are very few mission-builders who have the necessary skills to bring you innovative & interesting battle scenarios. Even fewer, if people continue to gripe about 'features' that are entirely the mission-builders perogative.

If you don't like the mission on offer, then just don't fly it. Period!

9./JG52 Hans Gruber
Oct-30-2013, 18:44
Reddog, welcome to the fraternity of abused mission builders.

S!

5./JG27 Hans Gruber

AKA_Knutsac
Oct-30-2013, 19:36
If you don't like the mission on offer, then just don't fly it. Period!

+1000

And please don't let complaints of a few get you down, I, and probably most others, greatly appreciate the work you guys put into these missions. You'll never be able to please everybody.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

EG14_Marcast
Oct-31-2013, 04:56
And lastly, the fifth option which is what I favour. I admit defeat, there is no mission and we continue with the unhistorical missions we currently have.

It's a couple of days that I don't see this map....maybe I wasn't there at the right time, but I really hope that it hasn't been withdrawn. Reddog, you can't give up just because 1 or 2 people out of maybe 100 don't like it!!

Gromit
Oct-31-2013, 10:47
When you consider the amount of time and effort put into map building I think we owe the builders a little leeway to use whatever methods they see fit!

Death walls fine Red, don't want to blow up, don't cross it, Simples!

SoW Reddog
Nov-04-2013, 10:05
Quick update now it's all calmed down a bit *phew!

I've done a bit of solo testing this weekend and have most things working ok. I'm struggling with one last piece of code which as far as I can see *should* work but just doesn't. Salmo's very kindly helped me out with the death wall code and is trying to help with the above but it relates to the German menu options and getting Bomber positions. They now get a 10 minute and 5 minute warning for rendevous so it's hopefully better than before if nothing else.

To this end, I think the mission's ready for another test session. I will host it this weekend on Saturday and Sunday mornings. All are free to participate.

SoW Reddog
Nov-09-2013, 08:57
Hi everybody,

I'll be hosting this mission tomorrow morning GMT, somewhere around 9-10am start for testing. I've just about ironed out every wrinkle I've found and am pretty happy with the way it's going so far. Please drop by if you can and test it out.

Reddog

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-09-2013, 09:13
Hey Reddog, I'll try to get on to test it, thanks.
What server is it, in case not the regular ATAG server?

SoW Reddog
Nov-09-2013, 10:03
It's just hosted on my machine at the moment, in fact the map is running as we speak. It'll have an obvious name tomorrow.

SoW Reddog
Nov-10-2013, 16:13
I've sent the mission to Bliss to host.

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-10-2013, 16:50
Nice, Reddog, thanks! When I got on I couldn't find the server (way later than expected). Looking forward to flying it on ATAG.

EG14_Marcast
Nov-11-2013, 03:42
I've sent the mission to Bliss to host.

Thanks a lot Reddog! I hope to see it running very soon :salute:

SoW Reddog
Nov-24-2013, 08:37
Has anyone seen this on the server yet? It's several weeks since I sent it to Bliss...

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-24-2013, 08:49
Not me, Reddog.

I tend to always be online when there is either the Dunkirk or one of the winter maps (Littlestone fwd airfield or Staplehurst / Tunbridge armor/armory) going though. I am kind of missing some variety in the mission rotation.

EG14_Marcast
Nov-24-2013, 13:54
Not me, Reddog.

I tend to always be online when there is either the Dunkirk or one of the winter maps (Littlestone fwd airfield or Staplehurst / Tunbridge armor/armory) going though. I am kind of missing some variety in the mission rotation.

I too.

EG14_Marcast
Dec-03-2013, 04:34
I love this map! Last night time expired when Biggin Hill, which was supposed to be the last target, was just in the middle of our bombsights, maybe 2 min to dropping :doh: