PDA

View Full Version : Mission duration on the server contributing to lack of variety



9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-24-2013, 09:06
Hey everyone,

I would like to hear your opinion on the current mission duration on the server. Each map is on for 5, 6 hours.
I'd say it is so because then you have enough time to do all the targets, but the amount of targets in each mission is IMHO too high. This leads to a lack of variation on the server for each time zone (you will fly one, maybe two maps only every time you get online; and if you get on around the same time everytime you will always end up flying the same maps).

What do you think of a mission duration of 3 hours, maybe even 2?

That would make a coordinated attack on as many targets possible at the same time necessary, which would IMHO make it all more interesting for people that fly that way.
If people don't go for the targets it won't change a thing anyways. And if you don't get all targets in the mission (which with one small group of bombers / jabos would take an avaliable time of hours) you can still bomb the targets in the next mission if that is what you like.

And two hours is enough for at least two sorties going for a far target (where you fly 30 to 45 minutes to get there).

Adding to that the fact that only a very small number of players actually play to roll the maps, most maps either turn after the mission time is over or after hours of playing for the targets (from my experience, after more than 3 hours running).

III./ZG76_Keller
Nov-24-2013, 09:31
I have to disagree JHAT, most of the missions have too few targets; just last night we rolled two missions in less than 4 hours. There are times that it does seem like there are too many targets, but that's when there is only one or two people actively working on the targets. When you get 4-5 guys coordinating attacks like we did last night it goes quite fast.

I think the 6 hour limit on missions is just right, a 2 hour mission is barely long enough to complete one high altitude bombing run and return to base.

EG14_Marcast
Nov-24-2013, 13:53
I don't think it's a matter of duration. Apart the tanks' map, where there are some targets difficult to spot, the others usually are closed well before the time limit. But it's true that at the same time we fly always the same maps: to avoid this I think the map sequence should be changed more frequently.

Salmo
Nov-24-2013, 20:13
.... What do you think of a mission duration of 3 hours, maybe even 2?....

I've felt for some time that missions are too long, especially if there's a mission running that the player doesn't like. Personally, I'd prefer some missions to be 1-2 hrs max.

III./ZG76_Keller
Nov-24-2013, 22:58
I've felt for some time that missions are too long, especially if there's a mission running that the player doesn't like. Personally, I'd prefer some missions to be 1-2 hrs max.

What would be the point of a 1-2 hour mission? I don't get to land often as it is, if a mission was 1 hour long nobody would ever get to land.

Kling
Nov-25-2013, 00:09
I think we are all missing the point! What is actually the point in finishing a map as it is now? A new one, almost the same, will come up so one might as well stay on the current map. What I think is that we currently lack a purpose...
If there were a scoreboard integrated there might be some competition.
A scoreboard that would show the best team/best player/ best ground pounder etc etc for the whole month, people might actually feel thats its worth it to end the map.
Some online competition where losing the map will affect the next map.. Knock out the spitfire factory for example and the next map will have limited amount of Spitfires. Knock out the fuel depots and next map will have limited fuel for the that side. Or maybe only 87oct fuel etc etc. Well you get the point... :)
We need more depth.

Personally i get more annoyed when a map changes because as a pure fighter pilot each map for me is the same except for the landscape and with each map change you lose 20+players, those who decided to play only until the map changes.

Fact is that most people play Clod to fly fighters and I think this is the most important group to keep happy...as sad/selfish as that sounds, i love to escort the bombers when flown by humans i just wouldnt fly them myself unless its a big scenario with 20+ bomber in formation...

I still think what we need is a map that counts killed planes/pilots added to destroyed fuel depots plus factories. This together with RRR (refuel and rearm and repair) in order to prevent people to respawn in a new plane(as this costs a new plane from a limited nr available) for that team instead of using the RRR function that wouldnt cost your side anything.

When this maps finishes. It takes into account what was destroyed and the next map is created accordingly.

Now this is way beyond my capabilities but out there there must be someone who knows how to do this.

Salmos map came a long way to give the gameplay more depth as did Reddogs map and these are also the most appreciated maps in the rotation so this should be an indication what most players want in order to not leave Clod for BOS in the end...

Cheers

SoW Reddog
Nov-25-2013, 04:37
I actually reduced the time for London Raids down to 4hrs to try to prevent it hanging around.

Both arguments are valid though, when the server is well populated (indicating a popular time slot or a popular mission) then mission length is much less an issue and in fact at times I've wished that mission length could be extended and more targets be included.

I think the key issue is identified by Kling. Every map is essentially the blooming same. I'd love to look at a mission that has been mooted before, namely a persistent week long campaign. Targets and missions loaded in sequence (but with some random factor to ensure replayability) with small incremental benefits for completion. Bomb an airfield, it's out for a couple of hours. Destroy a factory, the enemy planeset is reduced for a while, interdict ground convoys, enemy fuel loads are reduced.

The other key issue for online public/unorganised play IMO is the fact that too many of those players just want to come on, shoot a few aircraft down and go have their tea and medals. There's no underlying interest in imposing realistic restrictions on players and rightly so.

EG14_Marcast
Nov-25-2013, 06:29
I think the key issue is identified by Kling. Every map is essentially the blooming same. I'd love to look at a mission that has been mooted before, namely a persistent week long campaign. Targets and missions loaded in sequence (but with some random factor to ensure replayability) with small incremental benefits for completion. Bomb an airfield, it's out for a couple of hours. Destroy a factory, the enemy planeset is reduced for a while, interdict ground convoys, enemy fuel loads are reduced.



In my opinion, the ideal map would be a no limit one, comprising many targets (industries, airfields, harbours, ships…), whose destruction would affect the defense's possibilities of that part….in fact, the Battle of Britain itself. The question is, can such a map be built in CoD and supported in ATAG?

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 08:45
Thanks for your inputs, everyone.

I'll outline my main points here:


Missions are too long
There are too many targets in a single mission
This leads to repetitiveness
There is no "point" for the mission in doing the bomber targets


The way I see this is, if the players are indeed bombing the targets, it will take somewhat over three hours to roll the map, just like you said. But most players just take off in whatever fighter they want and go dogfight over England. They won't even escort in most cases.

We should do the map rotation in a way it also works when there are not that many people working the targets.
And what is the difference between hitting 4 targets in a 6 hours mission and hitting 2+2 targets in two 2 hours mission? I don't see any, except in the longer mission you are stuck with targets you may not like (for example, having to fly too long, or bomb ships, finding artillery, dusk, dawn, whatever) and have no chance of changing that except for rolling the map (which you don't want to in the first place because you don't like those targets!).

Too many targets (more than 2) in a single mission just spread out all the defences and makes defending and escorting useless because if you are not lucky, you just sit there over any target until you run out of fuel or just ride along the bombers not having a single fighter to fend off.

And there is no kind of reward, as Kling posted, for doing the bomber targets, except you get to roll a map you may not like and end up with a second you don't like either. Bomber targets are bomber targets, as I said, in whichever map you play. So even if it rolls after 3 hours, you will still be able to make your second sortie to a different target. Just the map is different.
Just 1 or 2 hours may be a little too short, but 6 or 4 hours is too long. 3 hours may be the sweet spot, allowing at least two long bomber sorties.

Take in account how much time the average player has to play everyday? How much of a variety can one expect? As I said, add to that the rotation is pretty predictable, you end up flying the same maps every day.
If one has 4 hours to fly everyday, he would be able to fly 2 or maybe even 3 different maps in a single evening alone by waiting for the next map. If the maps are closed, this number will increase and variation will come.

A complete sortie in a bomber only takes more than 2 hours if you take a He 111 or Ju 87 and go a whole way away from your target before heading for the farthest target possible.
Of course everyone wants to avoid being shot down heading to target after flying for an hour, but that is what escorts are for. One doesn't really need multiplayer if he just wants to take off, climb, turn to target, bomb it, hit it and come back. We can do that offline just the same. You will be alone anyways, without opposing fighters nor escorts. All the offline shortcomings won't matter.

Take SoW missions as an example. The missions run for 2,5 hours. There is plenty of time for the Blues to take-off, assemble, climb, head to target, bomb it, fight, come back and land even before reaching the 2 hour mark. And we are talking about different waves too, which hit different targets at different times. Bombers fly at around 18k to 22k ft, which is already high enough.

Marcastel, I made a post about how ARMA II has multiplayer missions called Domination. I didn't get a single reply. Maybe people don't know what that is and didn't bother to read through the text. But that would also be a way of making the game more dynamic. That is what you are talking about.

All in all, I think we should have the missions in our dogfight server bundled together (or maybe designed) in such a way, it resembles continuous, even interconnected coops. Dogfights would come from the fact that you can take off, head to a single or to either one target and surely find your enemy there.

I must say too, since I've started flyng SoW I see little to no point in just taking off, going to England in a 109 and shooting reds down until I either get back or get shot down myself. And I see also little point in just going to bomb targets without any opposition, escorts, coordination or impact in the overall result of the map (except rolling it).

III./ZG76_Keller
Nov-29-2013, 09:23
Maybe I'm missing your point, but what good does it do to shorten the mission times? Most people use a map rotation as an excuse to log off for the night or leave to get something done. The only new thing you get with a new mission is different color trees and terrain and some new targets that the fighter guys don't care about anyway.

Shorter map times will only hurt the server population and frustrate the bomber pilots.

The point of the ATAG server is to accomodate everyone's playstyle, 6 hour missions accomplish this well. If I want to fly a 2 hour 111 sortie I can on ATAG, a map with a two hour time limit will only make me log on, hit <tl and leave the server.

ATAG isn't a "dogfight" server, it's an open-ended do-whatever-you-want server. If you want to fly bombers with escort you can, just gather a group and go for it. As for players not actively seeking to intercept human bombers, that'll take more than a mission to change that behavior.

ATAG_Snapper
Nov-29-2013, 10:36
Does anyone know if it's possible to get radar reports (location, alt, heading) for friendly AI bombers? Reason: I enjoy escorting RAF friendlies since it almost guarantees 109's showing up. At present we only get a 10-minute warning for escort request -- which frequently is difficult to meet. Many times I've seen server messages indicating our Wellies/Blennies are getting mauled, but it's a big map and I have no clue where this action is. It'd be great for both sides to be able to punch in, say TAB 8 1, to get a radar location to lend assistance. This would also pull the fight upwards, I should think, for both Red and Blue.

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 10:37
Variation. Not having to fly the same two or three maps every time I log on except on weekends when I get more time to play.
The last post is additional to that and to discuss the different views, of course.

What you say about losing population may be true if all player were playing for hours on end. But people don't get on and if the map changes within 15 minutes just log out because they wanted to play just until the map rotates. I don't see that as such a problem with three hours missions.
And why would three hours frustate bomber pilots? It is still enough time, as I posted above, for at least a whole sortie. It would only be frustrating if you log on short before the map ends and it rotates while you are still on route. That is no different with six hour missions, though.

It used to work flying in groups when I flew with you guys on blue, but in my actual timezone it isn't possible to get a group to coordinate that easily. The different squads just use their own TS.

Maybe we could run a test for some time and watch for changes in behavior (ie. People leaving, population reduction and so on)?

Anyways, we have both posted our views and they are not going to change, so I see no reason in discussing it further because it won't change a thing :)

Does anyone else care to share their points?

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 10:44
Hey Snapper, it is possible. Reddog and Salmo have done that. It is a matter of mission design, though. We discussed this topic in the London Raids v2 thread I guess.

It is a shortcoming not being able to know where to RV with your own bombers. I also think AI bombers should always go for mission objectives, which would make them worth escorting.
If it were like that it would make sense to have some more targets in a mission, so there is still something left for human bombers.

ATAG_Snapper
Nov-29-2013, 10:56
Hey Snapper, it is possible. Reddog and Salmo have done that. It is a matter of mission design, though. We discussed this topic in the London Raids v2 thread I guess.

It is a shortcoming not being able to know where to RV with your own bombers. I also think AI bombers should always go for mission objectives, which would make them worth escorting.
If it were like that it would make sense to have some more targets in a mission, so there is still something left for human bombers.

Now we're talkin'! :thumbsup:

To to me the whole RAF BoB experience is jumping into a Hurri or Spit, scrambling to altitude, and intercepting incoming bombers and/or engaging schwarms/rottes of 109's & 110's high above. As you say, if the enemy AI bombers were actually integral to knocking out the map objectives -- and they were easily located by both friendly AND enemy fighters -- we'd have the makings for frequent and intense dust ups at high altitude. The problems of finding the enemy on a huge map (for both new and experienced players) would be solved simply by a few taps on the keyboard. Other players could obviously continue with their usual preferences of jabos, sweeps, or flying inverted through enemy hangars.

:)

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 11:04
That would, for me, be the greatest experience too. Like we have in SoW! For me there would just be maps like this :)

And for long mission times too!


I look forward to flying the new Homeplate and London Raids.

StormBat
Nov-29-2013, 11:13
I like the idea of bombers attacking targets and maybe it would get more human players working together at high altitudes to engage/escort them. but leave two or a few for just human players as well. As for mission time I average about 45 minutes per bomb run and like the current time frame but would be willing to take an hour off mission time to 5 hours instead of 6. that may not sound like a lot but it does give bombers enough time to get targets and one less hour is better then nothing. I just don't like maps that go into night(turn dark) in reality all fighter operations were put on hold until daylight and good weather permitted it, so what is the point of a map being dark for an hour or more until it finishes?

SoW Reddog
Nov-29-2013, 11:55
Thinking about this, it would be possible I think to add the ability for players to agree to end the map and cycle it onwards. I'm pretty sure that we could have a one use radio command which signalled your "vote" to cycle the map. This could trigger a message to all players expressing your vote, and the current number of "yes" votes. Those who don't want to cycle don't vote, those that do use the option. The script would maybe set at 90% threshold? Once the threshold of "yes" votes have occurred, it ends the mission exactly as a win or time expiry would do?

Would this be of any use or would it involve people reading the briefing and thereby be useless :devilish:

StormBat
Nov-29-2013, 12:30
Thinking about this, it would be possible I think to add the ability for players to agree to end the map and cycle it onwards. I'm pretty sure that we could have a one use radio command which signalled your "vote" to cycle the map. This could trigger a message to all players expressing your vote, and the current number of "yes" votes. Those who don't want to cycle don't vote, those that do use the option. The script would maybe set at 90% threshold? Once the threshold of "yes" votes have occurred, it ends the mission exactly as a win or time expiry would do?

Would this be of any use or would it involve people reading the briefing and thereby be useless :devilish:


The thing I don't like about that is some people will have a map that they really like get voted to another map, then that map might get voted to another as well. What if your on a bombing run close to target and you invested all that time to get there and your map gets changed with a vote, that would suck big time. I don't think this is the way to go mate. But maybe what we can do is vote on maps that get put into rotation and also have a new featured map of the month that could get voted into rotation if it's a real hit with the community. So say we have 5 maps that are constant and a map of the month that could end up staying or going in a vote. That might be better, what say you?

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 13:14
We had such a system on almost all Counter Strike servers back in the day. One person could call a vote, which would pop-up for every player. They would than choose the current map or one from the list.
I don't know what criteria was used to change the map though. Maybe more than 40% of the players voting on a single map? One vote per session only though, and voted maps couldn't be voted out again?

There was also a nice function which was nextmap. It would tell you the next map up in the rotation. Maybe that could be possible here too? So you know if rolling the map is worth it or not just to get to a map you want to.

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 14:09
ATAG isn't a "dogfight" server...

Dogfight as in it is not a coop server, the way that we used to have since the beginnings of il-2. It is a dogfight server, no matter what missions or how you play on it.

SoW Reddog
Nov-29-2013, 15:00
The thing I don't like about that is some people will have a map that they really like get voted to another map, then that map might get voted to another as well. What if your on a bombing run close to target and you invested all that time to get there and your map gets changed with a vote, that would suck big time. I don't think this is the way to go mate. But maybe what we can do is vote on maps that get put into rotation and also have a new featured map of the month that could get voted into rotation if it's a real hit with the community. So say we have 5 maps that are constant and a map of the month that could end up staying or going in a vote. That might be better, what say you?

I see your point, however that would be why the threshold would be set appropriately. It could be disabled if player numbers were over 20 say. What I'm trying to do is to offer a solution for the low player, unpopular maps to be shifted on, but left in the server rotation for those who do want them?

SoW Reddog
Nov-29-2013, 15:07
We had such a system on almost all Counter Strike servers back in the day. One person could call a vote, which would pop-up for every player. They would than choose the current map or one from the list.
I don't know what criteria was used to change the map though. Maybe more than 40% of the players voting on a single map? One vote per session only though, and voted maps couldn't be voted out again?

There was also a nice function which was nextmap. It would tell you the next map up in the rotation. Maybe that could be possible here too? So you know if rolling the map is worth it or not just to get to a map you want to.

Problem is without server side scripting that wouldn't be possible to track player votes on a previous mission (if I understand you)

Having the maps list on the forum wouldn't be a bad idea but it's down to Bliss to do that as only he can access the order I think?

Salmo
Nov-29-2013, 17:08
Does anyone know if it's possible to get radar reports (location, alt, heading) for friendly AI bombers?<snip>....

I have exactly this (for blue) scripted in the new Op Home Plate v2. Blue can use Tab-4 menu to get closest bomber location giving alt & heading. This should assist blue to find the bombers they should be escorting.

III./ZG76_Keller
Nov-29-2013, 19:02
So this whole discussion is because you don't like one or two of the missions?

Wouldn't it just be easier to put up a poll and see if some of the less popular missions could be removed from the server?

9./JG52_J-HAT
Nov-29-2013, 20:06
No, the whole discussion is because in a specific time zone, it is always the same maps. To be more specific: Littlestone Winter and Dunkirk Fall. Sometimes there is also the winter one with the ships and Beufighters. If I stay up late (me and everyone in the European time zones) I eventually get to fly different maps, like Homeplate in the old rotation or London Raids as of today.

And it is not that I don't like the maps. It just gets old real quick flying every day the same two maps.

VARIATION!

If the maps would take less time, there maybe would be more variantion. Because the missions wouldn't be up for so long.

EDIT: London Raids is just over. Now comes Homeplate. And it's 2 am here. I flew today since around 5 pm and had guess which two maps until London Raids came up 4 hours ago (which was 10 pm).

Salmo
Nov-29-2013, 21:13
No, the whole discussion is because in a specific time zone, it is always the same maps. To be more specific: Littlestone Winter and Dunkirk Fall. Sometimes there is also the winter one with the ships and Beufighters. If I stay up late (me and everyone in the European time zones) I eventually get to fly different maps, like Homeplate in the old rotation or London Raids as of today.

And it is not that I don't like the maps. It just gets old real quick flying every day the same two maps.

VARIATION!

If the maps would take less time, there maybe would be more variantion. Because the missions wouldn't be up for so long.

EDIT: London Raids is just over. Now comes Homeplate. And it's 2 am here. I flew today since around 5 pm and had guess which two maps until London Raids came up 4 hours ago (which was 10 pm).

Not out to create an arguement here, but this is a very important observation. As someone who lives in a time zone where there are few players online at my peak availability times, it becomes quite frustrating to find the same mission running (especially if it's one I don't favour) & knowing that that mission will be running for the entire time (up to 5-6 hrs) I have available to fly.

Reducing mission running times might be one way to overcome this issue (if that's what most people want); or perhaps implimenting a voting system to rollo to the next mission like in the old Il2-1946 might be another option.

92 Cdt. Kiwikillemoff (QJ-Z)
Nov-29-2013, 23:12
Not out to create an arguement here, but this is a very important observation. As someone who lives in a time zone where there are few players online at my peak availability times, it becomes quite frustrating to find the same mission running (especially if it's one I don't favour) & knowing that that mission will be running for the entire time (up to 5-6 hrs) I have available to fly.

Reducing mission running times might be one way to overcome this issue (if that's what most people want); or perhaps implimenting a voting system to rollo to the next mission like in the old Il2-1946 might be another option.

+1

Kiwi

AKA_Recon
Nov-29-2013, 23:28
So this whole discussion is because you don't like one or two of the missions?

Wouldn't it just be easier to put up a poll and see if some of the less popular missions could be removed from the server?

:thumbsup:

AKA_Recon
Nov-29-2013, 23:32
implimenting a voting system to rollo to the next mission like in the old Il2-1946 might be another option.

:thumbsup:

great idea - nothing worse than coming on to fly with your buddies only to have a 'night mission' or some quake server map- just cast a vote and pray for a change. Majority rules :)

SoW Reddog
Nov-30-2013, 07:42
That's precisely why I suggested it above...