PDA

View Full Version : Criticizing Missions



92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jan-16-2014, 06:25
Two mission makers (of which this community has very, very few) have recently asked for their missions to be removed from the servers due to the volume of complaints and criticisms of their mission designs.

This is entirely regrettable.

In order to avoid this continuing further, I would suggest that all further critical comment on missions be kept to the following format;
1. State the identified issue.
2. Identify how the issue conflicts with the stated mission design goals
3. State the suggested fix.

Example #1;
1. Armour concentration at E17.5 missing
2. Am unable to find, attack or defend that target, which is required in mission objectives
3. Advise of its real location in the mission brief, remove from brief, or add objects on to map.



Example #2;
1. Mission often crashes
2. am unable to play mission for more than about an hour
3. Review/ reduce quantity of AI spawning in, investigate possible scripting conflicts



The following are NOT examples of how to provide feedback about a mission;
"Why did you put an X at location Y"?
"That's a stupid idea"
"This is boring"


It is not fair, to disagree with the mission design goals. If the mission designer wants random-spawn feature then that's their prerogative. If however, you find that this feature is not working as intended, then of course please let the mission maker know. However, if you don't like their artistic direction then either A) design and build your own mission, or B) play another server/ wait until rotation.

In my opinion, we need as many different types of missions as we can get. Sure, some might not be "historical", or they might no fit your prescribed expectations.
But that's why we have and need variety. You might like some, you might not like others. But not every mission flown during the war was a "free hunt" either. Sometimes you might just have to fly that Rhubarb, through the cloud.

ATAG_Septic
Jan-16-2014, 06:41
Great post Phil, I wholeheartedly agree.:thumbsup:

Septic.

EG14_Marcast
Jan-16-2014, 06:48
I agree with these points. Let me take this chance to thank again Salmo and all the other mission builders for their committment. There can be maps someone likes more or less, but we are all very grateful to you for your outstanding work and for all the time you spend to give us the chance to enjoy our passion.

SoW Reddog
Jan-16-2014, 08:45
I suspect the problem is that the time it takes to create a mission is wholly unappreciated by the masses. It looks as simple as clicking a few bits and bobs in the FMB, a bit of copy/paste into a script file and a quick test run through, "Okey dokey lets send it to Bliss".

The reality is that it's not. I've probably easily spent in excess of 100 hrs on the London Raids mission alone and we're now on what, the 6th version? That's 100+hrs I could have spent flying, watching TV, at the gym, with my girlfriend. Granted no one put a gun to my head and said I had to but even so.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions in my view. What would be nice would be for people to respect those who are giving up valuable time for "The Community"* and make their point in a calm, respectful and unargumentative way. Not try and repeatedly bash a mission maker's decisions and try to draw them into an argument or justification of their decisions & actions.

While it's not a case of "if you don't like it, do it yourself", I would appreciate it if people at least understood exactly what it took to get a mission onto the server for you to enjoy in the first place. And by all means try and make a mission yourself. The more variety on the server the better everyone's experience will be IMO.

*This applies equally to the efforts of TF too. We hear a lot about "the community", but it seems we have a whole raft of takers and not that many givers.

9./JG52 Ziegler
Jan-16-2014, 08:51
Thanks Phil, and especially HG, RD, Salmo and any others builders.

I totally agree. The snide comments or the "what is this doing here and if so I should have that" blah, blah, blah, is irritating. If it is irritating to me than I can imagine how the actual mission builder feels.
Sure on occasion, someone try's something that doesn't quite work (server crashes) etc... These are spotted and corrected.

Beyond those issues, as far as I'm concerned, the builders that I know here, always try to make missions that are balanced, accurate, and fun to play.
Why wouldn't they? Anything skewed one way or another quickly becomes boring and/or has no participation.
These guys are donating their time and skill to provide us with content.

IMO if someone has a problem with anything other than technical issues, they should button it or better yet, try and build something themselves and submit it for rotation.

Believe me Bliss doesn't just throw anything into the rotation without review. There is a reason why this server hosts more players than any other. I have made a few "simple" missions for training purposes and I know what is involved in putting out a good "complex" mission.
A big thanks to the guys that have their missions in the rotation. It is much appreciated.:salute:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Jan-16-2014, 09:09
While it's not a case of "if you don't like it, do it yourself", I would appreciate it if people at least understood exactly what it took to get a mission onto the server for you to enjoy in the first place. And by all means try and make a mission yourself. The more variety on the server the better everyone's experience will be IMO.
s.

Maybe we need to start making tutorial videos on how to use the FMB?

this might help people get started.....

No.54 Ghost (KL-G)
Jan-16-2014, 09:19
and maybe include a rating system where you could give the mission you just played a rating from 1 to 5 or something.
that way the more popular maps could come up more often then the lesser ones, and if one map gets a very low score it could be taken out of the rotation to give room for new ones.

ATAG_Snapper
Jan-16-2014, 12:02
Well, as moderator I just spent 90 minutes carefully reading all 271 posts of the thread in question. The vast majority of the posts were overwhelmingly positive towards Operation Home Plate. Many posts enquired into the mission's operating mechanisms ie. spawnings, definitions of airfields destroyed, aircraft killed, etc. There were questions on plane set choices - especially the initial lack of Spitfire 1a 100's and 109 E3B's in the early versions of Home Plate, and the perceived preponderance of Spitfire 2a's in the closing hour of this mission.

I had subscribed to this particular thread at the start to instantly notify me of any new posts so I could vette them for offensiveness. A couple were a little snotty, but were not a direct attack on the OP. One post was very objectionable but was quickly self-deleted by the poster. But again, the vast majority of the 271 posts were very, very positive. IMHO this was an excellent thread with lots of discussion and information being provided.

We have upwards of 4500 members in this forum of whom about 300 on average visit this forum daily. Of these 300/day members the Operation Home Plate thread had 252 readers -- pretty high! Since the Stats were reset almost two weeks ago we've had almost 2,000 players on the ATAG Server. It would be fair to assume that a goodly number of these "almost 2,000" players actually played the Operation Home Plate mission, including on some capacity nights. I know this because I was one of 'em, virtually each night. On Teamspeak I heard many positive comments specifically about Operation Home Plate which reflected the many similar positive posts in the Operation Home Plate thread.

Yet now Operation Home Plate, one of the best missions we've ever had on ATAG, is to be pulled. Furthermore, active discussion, questions, and yes, moderated criticism, must now be severely curtailed on this forum to avoid future and existing excellent missions from being pulled. Literally hundreds of happy, satisfied players -- including myself - must be deprived of excellent missions and/or freedom of discussion on this forum for fear of imagined or real slights.

Are the mission designers appreciated for the hours of dedicated hard work and knowledge they put into making missions? For those who don't honestly know -- go back and read those 271 posts of the now-closed Operation Home Plate thread right from post #2. The answer will jump out at you as an extremely loud YES!

As I've said before, I wholeheartedly support all the mission designers on this forum and the ATAG Server. At times I have received rather direct PM's criticizing me as moderator "for taking sides". My reply has always been the same, "Yep. Mission designers and TF managers are valuable assets, the rest of us whiners are a dime-a-dozen. There it is."

What I thought was an excellent thread - Operation Home Plate - has turned into an absolute failure since it has resulted in the removal of that mission. I would hate to see open, civil discussion likewise go the same way for the same reason.

Sincerely,

Snapper

ATAG_JTDawg
Jan-16-2014, 13:55
I suspect the problem is that the time it takes to create a mission is wholly unappreciated by the masses. It looks as simple as clicking a few bits and bobs in the FMB, a bit of copy/paste into a script file and a quick test run through, "Okey dokey lets send it to Bliss".

The reality is that it's not. I've probably easily spent in excess of 100 hrs on the London Raids mission alone and we're now on what, the 6th version? That's 100+hrs I could have spent flying, watching TV, at the gym, with my girlfriend. Granted no one put a gun to my head and said I had to but even so.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions in my view. What would be nice would be for people to respect those who are giving up valuable time for "The Community"* and make their point in a calm, respectful and unargumentative way. Not try and repeatedly bash a mission maker's decisions and try to draw them into an argument or justification of their decisions & actions.

While it's not a case of "if you don't like it, do it yourself", I would appreciate it if people at least understood exactly what it took to get a mission onto the server for you to enjoy in the first place. And by all means try and make a mission yourself. The more variety on the server the better everyone's experience will be IMO.

*This applies equally to the efforts of TF too. We hear a lot about "the community", but it seems we have a whole raft of takers and not that many givers.

+1 I'm really starting to get a case of the flaming red ass !!! Between Mission builders an TF , I Don't know who catches more grief. An am getting real tired of keeping my pie hole shut.
We have very few people that can do what is being done. An anyone that might , or could help = well why would they want to get the abuse. !!!
Almost everyday now , We have a TF Member , or a Mission Maker wanting to quit. Because THEY HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH ABUSE !!
I mean what were they thinking , giving up weekends , evenings , time with their family's, or just flying like you do , without a care. Spending 100's an 1,000's of hours for your enjoyment.
This is not 46 where anybody could make a mission !!!!! To please over 4,000 members an fliers , Will never happen !!!!
Agree that to report bad spawn points etc. is very ok. But to bite the hand that feeds you is just plain stupid . :grrr: So stfu an fly the mission or don't , BUT DO NOT PUT MY GAME IN JEOPARDY., with your B.S. How many do we lose before some of you smarten up !!!! Enough is enough . Fly the f-ing game an have fun. or 2. STFU an go else where !!!


Snapper be gentle with me , it's my first time . :devilish:

ATAG_JTDawg
Jan-16-2014, 13:58
Well, as moderator I just spent 90 minutes carefully reading all 271 posts of the thread in question. The vast majority of the posts were overwhelmingly positive towards Operation Home Plate. Many posts enquired into the mission's operating mechanisms ie. spawnings, definitions of airfields destroyed, aircraft killed, etc. There were questions on plane set choices - especially the initial lack of Spitfire 1a 100's and 109 E3B's in the early versions of Home Plate, and the perceived preponderance of Spitfire 2a's in the closing hour of this mission.

I had subscribed to this particular thread at the start to instantly notify me of any new posts so I could vette them for offensiveness. A couple were a little snotty, but were not a direct attack on the OP. One post was very objectionable but was quickly self-deleted by the poster. But again, the vast majority of the 271 posts were very, very positive. IMHO this was an excellent thread with lots of discussion and information being provided.

We have upwards of 4500 members in this forum of whom about 300 on average visit this forum daily. Of these 300/day members the Operation Home Plate thread had 252 readers -- pretty high! Since the Stats were reset almost two weeks ago we've had almost 2,000 players on the ATAG Server. It would be fair to assume that a goodly number of these "almost 2,000" players actually played the Operation Home Plate mission, including on some capacity nights. I know this because I was one of 'em, virtually each night. On Teamspeak I heard many positive comments specifically about Operation Home Plate which reflected the many similar positive posts in the Operation Home Plate thread.

Yet now Operation Home Plate, one of the best missions we've ever had on ATAG, is to be pulled. Furthermore, active discussion, questions, and yes, moderated criticism, must now be severely curtailed on this forum to avoid future and existing excellent missions from being pulled. Literally hundreds of happy, satisfied players -- including myself - must be deprived of excellent missions and/or freedom of discussion on this forum for fear of imagined or real slights.

Are the mission designers appreciated for the hours of dedicated hard work and knowledge they put into making missions? For those who don't honestly know -- go back and read those 271 posts of the now-closed Operation Home Plate thread right from post #2. The answer will jump out at you as an extremely loud YES!

As I've said before, I wholeheartedly support all the mission designers on this forum and the ATAG Server. At times I have received rather direct PM's criticizing me as moderator "for taking sides". My reply has always been the same, "Yep. Mission designers and TF managers are valuable assets, the rest of us whiners are a dime-a-dozen. There it is."

What I thought was an excellent thread - Operation Home Plate - has turned into an absolute failure since it has resulted in the removal of that mission. I would hate to see open, civil discussion likewise go the same way for the same reason.

Sincerely,

Snapper

Agree +1

PickRelated
Jan-16-2014, 15:58
First of all, thak you ATAG community! You are doing wonderfull job. And the fact it is free for all users makes me even more proud of you! Consider this, complainers!
Mission builders do a very complicated job with lots of programming stuff. Most users just might not get it. What works fine on one computer may totally fail on another.
Dear mission builders! Thank you! Being an artist is unthankful and hard job. Keep it up! Don't let unthakful users bring you down! :thumbsup:
Related to missions: I would assume it would be a good idea to add more bombing goals for reds (for non-historical missions at least). Otherwise Blenheim becomes quite a useless plane though someone might like it.

AKA_Knutsac
Jan-16-2014, 16:35
~S~ to the mission builders, your missions are like pizza and pu$$y, even when they're bad, they're pretty damn good!

+1 JTDawg

Respectfully,

AKA Knutsac

ATAG_Naz
Jan-16-2014, 19:40
Very disappointing if mission builders are forced to decide they don't want their work on ATAG. With all due respect, the vast majority of us here do appreciate your work and it feels a tad like that the majority are being punished for the actions of a handful of wankers.

There are f**kwits all over the internet. I respectfully ask you simply ignore them....and let the rest of us play your great missions.

Just my 2c

:salute:

EDIT: On reflection, I'd like to add ...I have not read any of the posts in other threads which led to the map maker or makers decisions. My comments above are not directed at any specific individuals therein. I was simply venting my general view on people taking criticism on internet forums with a grain of salt as its usually the case those that scream the loudest are the least worthy of being listened to. Without having read the posts I am not calling anyone here either of those charming adjectives we often use down here in the Antipodes, particularly after reading Evangeluse's post below (#20). I apologize if it appears so.


:salute:

ChiefRedCloud
Jan-16-2014, 21:49
Simply put, it's a shame that a few can spoil the fun of a few. I personally am in no position to criticize a mission. I will, however, if it arises, give feedback. I salute all who do these missions and hope you take heart in what you all contribute to this small community. Thanks ...:thumbsup:

Zisi
Jan-17-2014, 02:30
All I can say is Homeplate and London Raids are my two favorite maps. IMO the (few) complaints I have heard have usually been completely unfounded, and unhelpful. It is completely nonsensical to criticize a mission on "realism" grounds. *No mission* designed for general multiplayer usage can be realistic in anything other than the most utterly trivial manner, the point fundamentally is to create entertaining combat scenarios.

Take the arguments against aircraft upgrades in homeplate for example. It seems VERY bizarre to me to complain about a novel feature that no other map has. When at the same time we are flying with a total population of <100 with pilots that have hundreds to thousands of hours of experience, with no command and control, comparatively minimal teamwork, and book knowledge of both sides that no pilot back then would have had access to. Generally the targets on any map that has been created has nothing to do with reality, the ships often don't move, the flak isn't usually very effective and will just as readily kill a friendly as it will the enemy. Our bombers often fly alone and on the deck, and everyone on the red side is flying spits! We are INCREDIBLY far from anything that would resemble a realistic scenario, and that's not a complaint, that's just the way it has to be for a lot of reasons.

I want the aircraft itself to be as realistic as possible, I think everyone does, but the scenario? not possible. It takes a lot of effort to create features like this, and I think it adds much needed variety and strategy.


London Raids:
Provides an excuse to have combat near London. Fighting over those massive bomber groups is a lot of fun, and the fact that they hit objectives makes fighting over them mission-relevant. Oh and the Chain Home system is pretty sweet! XD

Homeplate:
The tonnage based airfield objectives that Salmo created for homeplate (and also used in London Raids and some other maps now as well), are the reason I started learning how to level bomb from altitude. Knocking the airbases out provide a sense of urgency to protect them, especially when it happens to be your only source of spitfire II's for example. It's a clean and to the point mission.

Lastly, a note directed at the map makers: Consider the criticism to be a good sign. If nobody cared enough to say anything, it probably wasn't a very memorable map.

LuseKofte
Jan-17-2014, 02:38
I support everything said in here, but here is a dilemma.

I find it hard to understand the fact pulling back the work done because of a few people misbehavior. Many cases like this is due to language barrier. where the member just does not have the words to express himself in a polite manner. I can be very direct communicating in English.

As a admin in 1946SAS.com we see this type of problem on a weekly bases, and we deal with it accordingly. No one are allowed to share anything there unless they know it will not be pulled out if a future problem shall come, neither can the author refuse other to use his mod and develop it as long as proper credits are given.

I like Homeplate very much, I respect the work done and understand the amount of it given to this mission. But pulling it is a abusive act no matter how you see it . It is abuse of power and I cannot see the reason for doing so , taken the amount of people that are so grateful for it and very few that is not.

And here we are again about the language barrier, I know abusive is too hard word, but I cannot find the correct word in English.

I hope the authors reconsider their decision about pulling the missions, I urge ATAG admins to try to understand that my posting is not a attack on author or ATAG

Zisi
Jan-17-2014, 04:10
... But pulling it is a abusive act no matter how you see it ...

It would be improper in my view not to honour the wishes of a missions creator. If one wishes their mission pulled, for any reason, that's their right. Others don't have the right to one's labour just because it's convenient for them.

9./JG52_Meyer
Jan-17-2014, 04:14
"He who giveth can taketh away" :thumbsup:

SoW Reddog
Jan-17-2014, 04:56
Jaeger,

You're right that language can sometimes be an issue, and indeed your use of the word "abusive" would have made me extremely angry had it not been qualified with your caveat below. However, not everyone does this and you can see how things become issues.

I do however respectfully disagree with you. It should be entirely down to the mission maker to release or not, and to withdraw or not any mission they choose entirely at their whim.

ATAG_EvangelusE
Jan-17-2014, 05:39
Firstly, I feel very upset that Salmo pulled this mission, I have never criticsised any mission or the mission maker and you will not find a single post that would indicate otherwise in any mission thread. Quite the contrary if you read through the Homeplate thread you will see that I was very positive regards Homeplate when I first tried V2 on the Nations Server.

This is a complete misunderstanding regards my last post that was interpreted as an 'issue' when there was no issue on my part. The most regrettable thing is that I didn't clarify the purpose of my question which was not and never was intended for Salmo to justify how the mission ran or to change it. I merely wanted to have a better idea of the 'mechnism' regarding the plane upgrades - was it timer based, were all airfields upgraded, etc? I had no idea that the mission also used a random feature and this was explained by Salmo in his reply.

When I first read his reply I thanked him for explaianing how the planeset upgrade worked and why it was included - it was a very informative reply and left it at that.

I was utterly gobsmacked when I read his post that he was pulling the mission and then ediited my last post to include an apology for what was a misunderstanding.

Like Snapper, I re-read the entire thread and having done so, I am left perplexed by his decision to pull this excellent mission! I hope Salmo re-considers but the mission is his intellectual property as such.

AKA_Recon
Jan-17-2014, 08:34
I support everything said in here, but here is a dilemma.

I find it hard to understand the fact pulling back the work done because of a few people misbehavior.

:thumbsup:

IMO, By pulling a mission, you are advocating that a select few complainers do indeed control what missions are in ATAG. Salmo mission is a great mission and should not be pulled. If there are things to make better, then certainly address it, but no need to pull what I think is a mission that has reflected BoB better than just about any other to date!

From my understanding, this post isn't about complaining, it sounds more like the way the feedback is presented:

For example, I personally have no issue with people voicing opinions about missions. That said, the opinions should be backed with legitimate issues.

I teach my kids about constructive criticism. I was taught this growing up. Sometimes ego and pride get in the way of learning, growing and getting better.

If I was to quit my job everytime someone disagreed with me, I would be living on the streets. Part of perfecting a craft is learning to take feedback and growing.

So what I see:

1. Feedback is good and should be welcomed. Presentation though is everything - how you voice your opinion is the key - it shouldn't be attacking the character of a person for example. Being as objective as possible with backing evidence is preferred.
2. Map designers also need to learn to take feedback and do their best to get better. Think of it as perfecting your craft. Not every creation is going to be a work of art, sometimes you make something and learn maybe it didn't turn out as well as you had hoped - and instead of quiting, should be inspired to do better next time.

The work of the map mission creators is definitely a great thing for our community, yet at the same time, we don't need a diva's around here

ATAG_Colander
Jan-17-2014, 09:33
Another issue is that there are 2000 people joining the server and from those, only a few tell the mission maker that his mission is good. Then you have a higher ratio of complainers than supporters in the threads.
What the reader might get form that is:
- The number of people that likes my work is 50.
- The number of people that complaints is 20.
- The number of people that doesn't care is 1900.
- Is it worth making all that effort for only 50 people while I have to withstand the bashing of other 20?


My 2 cents.

9./JG52_J-HAT
Jan-17-2014, 09:46
Colander, while I also think that that is true, there is also the fact that "good things are expected" or, in other words, most people will complain but not compliment.
It is sad but true, that at the end, there is a "majority" that makes it all look like it's not worth it.

Or we could look it from the other side: if the mission is already done, and no one cares, just leave it where it is with all the "problems" that were complained about so the piece of the 1900 that actually like the mission can still enjoy it.

I like the mission and I regret the mission is being pulled out.

EDIT: I would like to add something, related to the original post. Always remeber, if it wasn't for mission makers we all wouldn't be playing online... or maybe just some boring online mission that came with the came. The game wouldn't be half as good.

EG14_Marcast
Jan-17-2014, 10:16
Another issue is that there are 2000 people joining the server and from those, only a few tell the mission maker that his mission is good. Then you have a higher ratio of complainers than supporters in the threads.
What the reader might get form that is:
- The number of people that likes my work is 50.
- The number of people that complaints is 20.
- The number of people that doesn't care is 1900.
- Is it worth making all that effort for only 50 people while I have to withstand the bashing of other 20?

But the players who express on a regular base their opinions in the forum are very far from 2000. And you can also say that if those "silent" 1900 keep playing the mission, it means that they like it. Operation Home Plate is surely one of my best favorites, it is very well balanced and exciting. I really hope to see it again on the server.

LuseKofte
Jan-17-2014, 10:36
The thing is , I haven't seen one complaint about the mission itself, there has been some constructive proposals here at ATAG site.

SoW Reddog
Jan-17-2014, 10:58
But the players who express on a regular base their opinions in the forum are very far from 2000. And you can also say that if those "silent" 1900 keep playing the mission, it means that they like it. Operation Home Plate is surely one of my best favorites, it is very well balanced and exciting. I really hope to see it again on the server.

While I agree with you there Marcastel, it should be pointed out there's not that much evidence to suggest that people will "vote with their feet and go elsewhere" like there is in other areas. When ATAG is full, 100 players, the other servers don't appear to pick up many "extra" players. Seems we have a bunch of players who ONLY want to play on ATAG. This is why I've advocated "for the community" to lower the player number from 100 to 80 for example. Hopefully those 20 would then seed another server, say Storm of War and people would see another viable server with 20+ players on and soon we'd have 160 people playing in 2 servers, rather than 100 in one. However, this digresses somewhat from the OP's direction.

ATAG_Bliss
Jan-17-2014, 11:29
While I agree with you there Marcastel, it should be pointed out there's not that much evidence to suggest that people will "vote with their feet and go elsewhere" like there is in other areas. When ATAG is full, 100 players, the other servers don't appear to pick up many "extra" players. Seems we have a bunch of players who ONLY want to play on ATAG. This is why I've advocated "for the community" to lower the player number from 100 to 80 for example. Hopefully those 20 would then seed another server, say Storm of War and people would see another viable server with 20+ players on and soon we'd have 160 people playing in 2 servers, rather than 100 in one. However, this digresses somewhat from the OP's direction.

But many play on the server because of the power and speed of it. It's the same when playing an FPS game. When I see a NFO server populated in the list, that's where I'm going. There's a huge difference in playing on a rack mounted dedicated machine than playing on an online server hosted at someone's house on a home internet connection. And obviously, there's a huge cost difference as well. Just server 1 is $250 every single month.

I've been hosting MP servers for the better part of 10 years throughout various games. I guess my point is, if the ATAG servers were hosted off my own PC and my own cable internet, (as an example) I doubt it would be very popular. I'm not blaming anyone for that. But the most popular servers in almost every MP game usually happens to be the guys using the best hardware and bandwidth - IE people using real dedicated servers. Same applies to virtually any game out there.

Osprey
Jan-17-2014, 12:48
From my experience sow hasn't had any performance problem by bottleneck of bandwidth or hardware. The campaign missions were capped at 90 players IIRC and it was fine. Also, the ACG campaign is presently run on a machine on which the owner is also flying, we have 50 human and 50 ai milling about happily. I think its a credit to the game actually. We'll be setting up a new server for our campaign soon on a home connection which these days are strong, it'll be plenty for us.
Regarding the topic, I concur, mission making is not only artwork but hardwork. It can chew you up, so those complex missions with proper objectives using new parts of the map get kudos from me. Much respect from a fellow missionmaker.

Out of interest, what are the requirements for an atag mission? Presumably there need to be objectives, and I suspect there are hard limits on AI?

56RAF_klem
Jan-17-2014, 13:07
Two mission makers (of which this community has very, very few) have recently asked for their missions to be removed from the servers due to the volume of complaints and criticisms of their mission designs.

This is entirely regrettable.

In order to avoid this continuing further, I would suggest that all further critical comment on missions be kept to the following format;
1. State the identified issue.
2. Identify how the issue conflicts with the stated mission design goals
3. State the suggested fix.

Example #1;
1. Armour concentration at E17.5 missing
2. Am unable to find, attack or defend that target, which is required in mission objectives
3. Advise of its real location in the mission brief, remove from brief, or add objects on to map.



Example #2;
1. Mission often crashes
2. am unable to play mission for more than about an hour
3. Review/ reduce quantity of AI spawning in, investigate possible scripting conflicts



The following are NOT examples of how to provide feedback about a mission;
"Why did you put an X at location Y"?
"That's a stupid idea"
"This is boring"


It is not fair, to disagree with the mission design goals. If the mission designer wants random-spawn feature then that's their prerogative. If however, you find that this feature is not working as intended, then of course please let the mission maker know. However, if you don't like their artistic direction then either A) design and build your own mission, or B) play another server/ wait until rotation.

In my opinion, we need as many different types of missions as we can get. Sure, some might not be "historical", or they might no fit your prescribed expectations.
But that's why we have and need variety. You might like some, you might not like others. But not every mission flown during the war was a "free hunt" either. Sometimes you might just have to fly that Rhubarb, through the cloud.

+1

Salmo if you read this please reinstate your mission. Let it be your mission. By all means take constructive suggestions but don't let the handful of whiners destroy your good work. I hardly know OHP but the guys in our squad rate it as "bringing CoD closer to the BoB".

A few stats have been kicked around in here and a couple are worth considering:
1. Complainers will always seem to be the numerous because most people who are satisfied just don't post. Even so there seem to be very few.
3. A very large number of the community haven't commented on your mission and yet ATAG is the only heavily populated server so that number will include many guys who are very happy with the mission.

Please don't deny us your work. And......

"Nil illegitmi carburundum"

ATAG_JTDawg
Jan-17-2014, 13:42
Hey EvangelusE , Really don't think it was your post . , but I wont speak for Salmo. Think this typing crap makes for a lot of the BS, an misunderstanding ., for one . Then add to it 2 years of crap. An testing. Because really, thats what this game is. Then these guys spread themselves so thin, then work themselves till they are sleep deprived, by helping other squads an Servers, make maps or help with scripting.
I think Salmo has been working on this map for , if I remember right about 10 months , maybe more in one form or another, with fixes , new scripting etc. I believe it is more like the stick that broke the camels back thing .
What all of us need to remember is These guys are doing us a favor. An most are suffering burnout. Naz is right too. Mission makers could use thicker skin, but as time goes by, it gets thinner an thinner . An I agree with Colander, The majority don't say a word one way or another, To me that's a good thing, but to some it is a bad thing.
I have watched poll after poll go up , an 53 out of 4000 votes , are tallied. This is one of my many faults to. Not because I don't care , But for the most part i'm happy .
Any New maps missions or fixes are the cats ass to me ! As I love/hate this game. But that's CLOD.
J-Hat is also right , people will complain , before they will give a atta boy. . The only thing I have done for this game is come up with a couple fixes (Dot net fix etc.) an test to the point of burnout on 3.0. So I have some idea how burnt out some are . So what we all need to learn is a little respect goes along way. An there will always be misunderstanding when things are typed out, an not said in person or TS , typing does not give the tone in the voice , Salmo is a good guy. An I respect him , an am sure he will do the right thing :salute:

-Sven-
Jan-17-2014, 15:09
I want to mention that it would be an unrealistic expectation to never have any kind of non-constructive criticism, I mean it's the internet, what do you expect?!
If mission makers can't handle that, then they might have to get themselves to not care at all about these kind of posts, that would be one way of making it easy. Also, there's more than one server to play on, so mission versatility should not be a problem.

ATAG_Colander
Jan-17-2014, 15:12
Also, there's more than one server to play on, so mission versatility should not be a problem.

Like making all the mission makers on server A quit and then move to server B, rinse and repeat? :)

Zisi
Jan-17-2014, 15:20
While I agree with you there Marcastel, it should be pointed out there's not that much evidence to suggest that people will "vote with their feet and go elsewhere" like there is in other areas. When ATAG is full, 100 players, the other servers don't appear to pick up many "extra" players. Seems we have a bunch of players who ONLY want to play on ATAG. This is why I've advocated "for the community" to lower the player number from 100 to 80 for example. Hopefully those 20 would then seed another server, say Storm of War and people would see another viable server with 20+ players on and soon we'd have 160 people playing in 2 servers, rather than 100 in one. However, this digresses somewhat from the OP's direction.

Sorry for continuing the digression, but I wanted to throw in my 2c here. I used to be part of =]H[= on project reality, and we hosted the two most popular servers for that game, which also was/is a fantastic niche mod for bf2. What we found is that we certainly could get both servers running, however the second server would depopulate to 0 every night, and we would have to "seed" it ourselves to get it going the next day. In the case of two servers, people will often look at the member list to see which server will be the highest quality to join, who they can team up with, etc. Once it was sufficiently populated this didn't matter and it would continue just fine until late nite. Our other server would stay populated 24/7 and took care of itself in that regard.

Take the following example:
Server 1: 100 people, Server 2: 0 people --- Which do you join? I'd probably wait for a slot
Server 1: 100 people, Server 2: 10 people --- which do you join? I'd still likely wait for a slot
Server 1: 100 people, Server 2: 10 atag, stw, acg members -- which do you join? I'd feel bad and go help seed, at least knowing I'd have some friends on TS. XD

I'm not advocating any particular course of action here, I just wanted to make you aware of my experiences on that subject.

-Sven-
Jan-17-2014, 15:33
You seem to insinuate something I do not sympathize with. The opinion, or actions, of the group I'm associated with does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion. Just like some TF members have made clear about their opinions on this forum.

ATAG_Colander
Jan-17-2014, 15:35
You seem to insinuate something I do not sympathize with. The opinion, or actions, of the group I'm associated with does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion. Just like some TF members have made clear about their opinions on this forum.

I think you missed the ":)" on the post.

LuseKofte
Jan-17-2014, 15:37
Well Ive want to say I am grateful for the time we had that mission. For me as a bomberpilot I find them other missions also very challanging. I want to use this opurtunity to express my gratefulness towards them. No matter who leave or stay. We need to get CLOD moving forward. I also made and rewritten all qmb into latest feature in IL 2. So when I come home I will need a servermission to see the schripting and coding needed. I will try to make a mission worth while playing if I can learn the scripting. Because I do not have a clue as of yet what different from IL 2.

-Sven-
Jan-17-2014, 15:40
I think I'll classify that as saying something along the lines of:

[Enter something offensive or something inappropriate here], but please don't take offense.

Sorry if I seem annoyed, tiresome week.

ATAG_Colander
Jan-17-2014, 15:51
I think I'll classify that as saying something along the lines of:

[Enter something offensive or something inappropriate here], but please don't take offense.

Sorry if I seem annoyed, tiresome week.

Sven, that classifies as a joke, hence the ":)"

Trust me, if I were to say something offensive, every one would know it.

ATAG_EvangelusE
Jan-17-2014, 17:38
So what we all need to learn is a little respect goes along way. An there will always be misunderstanding when things are typed out, an not said in person or TS , typing does not give the tone in the voice , Salmo is a good guy. An I respect him , an am sure he will do the right thing :salute:

You are absolutely right Dawg!

Philstyles criteria for giving mission feedback is a sensible proposal and should go a long way to adress the points you make.