AI bombers - do we still need them?

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

First, I apologize in advance as this is going to be a long post. Over the last few weeks I've been doing a little study on the long periods of lag that we all receive during peak times on the server. If you've been in the server during a mission with 80+ players then you have probably experienced a period of 3 to 15 minutes where you are no longer receiving information from the server. Eventually data begins to flow again between clients and server and a flood of messages comes through and the mission goes on until it happens again.

Using client side logs and tracks to confirm, almost every occurrence of this type of lag is caused by the spawning of AI aircraft. It doesn't seem to matter how big or small the AI formation is and every map in the rotation has this problem including those which use scripts to control the AI based on player numbers.

Before I go further let's go back in time 2 years and remember why AI were introduced in multiplayer. The player count was very low, peak times were maybe 40 players. Many people had very poor fps at low altitudes, so the fights were pushed up high by using the bomber flights as bait. Two human flown bombers could not even look at each other without a launcher crash.

Jump back to present day. More people are playing than ever before, server is often at or near capacity. TF mod has improved fps across the board. It is now quite common to see groups of human flown bombers as large as the AI formations. Further improvements are coming to the bombers that will make them even more attractive to players.

We have reached a point as a community where the negatives of the AI flights now outweigh the positives and are in fact a detrimant to the multiplayer experience. On multiple occasions I have witnessed large groups of human flown bombers with human fighters in escort be completely broken up by a server lag caused by the spawning of AI bombers. In particular I can recall a group of almost a dozen Ju 88s flown by JG4 cross the channel on Kanalkampf from Caen to Tangmere and just as they roared over the field to drop their bombs a flight of 9 AI Stukas spawned in caused the server to lag for over 10 minutes. It was absolutely devastating to see that. Most of the bomber pilots quit the server in frustration and I don't blame them. How many new players are put off to clod multiplayer when they faced something similar?

Having said all that for the good of the community I would like to see ATAG ask mission builders to remove all AI bombers from their missions for a period of one month to see if performance improves. I think this was proven at the bomber night in January where the server was at capacity for several hours without a single problem but a larger sample size couldn't hurt. Possibly this could lead to increasing the player limit. When 4.2 lands we will see the player ranks swell again and if we want to retain these players we need to make the best impression possible.

[SoW Reddog]

Sorry Gruber, but yes, I believe we do still need AI bombers.

A large part of the BoB experience is large formations of bombers battling their way inland to bomb targets. While JG4's attempt was impressive, it was a one off and not representative of play throughout the server rotation.

I personally do not want to be chasing lone 88's around the map, for them to (delete as applicable) outrun me, still dive and drop bombs on targets despite having both engines on fire, pull the most ridiculous bunting manoeuvres and dive away.

If you remove AI bombers I feel you'll alienate a large number of the Red pilots, not because we're after easy kills but because it adds to the immersion and acts as a focal point for activity. Besides, when thinking of new pilots, what better targets are there for them to hone their skills, settings and loadouts etc.

By all means try it with your missions and see what feedback you get. My impression is that players want MORE AI bombers, not less.

[Ohms]

I think it is worth a try for a month. Have been online at least 3 times when this happened. If it can be deduced a full server with 90+ players with AI bombers don't mix then we look for a solution. Reddog I believe I heard you say that you would be in favour of a cap on players to help solve the server issue. if so this would be the time to test. I agree that mass bombers are a major and most important part of BOB but if they do not mix with high numbers of players we need a solution.
Just my two cents but I think the idea from Gruber for a short trial has merit.


Ohms

[SoW Reddog]

Personally I have not seen the issue occur in anything other than a full or nearly full server. My belief is that reducing the server player count to 80 from 100 would reduce or eliminate these issues. It would also IMO have the added benefit of creating a pool of players who could then seed another server, be it ATAG no.2, Storm of War, Aussies @ War or whatever. In lower than 80 players no one loses anything at all.

I'm not saying don't experiment, what I am saying is that we need to examine all the variables in play.

[vranac]

Why that also happened in SoW BoF campaign ? There were no AI bombers.

[ATAG_Lolsav]

Maybe someone more savy on this matter can explain better than i do. As i understand those server hickups are not related to server at all. Seems to be more a STEAM problem, with the allocated bandwith for the game. When STEAM catches up and with the server still up, with no changes whatsoever, the players seem a huge ammount of messages being spammed by the server, what would indiciate a server side problem. But what happens in reality, as long as i know, its STEAM updating the server with information of who, what and when is where (in our case ATAG server).

Players can check if the "Server is back" (meaning as STEAM reaquired and catch up) by pressing TAB key. That indicates the server is back to normal or not.

Anyone more savy, please come in and explain better.

[Kling]

Personally I have not seen the issue occur in anything other than a full or nearly full server. My belief is that reducing the server player count to 80 from 100 would reduce or eliminate these issues. It would also IMO have the added benefit of creating a pool of players who could then seed another server, be it ATAG no.2, Storm of War, Aussies @ War or whatever. In lower than 80 players no one loses anything at all.

I'm not saying don't experiment, what I am saying is that we need to examine all the variables in play.

I would reduce it further to 60players per server and Big bomber formations! i think we could on popular times habe two almost filled servers. Especially with news showing up every day on the forum! We need to plan ahead!
I miss the big 27bomber formation on ur London raids misson Reddog! :(

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

@Reddog, there are other places in the clod community where a more BoB like experience is attempted. This is about problems on the ATAG server which has always advertised itself as a sandbox for multiplayer & not catering to any specific crowd. To reduce player limit to allow for more AI would seem to go against that thinking. I don't represent ATAG so I could be completely wrong on this.

@Vranac, two different servers with different hardware & backhaul. Same symptom but not same cause. SoW problem was allowing player skins and player count.

@Lolsav, It's a symptom of the netcode being pushed beyond its means. Every time a player joins it's telling every other connected client what everyone else is doing. But players join gradually. It's operating near its capacity when an AI wave spawns in the server is dealt with X new aircraft arriving all at once. The netcode, already near tipping point, stops communicating entirely until it puts the pieces back together. If it's steam related I can't say but the AI I am most certain is what is pushing it over the edge.

Almost every mission has a message timed to appear a few seconds after AI spawn telling the players that Do 17s or whatever type will be over Calais in 10 minutes. You know the message, we've all seem them. In the majority of events I have documented when the server catches up and you see the flood of messages in chat you will also see the bomber arrival message. One time might have been a fluke but by the 5th or 6th time a trend is clearly emerging. I don't know what other conclusion you could draw from that data. The instances where a bomber message did not appear were on Homeplate which must not use that standard trigger message.

Next time the server lags like that, stay connected and observe if you see that bomber spawn message as soon as the server starts responding fully again. It will likely be only blue flyers that would see the message, depends on the mission.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Remove the AI bombers and you reduce the incentive to get players at altitude. The other problem is time zone when player numbers are very low, apart from from providing targets for them the AI bombers do encourage players to escort and attack them. I was on line early afternoon today, a dozen or so players and the combat between players was around the AI formations at 20K.

Secondly, though not always, a common tactic is for player bombers to hug the deck - there is a danger of missions becoming predominantly low alt DF scenarios. I know some players and escorts get high but it's very inconsistent.

I agree that lag is a 'spoiler' but not sure what the best solution is other than maybe script for fewer AI (not remove all) AI formations dependent on numbers but isn't this sim about the BoB?

[SoW Reddog]

Gruber, you and I aren't going to agree on this I don't think and I'm going to leave the discussion after this post as I don't represent ATAG either and I don't want to argue pointlessly.

As far as the causes go, I am unconvinced that we've got anything like clear data to go on. The past few months have had a surge of this sort of issue, but also higher than ever player numbers, seemingly a load of Steam crashes also and a bunch of New missions introduced to the rotation. If I look back to missions I played when I first started on ATAG, I didn't see this "event". Some of those missions are still on the server now, and we do see that "event". What's changed?? Player numbers!!!

Homeplate uses submission files I believe (Salmo feel free to smack me down from on high if I've misunderstood) to load AI, Bliss's missions use FMB placed aircraft spawned on triggers, London Raids uses dynamic code to create the raid and load it essentially as a submission, yours I don't know. There's no commonality in method between the missions so far as I can see except we all spawn AI.

Remember when London Raids first went on the server? That had shit loads of raids being created because I fucked up. It also had 27 plane formations. No one was complaining about it "breaking the server" then. BUT, we didn't have 80+ players on the server at the time.

I look forward to seeing the results of the test because I would like to conclusively get to the bottom of this once and for all.

[Gix]

IMO removing AI bombers is a big mistake. Big human formations are not enough common for that and it would lead to a kind of dogfighting server...
Spawning AI bombers 1 by 1 (with a sufficent gap time between each) and make them group slowly on altitude before heading to the target will not work ? Or is it a nightmare to code may be...

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Spawning AI bombers 1 by 1 (with a sufficent gap time between each) and make them group slowly on altitude before heading to the target will not work ? Or is it a nightmare to code may be...

Unfortunately aircraft have to be coded as a "group" to effectively stay together. Trying to use individual aircraft for this purpose would be a nightmare.

I see only one future for AI bomber raids.

Less of them, of slightly larger numbers, flying much, much further in land to target. i.e. 15-20 bombers flying from Abbeville to Biggin Hill and then back to St Omer. Not until they land would the next raid spawn in (about an hour later after the first lot spawn)

[AKA_Knutsac]

~S~ Gruber, all,

I tend to agree, for the reasons already stated, that removing the AI bombers is a mistake. I find low-level meat grinder dogfights mindless and the often impossible task of defending against individual low-level bombers or jabo 109s an exercise in frustration. And there's little satisfaction in downing the lone, brave, bomber pilot who tries to bomb from altitude. Engaging a fighter or pair at altitude is fun, but rarely happens because most everybody is down in the meat grinder, not escorting bombers (who are often sneaking in at low-level by themselves). Anyway, the absence of AI bombers seems to really reduce the likelihood of groups of fighters meeting at altitude to battle it out...as was common in the BoB.

V/R

AKA Knutsac

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

The servers which I have seen without AI bombers tend to be one dimensional... almost everyone on the deck in a furball.

I like the idea of high level AI formations coming in... give them good skill levels to improve their defence.

This tends to move the combats up to altitudes where it happened historically.

Also make the AI formations attack the actual mission objectives... so there is a need to defend against them.

I also like the idea of larger formations. :salute:

[Kling]

The servers which I have seen without AI bombers tend to be one dimensional... almost everyone on the deck in a furball.

I like the idea of high level AI formations coming in... give them good skill levels to improve their defence.

This tends to move the combats up to altitudes where it happened historically.

Also make the AI formations attack the actual mission objectives... so there is a need to defend against them.

I also like the idea of larger formations. :salute:

+1!!!!
Which is why I would suggest two identical servers with max 60players on them but as compensation large formations 30+...

[darkside3/4]

AI bombers make the world feel more populated...server would turn into a wasteland without them during the Pacific TZ's.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

The servers which I have seen without AI bombers tend to be one dimensional... almost everyone on the deck in a furball.

I like the idea of high level AI formations coming in... give them good skill levels to improve their defence.

This tends to move the combats up to altitudes where it happened historically.

Also make the AI formations attack the actual mission objectives... so there is a need to defend against them.

I also like the idea of larger formations. :salute:



+1

I haven't entered all the server missions since TF4.3 but (out of curiosity), which of the missions currently on the server rotation no longer have AI and has removing them improved stability?

All the ones I have entered so far do not have AI which is not a problem during peak periods but during the day, when the server is less populated, the missions without AI are predominantly down on the deck low alt furballs.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

+1!!!!
Which is why I would suggest two identical servers with max 60players on them but as compensation large formations 30+...

Which is why I would suggest trying out one of the other servers that are already out there.... especially if you are in Europe.....
In the SOW server, you can still regularly come across bomber formations of 20 or more aircraft, and they attack meaningful targets/ objectives.

[Bear Pilot]

Which is why I would suggest trying out one of the other servers that are already out there.... especially if you are in Europe.....
In the SOW server, you can still regularly come across bomber formations of 20 or more aircraft, and they attack meaningful targets/ objectives.

+1 Phil

I find the apparent inability to consider flying in a server other than ATAG's amusing and somewhat odd. I enjoy ATAG and SOW both very much. When I want a little more historically based sortie I head over to SOW. Often the missions are specific days from the battle with large raids that may even split at certain points to hit multiple targets.

[ATAG_Bliss]

I agree with Gruber. If we eliminate 40 human players to have the AI fly instead, I think that's crazy. The patch just came out. The rear gunners now can be mannable in bombers etc. If you want the community to grow and continue to grow what we provide for them has to work. That means missions that don't crash with a full server for instance. I wish some of you guys came from IL246. There was never AI in dogfight servers and that is because the game didn't allow you to do it until up to the very end! Even then, you will not find an open DF server that uses them.

AI was used, initially, with the game because of all the games problems. It allowed players to shoot at something when there weren't hardly any players on (which was the norm in the early days) but now that the server(s) is filling up almost every single day, the last thing I want to do is replace a human slot with that of an AI. And I think any human sitting there waiting to play will agree. Go populate the other servers with huge raids (fill them all the way up) and you'll see that the AI missions will not work in a full server, especially with a raid of 20 etc. I've been running a cliffs of dover server since the game came out. I have tried and worked around so many issues with the game etc., as far as missions are concerned that I do know what I'm talking about.

The option is yours. But ATAG server 1 is designed around human players and stability. I'm sorry for putting my foot down, but I get soo many comments and PMs from people upset about taking all the time to climb in a bomber or what have you just to have the server crash. The netcode is virtually identical to 1946. If anything we should remember what DF servers capabilities are in 46 as well. There is no problem with AI missions etc., for those who enjoy them etc., and now you have that option. But I'm sick and tired of watching the server crash day after day because of instability. The missions that are on there have proven to run for hours on end without issue when full. And it stays full because it doesn't crash.

But just to see what the majority of the players would rather have (100 humans all playing together or 60 humans with AI flights) All the missions with no AI and run with 100 players stable are on server 1. All the missions that use AI are on server 2. Either way both options are there for anyone to enjoy now. So everyone should be happy.

[SoW Reddog]

Sorry Bliss but that's never going to be anywhere near statistical test. By all means remove London Raids from the ATAG server(s) rotations.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Sorry Bliss but that's never going to be anywhere near statistical test. By all means remove London Raids from the ATAG server(s) rotations.

Why not? What about the rest of what I said? Why is it that people would prefer AI over humans in MP, especially to sacrifice stability?

The fact of the matter is now the server can have 100 people stable all the time. That's a good test that's proven. I've given every mission maker limits inherent to the game all learned via mission building and having the server population be the beta testers throughout the years to help me find them. I told you and Salmo these limits for 100 players. So I watched the server crash every time it remotely started to fill up because of the AI. This is for weeks on end. I've asked kindly to change things explained the problems over and over. Out of anyone, Gruber said he would and low and behold there's stability.

It's almost like a slap in the face. I try to lay out all the details for getting stability and having that in a full server and those PMs are for naught. I will gladly remove your mission. But realize the limits I speak about in those PMs aren't made up. I found them out along time ago, and not surprisingly they are just like 1946.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Sorry Bliss but that's never going to be anywhere near statistical test. By all means remove London Raids from the ATAG server(s) rotations.

Hope it doesn't come to that and same for Homeplate, etc which are great missions.

I thought London raids was scripted to spawn AI depending on player numbers and suprised that this, in 2014, doesn't overcome the same MP limitations of a decade ago.

[SoW Reddog]

Why not what? be statistical? Because server one is always going to get more traffic than server 2. Where more players are, people go. Therefore, server one is going to look more popular as a function of No AI v AI maps.

Yes you gave me advice about limits. No, I haven't disregarded them. What I've asked for is clear, empirical evidence that the spawning of AI is the contributing factor, and suggested a different path. You're not interested. It's your server, do what you want with it. I'm tired of having the same damn arguments over and over.

[SoW Reddog]

Hope it doesn't come to that and same for Homeplate, etc which are great missions.

I thought London raids was scripted to spawn AI depending on player numbers and suprised that this, in 2014, doesn't overcome the same MP limitations of a decade ago.

London Raids was designed to spawn fewer raids, but with more AI the higher the player numbers got, till it was spawning 27 plane raids with potentially 100 players. This was the problem I was told, so I reduced the AI, and reduced the AI and reduced the AI till there were only 6 AI aircraft spawned at any one time. This still causes a problem, while a full 100 player server with no AI never has any issues.

I designed London Raids specifically to combat the Hawkinge-Manston-Tripods dogfight triangle and to try and introduce a bit more Battle of Britain flavour. It seems the community has spoken and chosen to have a dog fight server with lone wolf jabo style bombing raids of mostly single bombers. So be it, who am I to tell people how to play their game. I'm sure they're all having a blast. Fortunately Storm of War provides the game play that I look for so I can make my choice too.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Is it really necessary to eliminate ALL AI flights to ensure stability?

Is it not possible to find some kind of compromise of fewer AI flights?

I am am not an expert on netcode... but have been online on quite a number of occasions with large formations of AI and have not seen crashes or issues. Other times there have been problems... but again, not clear these are linked.

It seems to me banning AI is an extreme measure.

Another thing AI on a server does, is give newer players the opportunity to get their feet, get a few AI bomber kills, and get comfortable flying online. They can stay on their own side of the pond, and enjoy some success.

Otherwise, and I have heard and read accounts of this quite a bit, they fly around... don't see anything, then they venture out across the channel, and then get killed instantly by one of the veteran online Sharks who populate the ATAG server.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

London Raids was designed to spawn fewer raids, but with more AI the higher the player numbers got, till it was spawning 27 plane raids with potentially 100 players. This was the problem I was told, so I reduced the AI, and reduced the AI and reduced the AI till there were only 6 AI aircraft spawned at any one time. This still causes a problem, while a full 100 player server with no AI never has any issues.

I designed London Raids specifically to combat the Hawkinge-Manston-Tripods dogfight triangle and to try and introduce a bit more Battle of Britain flavour. It seems the community has spoken and chosen to have a dog fight server with lone wolf jabo style bombing raids of mostly single bombers. So be it, who am I to tell people how to play their game. I'm sure they're all having a blast. Fortunately Storm of War provides the game play that I look for so I can make my choice too.

Hello Reddog

I don't think you should take it that the community has rejected your missions... in fact I have heard many positive comments.

I think the whole issue of netcode and AI is something which needs to be explored further. :salute:

[SG1_sandokito]

I prefer human bombers, but we have a few problem.

Yesterday we take off six he111, to attack an airfield, from 5500m. We ask some Escort, and no one came to escort us. Resulting dead end :(:( formation. and took off with 109.

Summarizing IA bombers are needed because it is increasingly difficult to get human level bombers.

my friend`s and me love all level bombing planes he111, ju88, and blemy to level bombing, but if we have`n scort plane it`s very difficult to me rejoin pilots..

Txh and sorry for my very bud English

[ATAG_Bliss]

Why not what? be statistical? Because server one is always going to get more traffic than server 2. Where more players are, people go. Therefore, server one is going to look more popular as a function of No AI v AI maps.

Yes you gave me advice about limits. No, I haven't disregarded them. What I've asked for is clear, empirical evidence that the spawning of AI is the contributing factor, and suggested a different path. You're not interested. It's your server, do what you want with it. I'm tired of having the same damn arguments over and over.

Reddog - You are the only one arguing here. I've long given you and Salmo empirical evidence, even showing you the exact moment right out of the bandwidth monitor when the server stops responding because of it. This is also the method I used to help TF improve upon the netcode so it could do 100 people in the 1st place (watching the bandwidth monitor for activity against the log). The server is full right now and has been for a little while and is stable. Want more proof? It's been like that all week.

You act like I'm at fault for the game's limitations. Now not only has there been a server provided that can be full to the hilt, now there's one with all the AI stuff also.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I prefer human bombers, but we have a few problem.

Yesterday we take off six he111, to attack an airfield, from 5500m. We ask some Escort, and no one came to escort us. Resulting dead end :(:( formation. and took off with 109.

Summarizing IA bombers are needed because it is increasingly difficult to get human level bombers.

my friend`s and me love all level bombing planes he111, ju88, and blemy to level bombing, but if we have`n scort plane it`s very difficult to me rejoin pilots..

Txh and sorry for my very bud English

Thanks for the patience that you and others who fly the bombers have. :thumbsup:

It is unfortunate that players in fighters can't be bothered to escort... this can be one of the most challenging and interesting parts of the game.

Having AI bombers can also help to divert the attention from human flown bombers... it gives them a better chance to get through. :salute:

Overall the existence of AI bombers creates a whole extra dynamic which you don't see when there are only human flown planes. The 109's can sit above and ambush the Red side fighters, the Spitfires can go after the escort while the Hurricanes kill the bombers, etc. etc.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

Hey Sandokito, I was there with Skylon and we managed to get some off of you. But it was only the two of us...

I like AI bombers when there is a fairly large number of them. It is rare to see large human formations. I've flown many times with JG4, and have seen other squadrons do that too, with 6 - 8 bombers sometimes. But it is rare.

[Kling]

Reddog - You are the only one arguing here. I've long given you and Salmo empirical evidence, even showing you the exact moment right out of the bandwidth monitor when the server stops responding because of it. This is also the method I used to help TF improve upon the netcode so it could do 100 people in the 1st place (watching the bandwidth monitor for activity against the log). The server is full right now and has been for a little while and is stable. Want more proof? It's been like that all week.

You act like I'm at fault for the game's limitations. Now not only has there been a server provided that can be full to the hilt, now there's one with all the AI stuff also.

The server has crashed many times on the battle of france map and there are no AI there.
I still think its better to have two identical servers with 60players in each and big bomber formations.

Today as I was playing I was for the very first time bored while olaying as is it was constant low alt dogfighting. And people were asking why they removed the AI bombers because that is what kept people flying at higher alts.
Honestly are we not trying to replicate battle of britain here? To my knowledge there it was almost only bomber attacks with high alt fighting.

If people see two servers that are identical with 60 on one(max) and the other with 40 players but knowing that both these servers are identical they will for sure get a good experience on both.
And how are we going to expand the online plays with only one server running full real??
We have to prepare for more and more players!!

[ATAG_Bliss]

The server has crashed many times on the battle of france map and there are no AI there.
I still think its better to have two identical servers with 60players in each and big bomber formations.

Today as I was playing I was for the very first time bored while olaying as is it was constant low alt dogfighting. And people were asking why they removed the AI bombers because that is what kept people flying at higher alts.
Honestly are we not trying to replicate battle of britain here? To my knowledge there it was almost only bomber attacks with high alt fighting.

If people see two servers that are identical with 60 on one(max) and the other with 40 players but knowing that both these servers are identical they will for sure get a good experience on both.
And how are we going to expand the online plays with only one server running full real??
We have to prepare for more and more players!!

If the server crashed, it was because of steam. Looking at the bandwidth logs it's been streaming fine other than when it completely stopped for steam maintenance. When the server crashes because of too much AI, for instance, the bandwidth download side is still streaming while the upload quit (indicating the server is unresponsive). If there is a steam problem it quits streaming all together. So I think you are confusing 2 different things. I even remember reading about steam in chat a couple times this week, when it went down.

[Kling]

The easiest would be to make a poll and ask the community what they would like. After all the servers are for them and so are the monthly donations which go exactly to that, to pay the server fees. ;)

[Wulf]

I find the prospect of a reduction or perhaps even the elimination of AI deeply depressing. It's already rare to find aircraft above about 3,000 meters. You can cross the Channel at altitude on the server with 40+ players and not see another aircraft - not one. Not even another 109. Over the UK the airspace can appear like a desert. No squadrons of Spits rising up to smack you down just nothing. You're left to roam at will. This wasn't the case even 6 months ago. If the AI are removed, and there appear to be fewer about these days from what I can tell, I suspect the fight will go subterranean. And although it may now be possible to crew a bomber, bombers cant survive in isolation. One or two bombers bravely going forth, on their own, at altitude, will have no chance if they encounter fighters - crewed or not. The one great advantage with AI bombers is that they provide some sort of incentive for players to get up high and fight. Without them we have a low level DF game. And when I say low level I mean below 1000 meters for the most part. Ugh!

Maybe we should dispense with the historical aspects of the game altogether and just have landmass A and landmass B and fly whatever you like. Red or blue aircraft coming off the same spawn point - whatever floats your boat. Jesus Christ!

[ATAG_Bliss]

I find the prospect of a reduction or perhaps even the elimination of AI deeply depressing. It's already rare to find aircraft above about 3,000 meters. You can cross the Channel at altitude on the server with 40+ players and not see another aircraft - not one. Not even another 109. Over the UK the airspace can appear like a desert. No squadrons of Spits rising up to smack you down just nothing. You're left to roam at will. This wasn't the case even 6 months ago. If the AI are removed, and there appear to be fewer about these days from what I can tell, I suspect the fight will go subterranean. And although it may now be possible to crew a bomber, bombers cant survive in isolation. One or two bombers bravely going forth, on their own, at altitude, will have no chance if they encounter fighters - crewed or not. The one great advantage with AI bombers is that they provide some sort of incentive for players to get up high and fight. Without them we have a low level DF game. And when I say low level I mean below 1000 meters for the most part. Ugh!

Maybe we should dispense with the historical aspects of the game altogether and just have landmass A and landmass B and fly whatever you like. Red or blue aircraft coming off the same spawn point - whatever floats your boat. Jesus Christ!

Nothing has been limited. There are now 2 servers that cater to either type of player. One has all missions filled with AI, the other has none and supports 100 people stability. So don't worry, you can still play/fly on whatever you prefer. I figured people would be happy about it because this should quench both sides of the issue. One for people who like to fight against humans in MP, and the other for people who like AI and humans. It's still all there and available. So don't fret.

[ATAG_Bliss]

The easiest would be to make a poll and ask the community what they would like. After all the servers are for them and so are the monthly donations which go exactly to that, to pay the server fees. ;)

Or just have 2 servers set up catering to either type of player. (which is exactly what I did) ;)

[Kling]

Or just have 2 servers set up catering to either type of player. (which is exactly what I did) ;)

Yes and since that server is more or less empty in comparison, it kinda shows that people want to fly full real... ;)

[ATAG_Bliss]

Yes and since that server is more or less empty in comparison, it kinda shows that people want to fly full real... ;)

It is full switch + ex views. There was many people that can't afford to have track ir etc., that have complained in the past/recently about wanting to get in an English Channel mission but need/want external views to help them see. I know I and many others would only be using external views to take a screen shot etc. It most definitely will not help you in combat if you are used to the cock pit alone. There is no padlock on or any of that jazz. There is full engine management CEM. So I don't see what the problem is with external views for those folks. Can the complaint department stop for just one day please?

[Kling]

It is full switch + ex views. There was many people that can't afford to have track ir etc., that have complained in the past/recently about wanting to get in an English Channel mission but need/want external views to help them see. I know I and many others would only be using external views to take a screen shot etc. It most definitely will not help you in combat if you are used to the cock pit alone. There is no padlock on or any of that jazz. There is full engine management CEM. So I don't see what the problem is with external views for those folks. Can the complaint department stop for just one day please?

Your argument falls when you look at the server numbers. Besides, there is a difference between complaints and suggestsions/discussion.
I think ATAG should take pride in being able to support two full servers which we could if we wanted. People make connection between Clod and ATAG so its natural that ATAG servers are the most populsted ones.

Everyone is happy about TF4.3(99%) so we should take pride in it and make it better and better. Removing AI is a step in the wrong direction IMO and will make the server lose players. So far I didnt see anyone in favour of removing the AI so that leaves us with the option of finding a way to keep AI and at the same time the player numbers.

Salute

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

This is kind of crazy guys. The server has been full all week with high player counts even in North America prime time. It's been stable like a rock too. I've enjoyed uninterrupted flights on every mission I've played, something that would never happen with 100 players + AI. 9./JG52 just enjoyed several flights on FallRot where the server was full the entire duration of the mission and it didn't miss a beat. We should be celebrating how much the game has improved and how the player base has grown. I remember dark days years ago where 30 players online was the max and we seriously considered going back to 1946. Those days are long gone. :salute:

[Kling]

This is kind of crazy guys. The server has been full all week with high player counts even in North America prime time. It's been stable like a rock too. I've enjoyed uninterrupted flights on every mission I've played, something that would never happen with 100 players + AI. 9./JG52 just enjoyed several flights on FallRot where the server was full the entire duration of the mission and it didn't miss a beat. We should be celebrating how much the game has improved and how the player base has grown. I remember dark days years ago where 30 players online was the max and we seriously considered going back to 1946. Those days are long gone. :salute:

I meant server nrs on the second server ;)

[ATAG_Bliss]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about since steam just crashed. I was chatting in steam and noticed it said the message "high latency detected blah blah attempting to reconnect blah blah" so steam just had a hickup. So here's the bandwidth showing what steam does. You'll notice the blue line (downstream data dropped off also) which doesn't happen when the server is overloaded/unresponsive.

Edit: the 1st blip you see is the server rotating missions

http://i.imgur.com/Si3iSyS.png

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Bliss:

You deserve all kinds of respect for the work you do in keeping the servers running well, and building missons. Your knowledge is right up there. :thumbsup:

But...

You are saying there are two servers up, catering to both types.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

I don't believe having external views enabled on the server with AI aircraft is what most people who like the idea of AI would prefer.

I find enabling external views immediately moves a server into the arcade mode. No more bounces because people have perfect 360 degree views, you get people monitoring the enemy aircraft airfields to see when people are taking off, they do searches looking for enemy aircraft, then determine where they are, etc. All things which detract in my opinion from the realistic environment and realistic play styles which having some AI bomber formations creates.

I haven't seen a single post on this board asking for external views to be enabled. I don't think people want them.

I'd urge you to remove the external views on the server 2.

Thanks for your great work. :salute:

[jaydee]

Bliss:

You deserve all kinds of respect for the work you do in keeping the servers running well, and building missons. Your knowledge is right up there. :thumbsup:

But...

You are saying there are two servers up, catering to both types.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

I don't believe having external views enabled on the server with AI aircraft is what most people who like the idea of AI would prefer.

I find enabling external views immediately moves a server into the arcade mode. No more bounces because people have perfect 360 degree views, you get people monitoring the enemy aircraft airfields to see when people are taking off, they do searches looking for enemy aircraft, then determine where they are, etc. All things which detract in my opinion from the realistic environment and realistic play styles which having some AI bomber formations creates.

I haven't seen a single post on this board asking for external views to be enabled. I don't think people want them.

I'd urge you to remove the external views on the server 2.

Thanks for your great work. :salute:
I agree with all that Buzz has said here.
Because of my time zone,I regularly see only 5 or 6 other players online. It becomes a very big Map with only 3 players per side. Worse still,not everyone is in the air at the same time. At least having the AI present gives me something to focus on instead of nothing.
@Bliss,you have explained your reason for removing AI. I understand why !....But please,leave server 2 the same settings. I don't want to fly with externals enabled,it would be a step backwards for me and I wont enjoy it.
Respectfully ,jaydee ~S~

[CptJackSparrow]

My two cents. =)

I came from IL2, having played it since the demo in '01. And after all those years, one thing that I could always count on, be it on Warclouds or Zekes v Wildcats, was that the server was stable. It used to irk to me to end when I'd manage to get 10 of "The Captains" online and formed up only to have the server tell us 'naw, im going to crash now'. After the debacle that was the CLoD release, I am just now getting half my guys interested in CLoD again (thanks to Team Fusion) and the last thing I'd want is to lead them into a unstable environment.

Having said that, I can see both sides of the AI dispute. I worked with Lowengrin on some aspects of DCG for IL2, and loved a good coop campaign, but the horrid AI always drove us right back to MP. (honestly we only used coops to tweak settings and found them a great primer for new folks or guests.) I hate AI for it's all knowing, no blackout, flaps at 300IAS, bat wing flying, cant shoot for shit or can hit you in the face with 2 bullets from full deflection at closure speeds nearing 800mph. I've played on the ATAG externals on server, and I assumed it was like in 1946 where once the wheels left the ground it booted you back into the cockpit and you stayed there. Was great for taxiing out, but kept the F6 spamming (snap to nearest enemy external) folks away. Was a little let down that it was full time externals, but not everyone has been tooling around in this franchise for over a decade, as some of us have. Hell I had to run minimal icons (yay Warclouds) before I got my Lasik and started playing on a 55" screen. So I understand the need of gameplay aids.

I like knowing that damn near every encounter I have on ATAG's server is me and another human. But, and here is me being slightly hypocritical, I think tiny amounts of AI is a ok thing, as long as it doesn't impact stability. I completely get the need for new folks to have something they can shoot at and learn the ropes over home turf, and I support that. It's a dying genre, and new folks need support.


I'll keep supporting ATAG financially no matter what changes are made. =)

I'll send cookies, bonus cookies, if some genius in Team Fusion figures out a way to stop folks from creating a new plane when it goes badly and I end up shooting down a AI, which wasn't AI a moment ago, but is now. Half the friends I made back in '46 were from rivalries in WC and ZvW. We knew whom we killed. =p

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

I have to agree with Buzzsaw! I would go into ATAG server 2, particularly during the daytime when the servers are less populated, but only if it were 'full real' and another bonus is 'no stats' for server 2.

[JG5_Emil]

I read this thread with interest because I had a similar idea about having large AI formations (to fulfill my lust for a realistic BOB feel) but in retrospect I think it is a step backwards.

If the server can handle 100+ players then there are more than enough people to create a realistic air battle from the BOB; have a 30 Human bomber formation plus escorts and intercepting RAF fighters it just comes down to people wanting to do that and getting organized. If that is a direction people want to see the server go in then it might be worth looking at the missions to encourage that style of flying and make solo/fullball fighting more difficult or less rewarding (read points/winning the map etc).

I would love to see a full blow air battle being raged over the bombers and going on as they get further inland, solitary pilots in fighters or bombers would get creamed so would have to form up together. I also like the idea of any rewards only being granted on a successful landing or at least surviving (not being captured).

It seems to me all of this is now possible the limiting factor is us :)

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

I read this thread with interest because I had a similar idea about having large AI formations (to fulfill my lust for a realistic BOB feel) but in retrospect I think it is a step backwards.

If the server can handle 100+ players then there are more than enough people to create a realistic air battle from the BOB; have a 30 Human bomber formation plus escorts and intercepting RAF fighters it just comes down to people wanting to do that and getting organized. If that is a direction people want to see the server go in then it might be worth looking at the missions to encourage that style of flying and make solo/fullball fighting more difficult or less rewarding (read points/winning the map etc).

I would love to see a full blow air battle being raged over the bombers and going on as they get further inland, solitary pilots in fighters or bombers would get creamed so would have to form up together. I also like the idea of any rewards only being granted on a successful landing or at least surviving (not being captured).

It seems to me all of this is now possible the limiting factor is us :)

Your idea of a 30 bomber human formation is a great one... but the fact is, you won't find any server with that number of dedicated bomber pilots on one side.

It simply doesn't happen. In fact, its a bit of an event when 5 human bombers get up together.

Its a simple fact not enough players want to fly the bombers.

[JG5_Emil]

Your idea of a 30 bomber human formation is a great one... but the fact is, you won't find any server with that number of dedicated bomber pilots on one side.

It simply doesn't happen. In fact, its a bit of an event when 5 human bombers get up together.

Its a simple fact not enough players want to fly the bombers.

It might be but maybe it's that they're harder to learn or there isn't the reward or something. I always fancied flying the He-111 so this week I made a basic mission to practice and it took me ages to work out the controls and bomb sight and I still haven't got it completely figured out. I'm sure there is more we can do to encourage flying them and I'm not a natural bomber pilot (always flew 109s and 190s) but I can see the excitement of getting a big formation together regardless of what I fly.

If we had a mission to fly to a target further in land solo bombers wouldn't stand a chance so to win the map there would be no other option than to group up, once the RAF see that the bombers are in bigger groups wouldn't they also have to resort to teamwork? Especially since the gunners are now much better. The LW 109 pilots wouldn't be getting their trade on teh deck near the airfields so they would stay with the bombers as that would be where the kills would be hopefully.

Maybe it's a pipe dream but I feel the missions will dictate the playing style.

[Kling]

It might be but maybe it's that they're harder to learn or there isn't the reward or something. I always fancied flying the He-111 so this week I made a basic mission to practice and it took me ages to work out the controls and bomb sight and I still haven't got it completely figured out. I'm sure there is more we can do to encourage flying them and I'm not a natural bomber pilot (always flew 109s and 190s) but I can see the excitement of getting a big formation together regardless of what I fly.

If we had a mission to fly to a target further in land solo bombers wouldn't stand a chance so to win the map there would be no other option than to group up, once the RAF see that the bombers are in bigger groups wouldn't they also have to resort to teamwork? Especially since the gunners are now much better. The LW 109 pilots wouldn't be getting their trade on teh deck near the airfields so they would stay with the bombers as that would be where the kills would be hopefully.

Maybe it's a pipe dream but I feel the missions will dictate the playing style.

Unfortunately its only a pipe dream.
We have to look at it from a realitic perspective not a "if only" perspective.
Nothing will stop you or anyone else from bombers even if there are big AI formations as well on the server. ;)

Salute

[JG5_Emil]

Unfortunately its only a pipe dream.
We have to look at it from a realitic perspective not a "if only" perspective.
Nothing will stop you or anyone else from bombers even if there are big AI formations as well on the server. ;)

Salute

Well a big AI formation would cut the max number of players down from what I understand.

Why not test out the 2nd server with big AI formation maps and see if people like them? I'm not against AI I just don't see the point in small AI formations.

I'd like to see a London attack mission or Biggin Hill/Maidstone attack mission where the LW are encouraged to make formations for their own safety and in turn that would (as I said before) encourage the RAF to do the same and see what people think about that.

It would also be worth making a thread to find out how many people like flying bombers and what kind of missions they would be interested in.

[Kling]

I support your idea of having big bomber formations on the second server and see what people like. But noone will join it as long as external views are on. So it needs to be a copy of server one with the only difference that it has AI bombers enabled. Well I know which one I would choose.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Server two is now 'Full Switch'. I just did a training session on it. It was running Salmos Homeplate mission and has lots of wind. TO was great fun and the first MP mission I have tried that has it.

I think having two servers set up like this is great and will encourage me to fly Bombers and Blue when server one is full or during the day time.

Many thanks Bliss........:thumbsup:

[SoW Reddog]

Well having the second server be PITCH black at night time isn't really all that helpful...

[Kling]

Great! Well Im at work and on my phone. Can someone stsrt a thread to notify the community about server two now being up and running with AI bombers!

[Kling]

Well having the second server be PITCH black at night time isn't really all that helpful...

hahaha really?!?!

[SoW Reddog]

Well it was for me and my wingman who just tried it. Thought I'd been Pk'd at first, but then popped cockpit lighting on and low and behold I could see the instruments. Switched to Storm of War server instead.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

I would imagine that the missions on server 2 will be refined depending on numbers using it and feedback. If no one joins server 2, or it has a very low player count over the coming weeks, then the whole debate regards removing or keeping AI on server 1 becomes somewhat irrelevant.

It's up to the community now, we have great missions with and without AI and, apart from the AI, the only other difference is one server has stats and the other doesn't - I just hope that 'stats' are not the driving force behind server choice - what a shame if that were the case.

[Kling]

I would imagine that the missions on server 2 will be refined depending on numbers using it and feedback. If no one joins server 2, or it has a very low player count over the coming weeks, then the whole debate regards removing or keeping AI on server 1 becomes somewhat irrelevant.

It's up to the community now, we have great missions with and without AI and, apart from the AI, the only other difference is one server has stats and the other doesn't - I just hope that 'stats' are not the driving force behind server choice - what a shame if that were the case.

I dont think stats are a driving force but rather the missions themselves ;)

[jaydee]

@Bliss.
Thanks ! ~S~

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

Thanks to Bliss for a stable server. :thumbsup:

This was not an easy decision but IMO it is the right one if we want to grow the community. People who want AI can get their fix over on server two and people who want to fly against human pilots on server one with a stable experience.

With the numbers we've seen of late, there are more options and many pilots are learning to fly bombers for the first time (and they like it!) In our squad all of us have Stuka training and half can fly 111's and 88's. This two server situation encourages cross training in server one. It's all good! :salute:

[Kling]

So without high alt bomber formations, what will drag the fight up to and above 1000m? A lonely human bomber here and there surely doesnt. I guess we all look for different realism.

[JG5_Emil]

So without high alt bomber formations, what will drag the fight up to and above 1000m? A lonely human bomber here and there surely doesnt. I guess we all look for different realism.

I think time will tell on that, if more people start flying bombers which I have a feeling they will we might get that to happen. We flew a brief 5 ship Stuka attack last night which was great fun until a spitfire came along and ruined our day. Note to self: Last in the formation...first to get shot :D

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

I think time will tell on that, if more people start flying bombers which I have a feeling they will we might get that to happen. We flew a brief 5 ship Stuka attack last night which was great fun until a spitfire came along and ruined our day. Note to self: Last in the formation...first to get shot :D

Ha,ha yep Emil, that was great fun. I'm in agreement that with a stable 100 person server, there will be more human bomber pilots than ever before. :thumbsup: For those who still prefer AI, there is server 2. The best of both worlds. :salute:

[No.54 Ghost (KL-G)]

you will never get the battle of britain experience without AI.
the day we can have 50 to 100+ bombers with fighter escort will be the first day we will get even close to the experience.
having only human players will, as been stated before result in low level dog fighting and that is fun every now and then but its not the battle of britain.
the atag server has become a big version of the AX dogfight server with full real settings and a lot more players which is fine if that´s what people want.

in my opinion its more fun with big formations of bombers. it forces people to get up from the deck and enables for a more dynamic battle.
a few bombers wont have that effect. and lets face it there are not anywhere near enough players that want to fly the bombers.

[Mysticpuma]

So without high alt bomber formations, what will drag the fight up to and above 1000m? A lonely human bomber here and there surely doesnt. I guess we all look for different realism.

I can appreciate your POV Kling. My only real online experience before CloD was on the Warclouds server. Often there would be guys getting together for B-25 raids and I, along with others, would fly high escort aboard my beloved P-47.

I have rarely flown online in Clod, as I usually play single player, but I decided to get into it.

So my first three missions involved getting into the Hurricane, taking off, listening and talking on TS as I ascended to around 27000 feet ( memories of B n Z in the P-47).

Well, I flew around for about 40 minutes on each sortie...and saw bugger all.

Eventually I decided to fly around 10000 feet and started to see some contacts.

Later I saw that virtually all the action is taking part on the deck, but coming from a P-47 background, I find it cuts right across the grain having to fly down.low, just to get any action.

I do miss the high altitude escort missions, maybe a few air spawn areas could entice some more bomber pilots?

MP

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

So without high alt bomber formations, what will drag the fight up to and above 1000m? A lonely human bomber here and there surely doesnt. I guess we all look for different realism.

A reasonable person would conclude that when you keep getting killed down on the deck you should fly higher. Also, if that sole human bomber is what is destroying your objectives than what good is it to fly low? Of course not everybody plays to the objectives, they just want to shoot their guns at something.


you will never get the battle of britain experience without AI.
the day we can have 50 to 100+ bombers with fighter escort will be the first day we will get even close to the experience.
having only human players will, as been stated before result in low level dog fighting and that is fun every now and then but its not the battle of britain.
the atag server has become a big version of the AX dogfight server with full real settings and a lot more players which is fine if that´s what people want.

in my opinion its more fun with big formations of bombers. it forces people to get up from the deck and enables for a more dynamic battle.
a few bombers wont have that effect. and lets face it there are not anywhere near enough players that want to fly the bombers.

The Battle of Britain was much more than huge bomber raids on London. There are lots of small unit actions that are much better suited to what is possible on a 100 player multiplayer server. A large bomber formation like that would have a fighter escort of 2 or 3x that size. So sending a large bomber group out without anywhere near the amount of the escorts it would have is not the BoB experience either.

[No.54 Ghost (KL-G)]

maybe not, but it will be a lot closer then dogfighting at low level near hawkninge.

[Kling]

A reasonable person would conclude that when you keep getting killed down on the deck you should fly higher. Also, if that sole human bomber is what is destroying your objectives than what good is it to fly low? Of course not everybody plays to the objectives, they just want to shoot their guns at something.



The Battle of Britain was much more than huge bomber raids on London. There are lots of small unit actions that are much better suited to what is possible on a 100 player multiplayer server. A large bomber formation like that would have a fighter escort of 2 or 3x that size. So sending a large bomber group out without anywhere near the amount of the escorts it would have is not the BoB experience either.

HG i really enjoy your missions so dont take it as an attck on your missions! But its fair to say that even with 100 people on the server lately, the game play has become more arcadish with players not going above 1000m.

Only because we cant get 3 times the escort nrs escorting the bombers doesnt meat we should not have any bombers at all. ;)

Its trial and error! ;)
Salute

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

I don't see it as an attack on my missions. But I will NOT design missions that are going to lag out and waste people's time. If the server operator wants to run the server for the max amount of players I am not going to put AI in them. I am not going to be responsible for crashing the server. If ATAG wanted versions of my missions with AI I would not provide them unless the server they were going on was capped at a level that could support them. If players want to fight low in the mud, that's their choice. Just as if they want to fly high or bomb objectives. If you want big bomber formations organize coops with like minded squads or flyers and host them. I am not saying I would not enjoy that from time to time, I used to run those type of events on SoW.

I can only speak for 9./JG52 but we were sick & tired of climbing to altitude and patrolling only to have the server lag out because AI spawned in. Then we wait 15-20 minutes to see if the server comes back and if so then we have to try and reform all over again. Much of our very limited time together as a squad was being wasted by the server not being stable. Since the AI have been removed that has not happened once. As a result I think I can safely say that we would not waste our time on a server that has AI and a lot of players. It's proven at this point that AI + lots of players does not work.

I think a lot of people are not being honest about what was really going on with the AI. Players learned the spawn points, timings, and routes of the AI. They would circle the area and jump them as soon as they spawned before the escort could even move to the rally point. They rarely even crossed the channel before all being shot down. Then everybody went low again until the next wave spawned. Let's not sugarcoat it.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I think a lot of people are not being honest about what was really going on with the AI. Players learned the spawn points, timings, and routes of the AI. They would circle the area and jump them as soon as they spawned before the escort could even move to the rally point. They rarely even crossed the channel before all being shot down. Then everybody went low again until the next wave spawned. Let's not sugarcoat it.

This is true.
The amount of coding required to have a more randomized bomber vectors might be prohibitive.

Although I've gotta say that the old "Cap Griz Nez" to "Hawkinge" route, again and again, lacked.... imagination.

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

maybe not, but it will be a lot closer then dogfighting at low level near hawkninge.

The problem is that what you describe as BOB is not possible on line in a public server. A large bomber formation with proper escort would populate the whole server and there would be no room for opposition. The mission makers here have certainly tested the limits of what is possible and over on server 2 you can still fly/shoot on the six of an AI bomer formation if that's what you like to do.

For reasons explained many times over, server one is now zero AI and low and behold it's still always close to full and is stable! Within this scenerio, we now have the choice to fly bombers, and recruit others to do so for conducting raids. So far it's working out well based on the numbers between the 2 servers? Personally IMHO, I think most pilots prefer flying against human pilots but that's just me.

[Kling]

I dont see really understand that logic. Only because we cant replicate the whole scenario with 100s and 100s of bombers with escort doesnt mean we should have non at all.
I dont think anyone wants so many AI fighters. here I agree with you. But we can have BOTH AI and plenty of human players by reducing the nrs of players on the server. The ones who dont get in then spill over to server two. Players wont be lost they will still be playing.

Atm im wondering if it could be the case that when people dont get in because the server is full (which is great btw) they would rather sit and wait until there is a slot open than joining the other server.

Its great to have a full servers but I personally believe the player experience is better with 60 human players and some big AI bomber formations (no fighters) that can be attacked/escorted and also bring the fight up to higher altitudes, than having 100s of players all circling down at low alt.

It comes down to having 100 players on one server and none on the other(as people sit and wait for an open slot) or having two identical servers(both with AI bombers and lower max players) so everyone can join without caring which server they are on because they are identical. I think within a few months even 100 players on a server wont be enough as new players show up daily. (Which of course is a great thing) ;)

Some of the best experiences and "closest" to real life scenario I had was attacking big bomber formations heading for actual targets escorted by a group of human flown allies.

Besides, i doubt anyo e can tell the difference when actually flying whther the server has 60 players on concentrated to look for bombers to attck/escort or 100players online spread out all over the map.

Just my 5 cents ;)

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

I dont see really understand that logic. Only because we cant replicate the whole scenario with 100s and 100s of bombers with escort doesnt mean we should have non at all.
I dont think anyone wants so many AI fighters. here I agree with you. But we can have BOTH AI and plenty of human players by reducing the nrs of players on the server. The ones who dont get in then spill over to server two. Players wont be lost they will still be playing.

Atm im wondering if it could be the case that when people dont get in because the server is full (which is great btw) they would rather sit and wait until there is a slot open than joining the other server.

Its great to have a full servers but I personally believe the player experience is better with 60 human players and some big AI bomber formations (no fighters) that can be attacked/escorted and also bring the fight up to higher altitudes, than having 100s of players all circling down at low alt.

It comes down to having 100 players on one server and none on the other(as people sit and wait for an open slot) or having two identical servers(both with AI bombers and lower max players) so everyone can join without caring which server they are on because they are identical. I think within a few months even 100 players on a server wont be enough as new players show up daily. (Which of course is a great thing) ;)

Some of the best experiences and "closest" to real life scenario I had was attacking big bomber formations heading for actual targets escorted by a group of human flown allies.

Besides, i doubt anyo e can tell the difference when actually flying whther the server has 60 players on concentrated to look for bombers to attck/escort or 100players online spread out all over the map.

Just my 5 cents ;)

I understand what you are saying but I would never sacrifice human pilots for AI, but that's just me.

The beauty of the two server system Bliss has set up is that people who want to have AI bomber formations with a lower number of humans (60 is it?) can have that and server one can be full 100 human and a great experiment to see if we can pick up the bomber mantle and hopefully create something exciting and new. This way no one is "forced' into one scenerio. There is harmony for all. :thumbsup:

If some people really are that passionate about the AI bomber formations, then they will populate server two and we won't have the one full one empty situation?

[Kling]

I understand what you are saying but I would never sacrifice human pilots for AI, but that's just me.

The beauty of the two server system Bliss has set up is that people who want to have AI bomber formations with a lower number of humans (60 is it?) can have that and server one can be full 100 human and a great experiment to see if we can pick up the bomber mantle and hopefully create something exciting and new. This way no one is "forced' into one scenerio. There is harmony for all. :thumbsup:

If some people really are that passionate about the AI bomber formations, then they will populate server two and we won't have the one full one empty situation?

Yup I agree! Server two needs a little bit of advertising though ;)

[SoW Reddog]

You're right, there is a choice. Choice is good. Just don't try to argue that 100 players on ATAG 1 and 0 on ATAG 2 speaks scientifically about peoples wishes re AI. Its a completely specious argument. Personally I'll fly on Storm of War which has a much better ping for me anyway from now on but that's "just me".

[Kling]

You're right, there is a choice. Choice is good. Just don't try to argue that 100 players on ATAG 1 and 0 on ATAG 2 speaks scientifically about peoples wishes re AI. Its a completely specious argument. Personally I'll fly on Storm of War which has a much better ping for me anyway from now on but that's "just me".

Storm of war need advertising as well Reddog!

[9./JG52 Hans Gruber]

Storm of war need advertising as well Reddog!

In a forum titled ATAG server missions?

[SoW Reddog]

Good point Gruber (Nice shot last night by the way - Radiator 1st shot!). I'm not sure where another server should be publicised on this forum, given it's not a specific event.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Good point Gruber (Nice shot last night by the way - Radiator 1st shot!). I'm not sure where another server should be publicised on this forum, given it's not a specific event.

Probably on that other server's forum and not the ATAG forum. This forum is not going to turn into a my server is better than yours type of forum. Squads and servers have a place to announce an advertise for themselves that they can use.

[speedone]

Without judgement I will only speak for myself. The last few times I was online I was wondering why there was so little 'bomber-action' going on... I myself like to take off, steadily climb to some height and wait for radar to call out the bomber formations. If possible I will fly an intercept course and try to find the bombers. The main goal is to defeat their attempt to destroy their objectives. When I get bored I dive down on some enemy (human) adversaries and get myself killed in the process (at least, most often ;-) ) I like this mix of me against AI flying in 'historical' formations and mixing it up with some human opponents.

As of lately, I've been online a few times (mostly afternoons in Europe so max, 14-20 players online), this has been my experience; I take off, steadily cimb to some height and wait for the radar reports. Radar reports are 99% about single fighters, that are hard to find, mostly fly low and are very far apart. Result; I fly for 40-50 minutes to arrive at my fisrt contact only to find it already being attacked by 4 friendlies. I hang back, not to shoulder shoot and that's it. Next contact takes about 20 minutes; same story. This time I get a 0.01 shared kill.... No sign of any bomber formations. I get bored. Log off.

I'm not very optimistic about flying on an online server with bomber formations that have only less than 10 human players online. If in the evening the servers are full, It's a bit like Quake in the air, where everybody flies into big furballs and dogs it out.

I do understand the problems with server crashes (maybe 2 servers with 50-75 humans max + AI would be an option?), but as it stands currently, I think my interest in online flying on the ATAG server will decline rapidly, unfortunately :-(

[Kling]

In a forum titled ATAG server missions?

I didnt say here!

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

Without judgement I will only speak for myself. The last few times I was online I was wondering why there was so little 'bomber-action' going on... I myself like to take off, steadily climb to some height and wait for radar to call out the bomber formations. If possible I will fly an intercept course and try to find the bombers. The main goal is to defeat their attempt to destroy their objectives. When I get bored I dive down on some enemy (human) adversaries and get myself killed in the process (at least, most often ;-) ) I like this mix of me against AI flying in 'historical' formations and mixing it up with some human opponents.

As of lately, I've been online a few times (mostly afternoons in Europe so max, 14-20 players online), this has been my experience; I take off, steadily cimb to some height and wait for the radar reports. Radar reports are 99% about single fighters, that are hard to find, mostly fly low and are very far apart. Result; I fly for 40-50 minutes to arrive at my fisrt contact only to find it already being attacked by 4 friendlies. I hang back, not to shoulder shoot and that's it. Next contact takes about 20 minutes; same story. This time I get a 0.01 shared kill.... No sign of any bomber formations. I get bored. Log off.

I'm not very optimistic about flying on an online server with bomber formations that have only less than 10 human players online. If in the evening the servers are full, It's a bit like Quake in the air, where everybody flies into big furballs and dogs it out.

I do understand the problems with server crashes (maybe 2 servers with 50-75 humans max + AI would be an option?), but as it stands currently, I think my interest in online flying on the ATAG server will decline rapidly, unfortunately :-(

You are a perfect candidate for server two. :thumbsup:

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

You are a perfect candidate for server two. :thumbsup:



Server 2 is currently only running Salmo's Homeplate mission which has an abundant number of AI for Red but absolutely none for Blue. The blue players that did enter the server left shortly afterwards.

Whatever the reasons, server two is just not attracting enough Red or Blue players to stimulate interest- I was on it escorting axis bombers and familiarising my self with the 109 variants hoping to see Red players join but 'zilch'.

It appears that a DF server with stats is what the majority want but 'off peak' player numbers do seem to have fallen as well.

[ATAG_Bliss]

The player numbers haven't dropped off during non peak times. Tbh the server has never had more people ever throughout the day. I have bandwidth logs (usage) for every single month of every year the server has been up. It's basically full right now and the US times are now showing 60-70 players on at the same time. And it's just the middle of the week. It hasn't dropped at all. It's massively gained players.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

That's greta Bliss! Nice to see the numbers rise!

[Roblex]

Six of us moved to the Second server last night and were rewarded by the sight of around 18 bombers at 16,000ft escorted by 9 higher 109s. Suddenly it was 'Battle Of Britain' instead of 'Air-Quake'! I must say the AI 109s seem to be more afraid of Goering than the human ones; every time someone dove away with three 109s on his tail they would eventually break off and return to the bombers as per standing orders :D Still, it was enough to keep you honest when attacking the bombers.

One thing puzzled me. I don't know if it is something written into the mission or something new from the patch but very few kills were credited to anyone. I know I myself left two bombers spewing thick black smoke from one engine mid-channel and moved on without looking again because that usually means they will die very shortly but I never got any credit from them or the two others I left badly damaged & streaming. We did not even get points! I believe that of the six of us only one was credited with a kill (and that may have been a 109) despite most of us being very experienced pilots including Talisman, Dutch & Boot (new to us but ex military pilot & good). Perhaps they turned back & the script allowed them to survive if they reached France?

[56RAF_klem]

I just trawled through this thread after a few rumblings in our Squad against the lack of AI bombers.

Entirely my own 2c/2p but IMHO......

It seems to me the main problem is that the mission builders are battling against two mindsets.

One mindset doesn't seem to mind if there is no AI and wants as many players on line as possible (who wouldn't?). The other wants AI formations to better represent the BoB because that is what they are looking for and very few players want to fly bombers, well not enough anyway. Meaningful AI or no AI with max players seem to be the options, given the limitations of online play whatever the causes.

What's behind these preferences? Again, IMHO.....

The 'max player/no AI' group seem to be happy with random fights because that is virtually all they are going to get because not enough people want to fly bombers. Some Squads are willing to put up say 4 bombers plus 6 escorts but even if 3 Squads were to do that and a couple more ran organised escort or fighter sweeps (which doesn't happen btw) there are another 50 guys just looking for a dogfight, perching or vulching, i.e. collecting kills. Some guys may run one or two lone bombers but havng no AI and only few human bombers inevitably creates a dogfight server mentality or very near. Well, that's ok if that's what you want. No problem. Some Squads try to make it more than that but are mostly whistling in the wind. They'll get some satisfaction from trying but it could be so much more if the entire server population was focussed on objectives but many aren't. Many guys complain that they are not getting "the BoB experience" and that is because too many are not willing to fly historically, the "BoB way". That takes focussed, organised group activity, i.e. "Squadrons" whether formal or organised on the night. It just doesn't happen enough.

The players preferring AI bomber formations have to accept lower player numbers for the reasons explained until someone cracks the coding/Network/Steam issues. We can reasonably assume that they want the AI formations because they intend to find them and shoot them down. However, there is no guarantee that high AI formations will attract many players, especially singles because it's tedious going it alone and just so much easier to get into a dogfight than get organised, spend twenty minutes or more getting to height and position, use the radar and go find those high bomber formations. Same thing with escorting. Lone dog-fighters and guys that like to perch alone or in pairs, or just sweep and kill don't stop AI formations and that is a waste of the intended server purpose. After all, why have AI formations if guys aren't going to go after them. Why create the "BoB experience" if in fact too few people want to play that way.

It's easy to see which type of server attracts players: the one with already the most players, but this is a false indicator of game satisfaction for many and is where many of us are missing a trick.

When a lone player joins a server he may be looking for a few fights or a couple of bomber kills or perhaps a lone run in a Ju88. Or perhaps he wants to get together with a few other guys and go find some fun. Sometimes a few will fly bombers, sometimes they will go after the mission objectives, sometimes not. Usually the majority are scattered around in twos or threes, grabbing a kill or two, sometimes coming together now and again, sometimes not. This is not the "BoB experience". That's perfectly alright if those players accept that it is they themselves who are causing that kind of game-play.

When a Squad joins a server they generally have a different purpose in mind. The fact that they joined a Squad suggests they want organisation, planning, cameraderie, mutual support, and a sense of achievement both individually and as a unit. That's the Squad mindset. How do they best get that? Well, the odd fighter sweep is fun but mostly they will form up, go after mission objectives, escort their AI bomber formations or conversely attack bomber formations and taking on the escorts IF THEY KNOW that is the type of game-play they are in. They will know that they will get the kind of action they are looking for. And that's where server 2 (AI) comes in. If more Squads would use that server where they can apply that mindset and achieve that kind of game-play the server would be populated (80 players ~= 8 to 13 typical Squads) and a damn sight more interesting than being one of only a couple of Squads in the 'no AI' server with no real objectives. Of course, once the numbers crank up, lone players will join for opportunistic kills and we could only hope to discourage that and draw them into Squads or temporary units. Some players might selfishly perch and take advantage of the server mindset but they would soon develop a reputation for malicious game-play. If admins are on they could even kick them off. It's impossible to force a particular game-play on players but if the weight is in one direction it could just work.

So just maybe we Squads and loners willing to group up or attach themselves to a Squad could try that and see how it works out? There will be many hours when Squads will not be around in numbers but that will at least leave AI formations for the other guys that need them during quiet time zones. It may even encourage those players to get together more. European evenings and American evenings are likely to be the most popular Squad times.

It's really up to us to see the potential of these servers and the advantages/pitfalls of chosen game-play. Used in the best context they can be very rewarding and we should remember that groups of guys are selflessly creating these for us. We should be supporting them and making the best use of their work rather than complaining without really thinking things through.

[JG4_sKylon]

I appreciate that ATAG#1 has no AI (or at least some missions don´t have it?).
In the last weeks, everytime we (JG4) flew with several bombers escorted by fighters, the server crashed when the bombers activated the bombs.
So 10-15 players organized, took off, flew the long way to target and shortly before getting rewarded for the efforts the server was gone leaving a bunch of guys really p****d off.

This is currently not happening, so we are motivated again to start coordinated bomber runs and play the objectives instead of just man some fighters and search the reds, which are flying very low most of the time.

My observation of the last days is this:

- we start with Bombers (Ju87/88), escorted by fighters, going for ship convoy
- we don´t get attacked by red fighters while flying to target area high
- Bombers get attacked after they attacked their targets in a dive bombing run and rtb low

My 2 cents: please Keep the servers like they are now.

:salute:

[Little_D]

Hi gents,

interesting thread, for me the biggest problem is not the question AI yes or no, it is this damn low turn and burn fight. i wrote it more then often in this forum, but nobody is listening or whant to change it, because ATAG is a server where everybody can do what they want, even when this destroy the gameplay of others, but this is ok, the main reason why nobody is flying high is the fu... vulching is allowed think. why? because it leed the fight away from the target and put it over the damn airfields. in the good old times on Warbirds of Prey vulching was not allowed and what happens? you could find the most fights over the targets, because there you know the enemy is or will be and this between alts from deck up to 9000m over the target. will this ever happen on ATAG, that you finde 20+ or even more enemy over a target at different alts that is to protect? no because every idiot is going to vulche the bases for fast fights insteed of cover the target.

so ATAG dont whant a rule thats stop vulching ok, than put so many AAA to the spawnbases that it is a kamikaze mission if you try to atack a spawnbases. if you still whant to have the possibillety for the acardegamer to vulch then make a max of two spawnbases that have less AAA so there can start the vuchingparty. when for the players it is no longer possible to vulch the bases, they will concentrate on the targets and cover them at all alts, and than you have your 20+ doghfights at all alts over the targets.

i know vulching was historical, but not like it is done on the server!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it was the dangerus missions a fighterpilot could fly and it was an in and out atack and no low furball over the bases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but i know for the fast acardegamer the long turn and burn fights over the bases are historical.

so maby ATAG or the missionmakers could think about the idea to make spawnbases with so havy AAA that it is not possible to vulch and make 2 bases where it is possible, this will bring the fights to the point where they should be, over the target and bring it to high alt too.

some other thing is i like ATAG a lot and i think it is time that ATAG seperates from other server and go on to historical mission server server insteed of a better acardegamer server. i mean we have so nice maps from Gruber, Reddog, etc. but it all comes down even with this nice missions to one thing: low turn and burn doghfights over enemy bases in acardestyle. so the second question is: wy the hell Team Fusion put so many time to make the FM/DM better and fixed the high alt FM, when everybody still makes this low and slow furballs?

and an othe thing: everybody says we need to bring mor new people in, this is ok. but what we whant? acardegamer or simplyers for this comunity. CoD is the next level over 1946 so if there is a newbee he has a hard learncurve but this it how it is. if we make all we can to make it so easy for new players, we will get what we deserver, stupit acardegamer or x-box pilots and with this sooner or later this or later flightsims will die. a pilot that is realy interested in flying CoD and learn how to fly, will have the patience to learn, if he has not the patience he is on the wrong place, sounds hard but is the thrue. more new players means not that it is always good!!! balancing between quality and quantity is importent


sorry for my bad english and possible missspelling :-)

regards

Little_D

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

@Little_D - good low level flak is the answer. TF spent a long time makgin the flak work... now the mission makers are taking out...


I've got some missions I've made with lots of low level AA defences. You can't vulch airfields in these missions.
I'll host one for you next time I see you online.

[Little_D]

Hi Phil,

this is what we need, havy protected spawnbases, so the fight goes there where it has to be, over the targets.

regards

Little_D

[ATAG_Snapper]

Good points, Little_D! :salute:

I tend to fly at historical altitudes (25+ angels), but I'd be first to admit it's a lonely mission. I rarely find anyone else up there, even with a full server. When the radar works it usually works very well. The new patch (TF 4.3) makes the contacts easier to spot, so I go hunting for the human-flown He111's and Ju88's that cross the Channel on their mission objectives. Usually they're alone with no fighter escort, but the beefed up AI gunners make them more of a challenge to successfully attack without sustains too much damage. And those Ju88's are FAST.

I will start flying on Server 2 more often now. Hopefully others will join me, especially if Server 1 is near-full. Although deck-level dogfighting is fun, I prefer the high-altitude bomber intercepts and contrail dogfighting even more.

[Kling]

Personally on server two I think its great with AI bombers. Put them at 20 000 feet but WITHOUT AI escort. if the server has max 70players and only 3-4 human 109s escort the bombers there will be one hell of a fight close to the bombers!

Im really convinced this is the way to go. Let the air quakers fly server one and let those who want historical gameplay play on server 2 but without AI fighters. They cant shoot anyway so they only take up resources. it sill be deadly enough to attack bombers now anyway with or without AI escort. Even ONE human escort will be enough to disrupt your attacks on the bombers.

Snapper, can you start a thread highlighting server 2? I think most people are not aware of it.

[Little_D]

Hi Snapper,

you are right flying at 8000m is a flight where you dont see any enemy. yeasterday i had i flight with my wingman Flügelbieger on Hans Grubers Fall red/yellow. we had about 1 hour 10 minutes flightime at 5000m and saw nothing, exept other high 109 as usual. then we go down, because we get borried and what we saw lots of enemys on the deck. some other thing i dont understand is, why ATAG whants to be an acardeserver like this russien island maps doghfightserver. because we have so many good pilots i know from Warbirds of Prey on the server, that flow in the old times at high alt and for the missions, but now fly low because it makes no sence to go high.

to bring the fights high you dont need AI bombers, stop vulching and the rest comes from allown over the targets.


regards

Little_D

[ATAG_Colander]

Well, a few nights ago I was at 6.5K surrounded by 4 spits co-alt, 2 a bit lower and 2 above me contrailing.
Needless to say I didn't last very long :D

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hi Snapper,

you are right flying at 8000m is a flight where you dont see any enemy. yeasterday i had i flight with my wingman Flügelbieger on Hans Grubers Fall red/yellow. we had about 1 hour 10 minutes flightime at 5000m and saw nothing, exept other high 109 as usual. then we go down, because we get borried and what we saw lots of enemys on the deck. some other thing i dont understand is, why ATAG whants to be an acardeserver like this russien island maps doghfightserver. because we have so many good pilots i know from Warbirds of Prey on the server, that flow in the old times at high alt and for the missions, but now fly low because it makes no sence to go high.

to bring the fights high you dont need AI bombers, stop vulching and the rest comes from allown over the targets.


regards

Little_D

ATAG doesn't want a lot of rules, period.

[Little_D]

ATAG doesn't want a lot of rules, period.

Hi Snapper,

no problem with this, because there are other ways to stop this low turn and burn :) and rules are not the difference between an acarde server and a historical mission server. its the behavior of the pilots, how the missions are build and how they play the game. and with a good map you can force the pilot to think about what they are doing.

so hopfully the mapmakers will put more AAA on spawnbases or it stay as it is with this nice game, no need for future mods, historical maps, etc. because all is flying low and turn and burn and for this stupit behavoir we dont need right FM/DM or historical based mission, for this world of warplanes is good enough.

and some other thing is, to bring new pilot to this and make them become good pilots it is the wrong way to show them this x-box gaming style.

but maby i am geting old and the new generation is more interested in x-boxgaming than in a simulation like CoD is or becomes with Team Fusion.

regards

Little_D

[ATAG_Snapper]

+1 Little_D :thumbsup:

We we can't force or dictate how anyone should play (exceptions: intentional team killing, abusive and/or profane language). I agree mission design can go a long way to making the gameplay experience enjoyable to everyone.

Flak: now that it's been made more effective in 4.3 the low level strafing (ie. vulching) should be less "rewarding" to those who do it constantly.

Spawn points: the more airfields that are available for fighters and bombers to spawn into, the less productive vulching will be. When I hear over TS (or see chat messages) about how "I've been vulched three times in a row!", I can only shake my head. Don't feed the vulchers!!!

We have excellent missions in place already with more in the works. Some little tweaks re flak and spawn points are worth exploring IMHO. In the meantime, for those who DO enjoy low level dogfights, have at it!

:)

[Little_D]

Hi Snapper,

+1:thumbsup:

i think it is an age problem and how you come to flightsims or get it teached ( full realisem or acarde ). for me at least a good mission has a flight time from 1+ hour in a 109 with or without a kill, but normaly in this flighttime you have enough opetunetys to find an enemy :). this why we takes all time 100% fuel, to stay as long as possible in the air. i remamber me, that i had in 1946 an 2.5 hour escord flight in 109 without extra fueltank. this was low ATA and rpm flying with full power in two or three fights at high alt and escord the bomber from the start to the target and back home. this was fun and as the red light went on it becomes a little scary because i lost where i am and when i found my base, i landet and right after tuchdown my engin stops no fuel :) in the FW190 it was the same 100% fuel and most of the time we landed with less than 50 liters of fuel and lots of kills after 2 hours short before the missions end :). dam i miss this times a lot.
so lets hope the x-boxgamer getting older and find that the challenge to fly as close to history and for the objects is way more satisfactory than vulching, quick turn and burn, killing landing or starting planes acarde flyingstyle. even for the ego it is not satisfactory to kill a helples enemy. but i think most of this x-boxgamer think they are aces when they make lots of easy kill, even when they only bring home 2% of there kills.

but i must say i also stop to fly most of the time like this and go acarde, becasue it makse no sence to fly like it when only 10% of 100 players on the server do it. but hopfully when the hotfix is out the good old times come back when we start our onlinecampaign on ATAG and have something that makes it worth to go back to the old flyingstyle.

regards

Little_D

[darkside3/4]

Little D your desire to make the missions historically accurate is awesome, I love it. Nothing is more annoying then getting vulched 3 times in a row, with no option to get inn aaa and shoot him down. Another recommendation that would be good would require those who get kills land to get them tallied. If they cared about there stats alone they'd think twice. All the maps w/o AI bombers turn into dogfight servers which is annoying.

[ElGringo]

Well lately I have seen more fights at around 6k than ever before on ATAG. There are more people flying in 3-5 bombers formations and this attracts fighters to higher alts. I was actually thinking things were heading the good way...
The need to land to register kills would help a lot I' m sure.

EDIT: We have to remember that the Battle of Britain, with one side in full-attack and the other in full-def is hard to reproduce online. The best missions are always the ones where both sides have objectives to defend and objectives to bomb, IMHO. That' s why I love the 3 new missions on server 1.

[Talisman]

I find it strange that, at the moment, most pilots seem to want to fly what is effectively the "noob" server rather than the "full switch" server with wind. Perhaps the "full switch" server is a bit hard now for pilots that are just interested in kill stats? After all the good works by TF on the wind element, I would have thought that more virtual pilots would have been up for a more realistic challenge.

Perhaps it would be feasible to have 2 ATAG servers to the same "full switch" standard, with at least a few, but not necessarily all, BoB/BoF scenario maps with AI LW bombers (not AI fighters). Then, if one is full to the limit pilots can just fly the second server. Thoughts?

Also, to encourage more realistic flying, perhaps the stats could be changed to highlight virtual deaths more and, importantly, the number of planes lost. The stat of the number of planes lost might embarrass pilots into actually trying to get back to base and land well.

Also, if kill stats were shown as per virtual death, or started again from zero after a death, that might also encourage more realistic behaviour; yes I know some pilots will still be a lost cause.

Happy landings all and hope to see you in the "full switch" server soon :)) as most of you are not noobs I am sure, LOL.

Talisman

[darkside3/4]

I find it strange that, at the moment, most pilots seem to want to fly what is effectively the "noob" server rather than the "full switch" server with wind. Perhaps the "full switch" server is a bit hard now for pilots that are just interested in kill stats? After all the good works by TF on the wind element, I would have thought that more virtual pilots would have been up for a more realistic challenge.

Perhaps it would be feasible to have 2 ATAG servers to the same "full switch" standard, with at least a few, but not necessarily all, BoB/BoF scenario maps with AI LW bombers (not AI fighters). Then, if one is full to the limit pilots can just fly the second server. Thoughts?

Also, to encourage more realistic flying, perhaps the stats could be changed to highlight virtual deaths more and, importantly, the number of planes lost. The stat of the number of planes lost might embarrass pilots into actually trying to get back to base and land well.

Also, if kill stats were shown as per virtual death, or started again from zero after a death, that might also encourage more realistic behaviour; yes I know some pilots will still be a lost cause.

Happy landings all and hope to see you in the "full switch" server soon :)) as most of you are not noobs I am sure, LOL.

Talisman

Goot thoughts tali, but I think a ratio would do nothing to encourage realistic behavior. Remember the bomber guys would get totally screwed in that sense too.

[Roblex]

One thing everyone seems to be missing is that, currently, flying bombers is a thankless task. You can spend 30 minutes flying to a target and get killed before you drop and get nothing while you pad someones score or you can get lucky and sneak through and destroy the target and get.... nothing.

If you get .5 points for helping kill a vulnerable bomber why not get .5 points for surviving two long suicidal sorties and doing 50% damage to the target airfield?
If someone destroyed 6 of the required 10 vehicles in a target convoy why not count 6 vehicles or at least .6 of a kill? The only way a bomber pilot can get any recognition for his efforts is to attack the ships and where are they? Low down near the spawn bases so giving the fighter pilots yet another reason to turn & burn low near their base!

Change the stats to count vehicles and guns and tanks and radar stations etc to give people more reason to fly bombers. Yes there is some satisfaction to be had from destroying a mission target but it is very frustrating to spend an hour destroying 90% of the target and only get 5 deaths added to your stats.

BTW, I fully support giving more points to landed kills but last time we discussed this the official ATAG reply was that 'ATAG does not support anyone being *forced* to fly a certain way' while confusingly stating that the very people we are trying to *force* don't care about scores anyway!

Despite all this conflicting information, the real problem is finding someone willing to put the work in and write new scripts for counting kills. I don't have the skills myself so cannot complain if nobody else has done it. I am sure that if we presented ATAG with a different score system to run in parallel with the existing one then they could not really object (though obviously a person would need permission and access from ATAG to gather the raw data in the first place)

[darkside3/4]

I think we focus too much on stats in general as a community and gaming overall. Teamwork is typically undervalued which frustrates me sometimes. These are the growing pains of a blossoming sim.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

I find it strange that, at the moment, most pilots seem to want to fly what is effectively the "noob" server rather than the "full switch" server with wind. ........

Happy landings all and hope to see you in the "full switch" server soon :)) as most of you are not noobs I am sure, LOL.

Talisman



Both servers are full switch, Salmos' mission on Server 2 also has wind (and AI of course).

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

Both servers are full switch, Salmos' mission on Server 2 also has wind (and AI of course).

That's correct both servers are full switch. I think it was "titled" in server two so people were aware that it had AI but was also full switch.
There is wind in Kanalkampf, Hell Fire corner,Dynamo and Fall Rot for sure as the mission builder is our squad Kapitan and he mentioned the wind updates.

[Gix]

radar tab-4-1 seems not working on atag2 despite it is said enabled in briefing.

[Kling]

I find it strange that, at the moment, most pilots seem to want to fly what is effectively the "noob" server rather than the "full switch" server with wind. Perhaps the "full switch" server is a bit hard now for pilots that are just interested in kill stats? After all the good works by TF on the wind element, I would have thought that more virtual pilots would have been up for a more realistic challenge.

Perhaps it would be feasible to have 2 ATAG servers to the same "full switch" standard, with at least a few, but not necessarily all, BoB/BoF scenario maps with AI LW bombers (not AI fighters). Then, if one is full to the limit pilots can just fly the second server. Thoughts?

Also, to encourage more realistic flying, perhaps the stats could be changed to highlight virtual deaths more and, importantly, the number of planes lost. The stat of the number of planes lost might embarrass pilots into actually trying to get back to base and land well.

Also, if kill stats were shown as per virtual death, or started again from zero after a death, that might also encourage more realistic behaviour; yes I know some pilots will still be a lost cause.

Happy landings all and hope to see you in the "full switch" server soon :)) as most of you are not noobs I am sure, LOL.

Talisman

This is exactly what I have suggested since the very start of this thread! ;)

[Zisi]

I find it strange that, at the moment, most pilots seem to want to fly what is effectively the "noob" server rather than the "full switch" server with wind. Perhaps the "full switch" server is a bit hard now for pilots that are just interested in kill stats?
I thought the full switch server was intended for small numbers of players with lots of AI? I played on it for a bit and it looked cool with ground vehicles driving around the bases and things. Though I'm not a big AI fan when it comes to air combat. However there is ONE reason and one reason alone that x server is not populated, because it's not called "ATAG's Axis vs Allies (TF 4.3)". If you want the server populated, just call it that, rename the current one, and it will be populated. People want to fly with others, if theres nobody on the other server, don't expect it to magically fill up without a group seeding it as most people don't read every post on the forums and they also don't have telepathy.


i think it is an age problem and how you come to flightsims or get it teached ( full realisem or acarde ).

but maby i am geting old and the new generation is more interested in x-boxgaming than in a simulation like CoD

low turn and burn doghfights over enemy bases in acardestyle. so the second question is: wy the hell Team Fusion put so many time to make the FM/DM better and fixed the high alt FM, when everybody still makes this low and slow furballs?

stupit acardegamer or x-box pilots and with this sooner or later this or later flightsims will die.
Ah ok so everyone that doesn't fly at 20k+ is a stupid xbox arcade gamer that must be 12. Got it.


yeasterday i had i flight with my wingman Flügelbieger on Hans Grubers Fall red/yellow. we had about 1 hour 10 minutes flightime at 5000m and saw nothing, exept other high 109 as usual. then we go down, because we get borried
Er wait... what? Bored? How could that be, with flying at historical altitudes, surely that should be enough of a reward in and of itself to keep any non 12yr old satisfied!


i know vulching was historical, but not like it is done on the server!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it was the dangerus missions a fighterpilot could fly and it was an in and out atack and no low furball over the bases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but i know for the fast acardegamer the long turn and burn fights over the bases are historical.
Darn that "history" crap! Put 1000 AAA around the bases and make it illegal! Ban them all!!!11!!1

-----------------------------------

Or it could be that people do what they do because it actually makes sense for the mission they are playing on. Bombers mostly fly/flew low because it was so much harder to see them, and all of the targets were too small to hit reliably from 6k. With the improved visibility, and tonnage airfield targets, thats no longer true and we are seeing more and more flying and bombing at 6k. On Fall red, there is basically no reason at all to fly high for the most part, most of the red targets must be bombed from low altitude, same with many blue ones, so obviously the majority will be down low, you know, actually attacking/defending the objectives.

I wouldn't assume that, given the mission and context, that the activity online is unrealistic. If you had a <100 pilots at the time, who were given a list of places of interest, and for the most part were not in communication with each other & and without any kind of chain of command. I would be willing to be it would look something like what we have.

In any case, this whole situation is improving all the time in my view. However, without the organisation of ww2, don't expect the same results in game, and artificially forcing things such that certain numbers match up, doesn't actually make anything more realistic.


Original topic
Personally if it is found to be necessary for 100 players, I would rather remove the AI than lower the player count. The ideal would be if the mission would scale for the quantity of players, such that the fewer the players, the more AI raids.

[Kling]

I think making server two have exactly what server 1 had a few months ago AND renaming it to exactly the same name as server1 PLUS adding "+AI bombers" would be enough to populate it.

[ATAG_Snapper]

BTW, I fully support giving more points to landed kills but last time we discussed this the official ATAG reply was that 'ATAG does not support anyone being *forced* to fly a certain way' while confusingly stating that the very people we are trying to *force* don't care about scores anyway!


Not forcing anyone to fly a certain way has nothing to do with stats. It means we don't obligate anyone to fly the missions on the servers. Many folks don't even check their stats, which is fine by us. If anyone wants to come in and just fly under bridges or fly through hangars, great. If they just want to shoot up enemy airfields, have at it. The only thing anyone CAN'T do is team kill, nor use abusive or profane language on the server chat or ATAG Teamspeak (unless they use a private TS channel with like-minded friends).
Sorry for any misunderstanding on our part. :salute:

[Roblex]

Sorry Snapper, looking back at older threads I can see that you have always supported the idea of landed kills. It was another ATAG member that took it upon himself to state that ATAG will never support the idea of reducing the scores of people that don't land their kills because they should be free to fly how they want. I agree totally with that but I think it comes down to perspective i.e. we were advocating *rewarding* pilots for landing their kills and he was seeing that as *penalising* people who don't want to land their kills. That is a valid interpretation except I think he missed the point that we were not asking for the main stats table to be changed so the 'casual' player no longer appears in the top ten; we were asking for a second table based on an alternative scoring system which the 'casual' pilots can choose to totally ignore.

[gavagai]

My opinion probably doesn't matter, but my observation is that the AI gunners are incredibly weak. There is no skill in shooting down an AI bomber. I prefer to see them in the online missions, but they should offer a bit more challenge. As it is now the gunners are so bad you can more or less pretend that they are not there.

[♣_Spiritus_♣]

Ive been in dogfights over targets at 20k and on the deck.

Ive also been in dogfights over airfields at 20k and on the deck.

Ive bombed at both high and low levels.

Ive also been blown up, gunned, cannoned and crashed into while sitting in my plane, taxing and taking off hundreds of times and have returned the favor hundreds of times... well maybe not hundreds but I've tried. :D



I think what we have here is great and a perfect balance. Why start tweaking a good thing? This gives the veterans things to do as well as giving the so called "x-box pilots" a chance to get in the fight right away and start having fun while learning.

If we start to fragment the community into two halves then we are all doomed to low levels on the servers at all times.

I for one find the change between the above mentioned refreshing and keeps the game new. Seriously, I have something like 400 hours of flight time on 4 maps. 4 MAPS and I keep coming back because it always changes. If things got tooooo realistic and everything happened at one altitude or area we will begin to lose players, not gain them.

:salute:

[Wulf]

I was aware that there was another operational ATAG server but I wasn't aware that it was actually set up differently. Was this 'announced'? Is it actually intended to facilitate a different kind of flying?

What I've noticed on the 'main' ATAG server is that there's some prospect of some high alt action on the Isle of Wight map (no idea what it's actually called), but you can pretty much forget it elsewhere. Why this would be I have no idea. Mostly these days the fighting seems to occur below 1000 m and more typically, well below this level - more like 300 m. And in reality, this situation is getting worse not better. A year ago if you flew across the Channel at 6k you'd probably run into one or two enemy aircraft. These days that almost never happens. All you see is vacant sky. I find that quite disheartening. I believe the absence of AI has made matters worse, which of course only stands to reason. I understand there are good reasons for doing this but it seems to have been the final nail in the coffin of high alt fighting. Increasingly the options available to people like me are fairly limited. Either join the happy clappers flying around in ever decreasing circles at or below treetop level or just exit out. More and more I find myself doing the latter.

For those people who think this situation is just fine and dandy, that people shouldn't be expected to fly in even a vaguely historical way, I'd just point out that there is a rather dark and ominous side to all of this. If this really is the way people want to fly (down on the deck turning and burning) then I'd say CloD is going to take a very serious hit when BoS comes on stream, because the Russian Front was historically fought at lower altitude and the game will no doubt be optimized for this type of fighting. What's more, I'd be prepared to bet that they'll have a Mk V Spit up and ready to go withing a couple of months of release. So Spits (probably), 109s, 190s and a purpose built low alt environment. In those circumstances I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to work out where most of the low alt people are, in all probability, going to end up hanging their hats.

If it isn't already being done over on the other server, I think ATAG/Clod should attempt to develop a culture of high altitude fighting. And if necessary, I think specific action should be taken to foster that type of flying. Modifying the low level flak to one shot one kill sniper status would be a good start, IMO, and if necessary having this type of Flak arranged in-depth around spawn bases. Also, I think all bomber AI should be tasked to fly at or above 5k.



.

[darkside3/4]

ATAG tonight 7-10 people on BOF map. The lack of ai made the map seem dead. Would've stayed on but decided to call it a night due to this. Poor Beserker and all our Far East pilots I wonder how they do it on dead servers with no ai.

Wulf you bring a valid point but I think ATAG shys away from changing peoples playstyle. They keep it more of a sandbox setup. It seems like the ai server is never populated by players frequently as well.

[56RAF_klem]

ATAG tonight 7-10 people on BOF map. The lack of ai made the map seem dead. Would've stayed on but decided to call it a night due to this. Poor Beserker and all our Far East pilots I wonder how they do it on dead servers with no ai.

Wulf you bring a valid point but I think ATAG shys away from changing peoples playstyle. They keep it more of a sandbox setup. It seems like the ai server is never populated by players frequently as well.

The non-AI server has the most players because it offers best chance of getting kills because it has the most players because it offers the best chance of getting kills because.......

The AI map could be more popular if guys attended as Squads or loose groups and went after or protected the AI and help them deny or complete their objectives. That is what the AI server offers - chances to protect or attack the AI formations which means air battles much more like the BoB. The fact that most guys go into the other server only confirms that the majority don't have the patience to go after the formations and so deny themselves the BoB experience.

Some guys in the non-AI server run bombing missions which may be satisfying for them but that doesn't make for a BoB experience because most of the other players are ignoring them and dogfighting among themselves.

Bottom line: most players aren't interested in the BoB experience. But keep the AI server because some of us are and anyway it's good for the "quiet" time zones. I just wish there were more Squads around to take part.

Interesting point, even for 56RAF which likes "the BoB experience". Last night the AI server was empty so not very attractive and we couldn't all get into the non-AI server so we went into the ACG public server where there are both Bomber and Fighter AI. I would have preferred to go into the ATAG AI server but there was no-one else in there and the general Squad preference was ACG. At least on ACG we had the chance to attack formations and get some 109 fights too. Most of the time there was only one Blue in there but there was enough to do until the AI dried up.

[ATAG_EvangelusE]

Wulf, you are correct regards KanalKampf (IoW mission) regards the higher number of Red and Blue players who get to high altitudes in this particular mission.
May be this is due to the longer distances for Blue to get to the combat areas - high alt improves survival and possibly helps with navigation too. Whatever the reason, this mission works well.

I have also noticed our superb Blenny pilots now attacking in numbers at high altitude and getting really good results, also attracting high alt fighter escorts. Just need more of these guys on both sides.

[darkside3/4]

The next question is why did we ever turn AI off in the first place. Until 4.3 was released we had 4.0 running full tilt ai everynight. The ai has been fixed and doesn't lawn dart as much so why not populate both servers if they can handle it. Even for those looking for kills would be delighted to have more targets flying, even if they are ai.

[Little_D]

The next question is why did we ever turn AI off in the first place. Until 4.3 was released we had 4.0 running full tilt ai everynight. The ai has been fixed and doesn't lawn dart as much so why not populate both servers if they can handle it. Even for those looking for kills would be delighted to have more targets flying, even if they are ai.

Hi Jarhead2b,

i think it is because 100 human players + AI bomberformations is to mutch for the stupit mp-code. most of the time in 4.0 with 100players on + AI bomberformations, the server hangs up or chrashed, when new AI formation spawned in.

regards

Little_D

[darkside3/4]

Hi Jarhead2b,

i think it is because 100 human players + AI bomberformations is to mutch for the stupit mp-code. most of the time in 4.0 with 100players on + AI bomberformations, the server hangs up or chrashed, when new AI formation spawned in.

regards

Little_D

This is why the AI server has been reduced to 80 allowable players. Is it even possible to edit the code to make 100 players with AI smooth? Immersion has definitely dropped since we stopped using AI's though. It's either a dogfight on the deck always... a vulchfest (okay but not completely accurate)....or single bombers going at it alone (except for the few nights were there are groups of 5 bombers.) Personally I love to dogfight but its the same every freakin map, blah blah blah. Half the missions are gone due to complainers and only a quarter are working as a team. The current AI server seems to only have Homeplate playing over and over. As much as I hate to say it, ROF, BOS have been creeping up on my usage list due to this partly.

[Kling]

This is why the AI server has been reduced to 80 allowable players. Is it even possible to edit the code to make 100 players with AI smooth? Immersion has definitely dropped since we stopped using AI's though. It's either a dogfight on the deck always... a vulchfest (okay but not completely accurate)....or single bombers going at it alone (except for the few nights were there are groups of 5 bombers.) Personally I love to dogfight but its the same every freakin map, blah blah blah. Half the missions are gone due to complainers and only a quarter are working as a team. The current AI server seems to only have Homeplate playing over and over. As much as I hate to say it, ROF, BOS have been creeping up on my usage list due to this partly.

This is what I have been hinting towards the ATAG leadership. Well I got kicked from ATAG for raising my opinion about it. This is actually the very thread where I did it! ;)

Sadly the very opinion that got me kicked and exactly what you mentioned above is slowly happening if the low alt furballing continues. People will populate the servers with max nr for a while but will eventually get bored with the lack of immersion.

All I can recommend is to try the Storm of War server. Its just starting with some new missions from Reddog!

I want to point out though that it is not the fault of the mission builders!
There are some great ones like Salmo, Hans Gruber and Reddog and probably some more that I cant remember the names of.

Personally the hunt for a constant 100 players on the server will lead to no AI in the missions which is contra productive in the long term as people get bored with lack of big high alt bombers escorted/attacked by human players.

Anyway... it is at is. And as much as I dont agree with the decision taken, time will tell what happens!

TF will continue making the sim better, what happens with the servers is a different story! ;)

[ATAG_Lolsav]

This is what I have been hinting towards the ATAG leadership. Well I got kicked from ATAG for raising my opinion about it.

This is misinforming, a half truth. Sorry i had nothing to do with what happened but this is a poor step from you Kling. Laundry?

[Kling]

This is misinforming, a half truth. Sorry i had nothing to do with what happened but this is a poor step from you Kling. Laundry?

Not really. I got along with all ATAG members! You guys are a great bunch but I just didnt agree with the new server settings.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Not really. I got along with all ATAG members! You guys are a great bunch but I just didnt agree with the new server settings.

Your getting kicked out of ATAG didn't really have much to do with you not agreeing with how we at ATAG runs the servers. It has everything to do with your constant arguing of things you know nothing about. It's the same reason you were on the verge of being dismissed from TF. If you had read the private thread you were pointed to, you could have also read other ATAG members response to it, essentially agreeing with me.

Any more airing of your dirty laundry in public will find yourself removed from this forum.