Is there any interest in missions composed of phases of attack/defense for MP?

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi all,

 

I was working in a mission for The Syndicate server but I realised that the mission logic used will be better sue for a VM so I have stopped the work on that cus we want a set of missions for regular days first.

 

After speaking with some of my squad mates I started working on a mission in which the planes will be limited (Return planes activated of course) and one side will be on attack phase and another on defensive approach. Depending if the attacking side complete their objectives in time (1 hour and a half??) it will keep attacking, if not counteroffensives will be launched.

 

This means that the attacking side will have maybe only 1 or 2 objectives to complete so the next phase is launched and wont take to long for it.

 

Any interest and/or ideas??

 

Cheers.

[Habu]

1h30 seems to be a short time if you fly a bomber.

[SYN_Haashashin]

You are right Habu, the time the phase last can allways be changed depending on which is the objective.

 

As I was working on this I started to think this is more suitable for a dedicated night/day with squads (and individuals) but with a password server. Check your PMs Habu .

[SYN_Vander]

I like the concept Haash. Let's go through the possible scenarios:

1) What will happen if the defending side is not able to stop the attackers? Will there be 2 new targets unlocked for the attackers?

Maybe there can be say 10 targets in total, of which only two are active at any given time. Then one side would at least need 5 rounds to win the battle.

2) What if the defenders do stop the attack? Let's say the defenders become attackers and get assigned new targets, but they also fail. Then the original attackers will be attacking again, but what will they attack? The original (left over) targets?

[SYN_Haashashin]

Vander,

 

1) Yeah if they are not stopped new targets will be assign to the attackers.

2) I was thinking about assigning new targets, doesnt have to be necesary to be the original ones I think...you know some of the logics scape from my understanding hehehehe

[coconut]

I like the idea of dedicated attack/defense roles, but I'm not sure the idea of counter-offensive contributes much. Basically, you are just switching the roles around, which could just as well be done with a new mission. And I would say that two small missions is easier to get right than one big mission.

 

A difference between two "mirrored" missions and a single two-phase mission is the transition between the phases. In the one mission case, there is a significant advantage to be gained by switching roles as quickly as possible. The side that is launching the counter-offensive has a lot to win by having their bombers on target before the defenders' fighters are there. And the easiest way to achieve this is to end flight mid-flight at the end of phase 1 and respawn immediately, which isn't realistic and immersive at all.

 

By having two missions, you can sure that each side starts with the same conditions, which is more fair, I think. On the other hand, players are free to switch sides at the end of the first mission, which isn't very realistic either.

 

The one big mission scenario has an advantage over the two small missions approach: you can affect the initial resources of the counter-offensive based on the first phase's results. If the first attack almost succeeded, the counter-offensive starts with very limited resources, with poor chances of winning. This will motivate both sides to do as well as possible in the first phase, so as to give the best chances for the second phase.

 

To answer your question: Yes, I think attack/defense is a good basis for MP. Anything that gives roles to players and makes it clear what the role is makes the game more fun. You also have a greater chance of cooperative teamplay naturally emerging that way.

[SYN_Vander]

I like the idea of dedicated attack/defense roles, but I'm not sure the idea of counter-offensive contributes much. Basically, you are just switching the roles around, which could just as well be done with a new mission. And I would say that two small missions is easier to get right than one big mission.

 

A difference between two "mirrored" missions and a single two-phase mission is the transition between the phases. In the one mission case, there is a significant advantage to be gained by switching roles as quickly as possible. The side that is launching the counter-offensive has a lot to win by having their bombers on target before the defenders' fighters are there. And the easiest way to achieve this is to end flight mid-flight at the end of phase 1 and respawn immediately, which isn't realistic and immersive at all.

 

By having two missions, you can sure that each side starts with the same conditions, which is more fair, I think. On the other hand, players are free to switch sides at the end of the first mission, which isn't very realistic either.

 

The one big mission scenario has an advantage over the two small missions approach: you can affect the initial resources of the counter-offensive based on the first phase's results. If the first attack almost succeeded, the counter-offensive starts with very limited resources, with poor chances of winning. This will motivate both sides to do as well as possible in the first phase, so as to give the best chances for the second phase.

 

To answer your question: Yes, I think attack/defense is a good basis for MP. Anything that gives roles to players and makes it clear what the role is makes the game more fun. You also have a greater chance of cooperative teamplay naturally emerging that way.

 

Some interesting insights! Don't forget another advantage for one mission, which is from the mission maker's perspective: Maintaining two missions instead of one is twice the work .

 

About "the easiest way to achieve this is to end flight mid-flight ". I don't think our server allows to end in mid-flight and I wonder if players are so desperate that they will actually leave the server and come back only to be able to grab a bomber quicker? Most players are fighter pilots anyway....

[Habu]

Limited plane is a must have for me to avoid people who take planes and think there are in a dogfight. I think that point must be write in the briefing, to explain to players that bring back a plane avoid the lost of the plane.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

How about doing a weekly coop? We could alternate between attack and defend missions and get everyone on comms.

 

I'd give my right arm ( someone else's right arm really :D ) to see a formation of 20 human piloted bombers with escorts...imagine how epic that would be.

[coconut]

About "the easiest way to achieve this is to end flight mid-flight ". I don't think our server allows to end in mid-flight and I wonder if players are so desperate that they will actually leave the server and come back only to be able to grab a bomber quicker? Most players are fighter pilots anyway....

 

 

You can always jump off your plane I suppose. Maybe there's a dserver setting to make people wait for a minute or two after dying. Anyway, I don't think game mechanism abuses are a big issue at the moment. A much bigger issue is how to attract and keep players. 

 

 

a key issue for me is getting people into bombers. I generally see the same names in them, and those people doing a lot of hard work, often for little recognition.

 

 

Maybe the problem is that in the sky there's typically one or two bombers for 20 fighters. If you add a few AI bombers, it might be easier to blend in and get protection by the flock. Moreover, gunners in tight formations of bombers are nothing to be trifled with, from a fighter's perspective. Not quite as fun as getting protection from a fellow human, but it's the second best thing, and can get the ball rolling. I wonder why we don't see more AIs in MP servers. They have their weaknesses, for sure, but overall they are pretty good, and should be put to use more often, IMHO.

 

 

Limit planes = Yes. Have fighters as valued craft that you wouldn't want to risk flying around on your own in circles over an enemy airfield. Maybe drasticaly reduce then so there's no more than 9 at a time? the rest are bomber/ground attack?...

 

 

There is a risk with that approach. If you prevent people from flying the planes they like, chances are good they will leave the server. It can also be a bit intimidating for a new player to take a plane from a limited pool, and then get it stuck against a tent while attempting and failing to taxi. An alternative is to give benefits for bringing back your plane: Spawn a couple more tanks in your side's ground forces, rise the level of AIs ("morale boost"). It's not very significant, but it might motivate people to fly back and land properly.

[LAL_Luny]

+1 for plane limitation, especially for fighters, its easy enough to manage it by really limiting the number of fighters at the beginning (8 12 ? by side). Some can appear later if conditions are fulfilled by bombers, but only about 1 hour after beginning of mission.

 

For the change of side during the same mission (attack/defense) you can also easily overcome it by adding a long penalty for changing (currently its 1 hour on the french campaign test mission)

 

But I generally agree that means a mission for cooperative squads with people who are quite sure that they will take off, get to the objective and land cleanly. That could be tested between organized squads on a PW protected server. I sure would love to fly with more than 4 or 5 human bombers with fighter cover.

 

I almost always fly German bombers mainly He111 and we have tested quite a few things already in the french coop mission we do weekly.

 

Also we're always on TS even if not from the same squads.

[LAL_Luny]

Wednesday french coop missions are organized as follows :

 

1 We have a post on check six forum with a rough briefing of what will happen, generally 4/5 days before mission

 

2 We register with our side on that post, precising what type of plane we intend to fly (fighter/Jabo/Fighter bomber/heavy bomber)

 

3 Day of mission we meet on TS at 21h paris time.

 

4 We check who is here and split on blue and red TS Server

 

5 We set objectives and precise role of everyone on the side (bomber usually get their objective and roadmap first)

 

6 21h30pm server is launched

 

7 We all set up planes with what has been defined earlier and take off

 

8 Around 23h00 pm mission ends.

 

Respawns are tolerated for good reasons (hardware problems..)

 

Vulching is not well seen seen, attacking an airfield remains possible.

 

We usually use fair play rules : if a plane is damaged and goes RTB smoking we let it go, if you're plane is damaged you dont try to fight until your plane flames up, you try to RTB.

Edited April 20, 2015 by UF_Luny

[Y-29.Silky]

Yes, this logic is perfect. Battle-Fields server in 1946 does this perfectly. The current long 3 hour missions become very dull and not objective oriented. Just long enough to make a bombing run, short enough to fly a fighter and not get bored doing the same hunting for 3 hours.

[LAL_Luny]

Here's an exemple of the post we're using :

 

http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=437&t=189615&p=1480374#p1480374

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Just an Idea how about a time limited target for the attackeR

[Habu]

I think about something which could be not easy to manage but could be interresting.

 

If we have a dedicated day, we should have more people than we have slot on server. So some of them can't play. On that topic we are several administrator from dedicated server.

 

So we could divide the front on several servers. Not so much to avoid that people are too much divide, but enough to have full server. 

 

For exemple :

Syndicate provide the north of Stalingrad map

Vercingetorix provide the South of stalingrad map

etc...