In your opinion, what makes a good multiplayer dogfight mission?

[JG13_opcode]

For example, I dislike when people are so focused on historical correctness that it detracts from the fun.  There was an admin on Spits vs 109s who would cherry-pick the dates of the missions so that they could ensure that the Allies would always have an aircraft faster than the Fw 190D.

I'd rather bend the rules of history a bit to get a balanced set of aircraft where each side has advantages over the other.  On Warclouds, the aircraft were pretty balanced against each other.  If you flew, say, the 109G-6 A/S you knew you had to go for angles tactics against the Mustang but energy tactics against whatever else.

 

But I also dislike it when servers set game-y objectives like "land a plane here which captures the airfield and then take off in a stolen aircraft to win the battle".

 

I think a good mix of back-field objectives and front-line objectives are needed, but not so spread out that it's tedious.

 

How about you?

Edited April 6, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[JimTM]

For a dogfight server, I prefer that the objectives are dogfight related rather than ground objective related. I also like to have fairly balanced sides. The best situation is to have teammates working together, which is why I'm looking forward to the air Marshall feature.

Edited April 6, 2017 by JimTM

[JG13_opcode]

For a dogfight server, I prefer that the objectives are dogfight related rather than ground objective related.

Can you elaborate?

[JimTM]

Can you elaborate?

For example, make mission success depend on shooting down more fighters or establishing air superiority over a certain area for a certain time.

 

Note: I added a bit to my original post after you replied.

[Feathered_IV]

Good players make for good missions.

 

Dweebs and jerks will ruin any setup, no matter how elaborately crafted. Whereas a group of experienced, resectful and involved players will make even the most simple mission memorable.

[19//Moach]

this is a list of features I think would be present on a "crowd favourite" mission, for a server like WoL:

 

(in no particular order)

 

 

 - have spawn fields sufficiently near (no more than 30km) from the closest objective, avoiding long commute times (and thus reducing vulching opportunities) 

 

 - allow as many options for airplanes and loadouts as possible, without it being historically absurd considering the date of the mission

 

 - ensure that options exist to use fighter, attacker and bomber for players who don't own all BoX packs and collector planes

 

 - all ground targets should have plenty of soft units which can be strafed, along with a handful of "bombs needed" elements

 

 - AAA should be present at targets, the WoL standard for that seems to be between 3 and 5 "fast shooters" and up to 3 "big'uns"

 

 - spawn airfields which are not targets should have enough AAA (indestructible) to make vulching an obviously suicidal endeavor

 

 - rear bases (not too far, 50km from closest obj. max) should offer additional loadout options (bigger bombs, fighter-bomber loadouts)

 

 - forward bases should have a limited number of the more capable types (e.g. yak 1b with bombs) enough so that running out is a possibility

 

 - the "shitty planes" (P40, Stuka, and such) should have all modification options allowed, and ideally no meaningful number restrictions

 

 - if tanks are present, they must be limited in numbers enough as to not detract from the air war

 

 - the farther from the nearest base an objective is, the less destruction should be required to finish it, reducing the number of back-n-forth trips necessary in proportion to distance

 

 - a trigger should be set to announce for all to read when a player returns to land at base, counting his victories in that sortie - this is to reduce/eliminate "disposable bomber" behavior

 

 - no spy-landing-insta-win options should be present, as these can be very frustrating to the many players not involved directly in it, whose efforts become meaningless upon its triggering

 

 - moving targets (tanks, trucks, trains) are also very interesting, as they require searching and are thus uniquely challenging

 

 - ground targets should be laid out with attention to placement of units in authentic positions around towns, roads and trees - using the surroundings to camouflage as much as possible

 

 - AAA on targets should not be camouflaged, as that provides that emplacement an impossible advantage (they can see and shoot through trees, we cannot) - those should be ideally in the open

 

 - make targets as historically sensible as can be managed (e.g. oil terminals and big ships on the Volga make sense, whereas on little lakes they are rather more absurd)

 

 - keep it simple - give us a bunch of ground targets to kill, and let us fight it out - complex mechanics are good for single-player, but are often too cumbersome for the unpredictable nature of MP

 

 - don't delay "tgt under attack" messages more than necessary (should be inversely proportional to distance from defender spawns) - the flight time required to respond is usually large enough to give an unescorted attacker a better-than-not chance of a successful hit and run

 

 - enemy aircraft detected in the vicinity of spawn bases should have their position appear on the map for the defenders, this should discourage vulching one step further (ideally do so in a range beyond that which triggers base defenses, and warns vulchers that their presence is known)

 

 - bridge targets should be counted as destroyed once the respective bridges are severed - it is rather frustrating to be required to remove all sections of a pontoon bridge when it is visibly not possible to cross it anymore (units placed nearby should be a separate objective)

 

 - there is no reason not to have targets blend into each other, being in close proximity - having an area with multiple targets is a reliable way to ensure that area becomes a dogfighting hotspot - this can be used to contrast further, (smaller) safer targets elsewhere, providing varying degrees of action to suit all tastes

 

 - if performance allows it, add combat ambience elements (as seen in SP campaign) such as large smoke plumes, and localized tracers from ground fire - it's all in the detail

 

 - add a little bit of weather, some light turbulence makes for interesting flights - but keep ceiling and visibility good enough not to restrict operations - avoid high-altitude overcasts, as that aids and encourages vulcher type tactics. 1/3 cloud coverage at 1~2km alt is ideal for providing the tactical elements that favor more intense action, light winds are nice to have, but not enough that taxiing becomes problematic.

 

 - temperature extremes affect flying characteristics of some planes quite drastically (P40 feels twice as heavy in the summer) - keep that in mind when considering the fleet and loadout availabilities

 

 - instead of locking more effective loadouts (JaBo, heavy bombs, etc) to prevent targets being destroyed too quickly,  the preferred method is to offer a restricted number of available aircraft which can equip those options (inversely proportional to distance from a given base to nearest tgt) - this is a very authentic limitation of combat operations, and far less frustrating than an arbitrary general restriction

 

 

I'm pretty sure there are more things I didn't think of right now, off the top of my head... but anyways, these are some of the things I believe can make a mission a favourite, judging from my personal experience as a gamer and based upon a bachelors degree on game design and a career as a developer (not affiliated with 1C/777) 

Edited April 6, 2017 by 19//Moach

[seafireliv]

I like servers with a relatively balanced planeset but i`m not against something unbalanced if it`s historical.

 

For instance, i`d love more servers that had the early I16s taking on a victorious Luftwaffe force in the early part of the war- And I`d be desperately fighting as the Russians!

 

However, then we`d need some rules such as the Luftwaffe should stick to their objectives and not in the stratosphere flying in circles... ie, come down and attack those airfields!

 

If they do insist on staying up there forever, let the bombers come alone and be decimated. Or just suffer a `failed Mission` after a certain period of time.

Edited April 6, 2017 by seafireliv

[Monostripezebra]

In your opinion, what makes a good multiplayer dogfight mission?

 

Anyone with a high numerical disadvantage, sleeping enemies and a really good altitude advantage... and BOMBS ;=P

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IumhmB6F3U0

Edited April 6, 2017 by Monostripezebra

[Wulf]

I really like the idea of putting all or most enemy and friendly ground targets in very close proximity, (as might be the case in an actual battle) rather than having them spread out right across the entire map.  That way you concentrate the player base, increase the opportunities for fighting and alleviate the potential for lengthy unproductive commuting.

 

I suspect people often enter servers, find it difficult or impossible to find out where the action is taking place and just leave out of frustration or boredom.  

Edited April 6, 2017 by Wulf

[Guest deleted@30725]

Good players make for good missions.

 

Dweebs and jerks will ruin any setup, no matter how elaborately crafted. Whereas a group of experienced, resectful and involved players will make even the most simple mission memorable.

 

[Gambit21]

First of all 'dogfight' servers attract the worst bunch, and the worst behavior.

Like Feathered said above, it's all about the players/who shows up, and who doesn't show up.

 

Mission objective based missions, where the idea isn't for everyone in the room to simply shoot each other down are the best, and typically attract more mature pilots.

Some ground objectives, with escort, CAP missions as well.

This is one reason why CoOP's are superior - not that if all things go perfectly, you can't have a good experience in a dog fight room...it's harder, and more rare.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I personally find Ground Attack Based Servers like Random Expert to be more  Enjoyable than WoL or Berloga because it encourages Survival. 

[Ribbon]

i agree some ballance should be to avoid huge ratio between sides, no need to be 100%historical. That's why most of the time german side is more populated than russian side.

I play on both sides, entering on side with less players if i'm not with the team. On german side i'll go for FW or BF while on russian side i fly yak-1/1b, will learn la-5 soon.

However there is factor that sometimes determine will i join server, and that is available planes and vvs:lw ratio. Also i think less historical accuracy with plane balance could fill servers more.

About Ground attack based servers i find them most enjoyable even i always fly fighters i can cover my team in bombers or take bomb myself, dogfight will follow it.

That's why i like to play on "Finnish virtual pilots-dynamic war", excellent server with goals; destroying front lines to capture airfields or destroying factory to stop supply enemy airfields with planes, repairing airfields and there is always all plane models available but with limited number. Just great server!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I don't think there is a more Toxic Server than WoL out there. In Hillary's Words it's Il-2s Bag of Deplorables. The only fun to be had is when Levelbombing New Spawns from 5-6k.
The German Team seems to be an "Il-2s Next Hartmann" and manages to loose Maps with 80:1 Odds in their Favour, the Highest Scoring Pilots don't even know the Basics of Taxiing, Landings and Take-Offs. It's a ratchet Hive of Scum and Villainry. Just look at the Chat Log. It wreaks of Hurt Pride and Mimimimi. Personal Glory is all the Counts, the measure of your Virtual Cock.
Kill stealing is a thing because it's not downing Enemy Aircraft threatening Transports and Ground Pounders that counts, but adding another Kill Mark to your Name. I love being Called "Asshole" and "Vulcher" there. It's the Confirmation for me doing something right.

Edited April 7, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[VBF-12_Snake9]

There was an admin on Spits vs 109s who would cherry-pick the dates of the missions so that they could ensure that the Allies would always have an aircraft faster than the Fw 190D.

 

Got banned by Gunrunner a few times myself. Lol grumpy old man he was. Lol

[Professor1942]

It's a ratchet Hive of Scum and Villainry.

Sounds like I've found my place then!

[BeastyBaiter]

I made many missions for the original IL2 and my thoughts on MP mission design haven't changed since. I believe a good dogfight mission should:

 

1) Contain several meaningful ground target objectives (ie bombing a supply dump removes other team's top fighter from all airfields, can also win mission maybe).

 

2) Have the two sides far enough apart to get off the deck, but not be so huge that it takes forever to reach the fight. I recommend a 2-3 minute rule. If you can't get to the front in 2-3 minutes while hugging trees, then it's too far away. Obviously those that climb will take a lot longer.

 

3) Have a clear action path. By that I mean a single line through which all airbases and ground targets run along (both friend and foe). This allows for a focused battle where players can find each other fairly easily instead of being randomly dispersed over thousands of square kilometers. I'm not aware of any active BoX server using this rule, hence I don't play BoX MP anymore.

 

4) Reasonably balanced planesets within the confines of history. In IL2 (2001) that meant cherry picking battles that were balanced in real life (at least equipment wise). This is more difficult in BoX due to nearly all the German fighters holding overwhelming superiority.

 

5) If 4 isn't possible, create an asymmetric mission that gives the underdog some sort of meaningful advantage to counteract their deficiency in planes. A good example is giving the underdog substantially more air defenses along the front so they have safe havens in the main battle area to dive into when needed.

 

6) Build every mission to be scaleable. Building a mission that's only fun with 50+ players will never get played cause the first 49 players will leave before that happens. Don't believe me? Go look at the DCS server list right now. It doesn't matter if you do so 6 months after I post this, it will still be true. There are dozens of empty servers running 24/7 that are empty for violating this very rule. I haven't looked recently, but last time I did, BoX hosts were making the same mistake for the most part.

 

 

The above 6 rules apply to all generations of combat aircraft, from RoF's biplanes to DCS's jets.