Jump to content

Any side effects of missions results in career mode?


Recommended Posts

With respect, what are you expecting to happen?  A single fighter pilot didn't determine the course of the war in WWII.  Realistically, individual successes led to individual promotion and medals, maybe a chance to return back home (if you're American or British) to tour the factories and sell war bonds.  What else are you expecting to see?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, istari6 said:

With respect, what are you expecting to happen?  A single fighter pilot didn't determine the course of the war in WWII.  Realistically, individual successes led to individual promotion and medals, maybe a chance to return back home (if you're American or British) to tour the factories and sell war bonds.  What else are you expecting to see?

 

Well, it is not a single pilot, it is a pilot, his squad, eventually the squad you cover as well, your operational base, the ground units your group defends, etc. Anyway, I don't care at all about historical impacts, but about in-game impacts, because this is a game, you know? Certainly it would be quite good to have something that really pushes you to win the missions aside of medals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mandoble said:

Well, it is not a single pilot, it is a pilot, his squad, eventually the squad you cover as well, your operational base, the ground units your group defends, etc.

But if you look at how the game counts if your mission was successful or not, I couldn't care less if my missions are counted as successful. For example, your mission is to protect ground units, then your mission will be counted successful if you kill at least one enemy aircraft, no matter if the enemy aircrafts destroyed all of the ground targets, you had to defend. For me this would definitely mean you were not successful at all.

If you want to have the success of missions to have impact on the careers of you and your squadmates, or whatever, then criterias when missions are counted successful have to be overworked, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mandoble said:

So it doesn't matter at all whether missions are won or lost, pretty incredible ūü§™.

 

You really think you hitting or missing a target etc is going to affect the course of the war?

This wasn’t the case in real life, nor is it the case in the career.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mandoble said:

Anyway, I don't care at all about historical impacts, but about in-game impacts, because this is a game, you know?

 

Dynamic front lines affected by player actions are difficult to implement properly even if you ignore the historical accuracy problems. It would essentially require that the developers make a strategy game in addition to a flight sim, requiring a lot of work. Alternatively, they could do some sort of extremely simple system where a certain number of kills "wins" the battle, but most players probably wouldn't like such a shallow outcome.

 

Except for relatively rare high-stakes situations, e.g., bomb hits on aircraft carriers, actions by individual pilots or small units are unlikely to change the overall course of a huge battle.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Dynamic front lines affected by player actions are difficult to implement properly even if you ignore the historical accuracy problems. It would essentially require that the developers make a strategy game in addition to a flight sim, requiring a lot of work. Alternatively, they could do some sort of extremely simple system where a certain number of kills "wins" the battle, but most players probably wouldn't like such a shallow outcome.

 

Except for relatively rare high-stakes situations, e.g., bomb hits on aircraft carriers, actions by individual pilots or small units are unlikely to change the overall course of a huge battle.

First, of course I expect a lot of work of any game estudio. Second, there are many things they can do before going to a real dynamic campaign. You lose a particular critical mission, you do not have specials for the next (no 150 oct, no gondolas, no mk 108, half fuel, cannot lead, etc), you might also lose the command of your squad, you might be degraded, no damage reparations for next mission, not allowed to fly for X missions, etc. You win a particular critical mission and you recover access to all the specials, might be you are allowed to fly next mission with some advanced plane (even if not present in your library, something like unlocking a plane just for the next single mission). And then yes, criteria for win/lose should be heavily reworked. To be honest, the way it is implemented now, career mode cannot be more anodine.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mandoble said:

First, of course I expect a lot of work of any game estudio. Second, there are many things they can do before going to a real dynamic campaign. You lose a particular critical mission, you do not have specials for the next (no 150 oct, no gondolas, no mk 108, half fuel, cannot lead, etc), you might also lose the command of your squad, you might be degraded, no damage reparations for next mission, not allowed to fly for X missions, etc. You win a particular critical mission and you recover access to all the specials, might be you are allowed to fly next mission with some advanced plane (even if not present in your library, something like unlocking a plane just for the next single mission). And then yes, criteria for win/lose should be heavily reworked. To be honest, the way it is implemented now, career mode cannot be more anodine.

This would be even more arcade than the old Campaign mode, the game had before BOK. Fortunately it is now a bit more realism oriented since Jason took over control, than it was before.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mandoble said:

You lose a particular critical mission, you do not have specials for the next (no 150 oct, no gondolas, no mk 108, half fuel, cannot lead, etc), you might also lose the command of your squad, you might be degraded, no damage reparations for next mission, not allowed to fly for X missions, etc.

 

I understand the desire to make career mode more exciting, but these suggestions come at the cost of realism.

 

It was unlikely that an unsuccessful mission would interrupt the supply of fuel or equipment for following missions. Pilots generally wouldn't take off with less than the required fuel for a mission. Unserviceable aircraft almost invariably remained grounded until they were fixed. Careers were rarely put on hold after a single less-than-stellar performance.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Mandoble said:

First, of course I expect a lot of work of any game estudio. Second, there are many things they can do before going to a real dynamic campaign. You lose a particular critical mission, you do not have specials for the next (no 150 oct, no gondolas, no mk 108, half fuel, cannot lead, etc), you might also lose the command of your squad, you might be degraded, no damage reparations for next mission, not allowed to fly for X missions, etc. You win a particular critical mission and you recover access to all the specials, might be you are allowed to fly next mission with some advanced plane (even if not present in your library, something like unlocking a plane just for the next single mission). And then yes, criteria for win/lose should be heavily reworked. To be honest, the way it is implemented now, career mode cannot be more anodine.

 

If that were the case, every one of my AI squadron mates would be peeling potatoes

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mandoble said:

First, of course I expect a lot of work of any game estudio. Second, there are many things they can do before going to a real dynamic campaign. You lose a particular critical mission, you do not have specials for the next (no 150 oct, no gondolas, no mk 108, half fuel, cannot lead, etc), you might also lose the command of your squad, you might be degraded, no damage reparations for next mission, not allowed to fly for X missions, etc. You win a particular critical mission and you recover access to all the specials, might be you are allowed to fly next mission with some advanced plane (even if not present in your library, something like unlocking a plane just for the next single mission). And then yes, criteria for win/lose should be heavily reworked. To be honest, the way it is implemented now, career mode cannot be more anodine.

 

You think the USAAF denied 150 octane fuel to a unit because they did not perform well in a mission? 

You think squadron commanders were routinely removed after a couple of bad missions? 

You think fit and able pilots were grounded?  

 

I love Skyrim.  Playing through it for the nth time right now.  Great Battles is not that.  

 

IMHO the problem is that "Mission success" is even a thing.  It invites a gamey mind frame.  Success is surviving.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mandoble said:

First, of course I expect a lot of work of any game estudio. Second, there are many things they can do before going to a real dynamic campaign. You lose a particular critical mission, you do not have specials for the next (no 150 oct, no gondolas, no mk 108, half fuel, cannot lead, etc), you might also lose the command of your squad, you might be degraded, no damage reparations for next mission, not allowed to fly for X missions, etc. You win a particular critical mission and you recover access to all the specials, might be you are allowed to fly next mission with some advanced plane...

 

I think you’re looking for Super Mario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

IMHO the problem is that "Mission success" is even a thing.  It invites a gamey mind frame.  Success is surviving.

 

It does have its place when done right - a lot of the medals we have in career mode were based on successful completion of missions. Having played a lot of missions in career mode, I think it's modeled pretty well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

IMHO the problem is that "Mission success" is even a thing.  It invites a gamey mind frame.  Success is surviving.  

 

I agree with Luke.

I personally don’t normally use it in my work but I agree that it can be used in a historically valid way.

If your mission is destroying a bridge, defending bombers, bombing an airfield etc, these things are easy to measure/account for. Ultimately survival is successful but it is possible to implement non-gamey mission goals.

 

I‚Äôm working on some low-level photo recon functionality. In this case there is a definite mission success/mission failed factor. Not that I plan on using the normal ‚ÄúMission Success‚ÄĚ message etc.

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mandoble said:

So it doesn't matter at all whether missions are won or lost, pretty incredible ūü§™.

 

The outcome (and more importantly the casualties) on occasion can affect the resupply / hardware availability of your squadron and the subsequent missions generated. Also you can find yourself being commander for a while if your current commander gets killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

I understand the desire to make career mode more exciting, but these suggestions come at the cost of realism.

 

It was unlikely that an unsuccessful mission would interrupt the supply of fuel or equipment for following missions. Pilots generally wouldn't take off with less than the required fuel for a mission. Unserviceable aircraft almost invariably remained grounded until they were fixed. Careers were rarely put on hold after a single less-than-stellar performance.

Sure, and then career missions should be playable only from real 5am to real 6pm, else it is no realistic and arcadish. And an american pilot would rarely see a german plane in his entire career, so if you love P51, bad luck. And the AI for Russian planes during Moscow and Staligrand campaigns should consist on doing circles in groups and little else, etc. And for any latter campaign most AI German planes will fly straight and level if lucky.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mandoble said:

Sure, and then career missions should be playable only from real 5am to real 6pm, else it is no realistic and arcadish. And an american pilot would rarely see a german plane in his entire career, so if you love P51, bad luck. And the AI for Russian planes during Moscow and Staligrand campaigns should consist on doing circles in groups and little else, etc. And for any latter campaign most AI German planes will fly straight and level if lucky.

 

That’s the trick, knowing what to enhance and what to leave as close to reality as possible. Those who have this ability are able to produce good/compelling content and/or products. Those who don’t have a handle on this balance cannot or would fail if they attempted such a thing.

 

Guess which group you belong to? ;)

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That’s the trick, knowing what to enhance and what to leave as close to reality as possible. Those who have this ability are able to produce good/compelling content and/or products. Those who don’t have a handle on this balance cannot or would fail if they attempted such a thing.

 

Guess which group you belong to? ;)

 

Absolutely, to the group that doesn't want to waste our time in missions that don't push me to risk and win. Of course the sim cannot simulate the death of your friends, mates and families if a bomber raid crossed your defenses, of course the sim cannot simulate the stress of having your mates fighting in the ground and being bombed by attack planes, etc, etc. The way it is now is as far as reality as possible as the player has absolutely no reason to risk his career at all. If you think that this cannot fail here, as the game doesn't implement absolutely anything, well, you are wrong because the result is incredibly monotone and boring, unless you think that the target of a game is to be as boring as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It does have its place when done right - a lot of the medals we have in career mode were based on successful completion of missions. Having played a lot of missions in career mode, I think it's modeled pretty well. 

But then you need a better model for the decision, is a mission successful or not. As I posted above, if the ground troops you should have protected get destroyed completely by the enemy, the mission can't be successful, because you killed one enemy aircraft.

Same for escort missions. Or say ground attack missions, you have to attack a supply coloumn and your mission is successful, if all escorting light tanks get destroyed. This can't be the target for this mission. The same for attack on armored coloumns. The targets are medium and heavy battle tanks, not the escorting light tanks. So the mission should only be successful, if your flight detroyed some of the battle tanks. This, of course, would need a better logic for the AI, what to attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mandoble said:

Absolutely, to the group that doesn't want to waste our time in missions that don't push me to risk and win. Of course the sim cannot simulate the death of your friends, mates and families if a bomber raid crossed your defenses, of course the sim cannot simulate the stress of having your mates fighting in the ground and being bombed by attack planes, etc, etc. The way it is now is as far as reality as possible as the player has absolutely no reason to risk his career at all. If you think that this cannot fail here, as the game doesn't implement absolutely anything, well, you are wrong because the result is incredibly monotone and boring, unless you think that the target of a game is to be as boring as possible.

 

That is exactly what most of us want.  Something that looks like real life.  You say "no reason".  Look at reality.  In reality millions thought they had every reason to risk their lives, and they did.  They did it without being rewarded every time they did something right and they certainly were not punished in silly ways when their actions did not go right.  

 

You're looking for are instant gratification video game mechanics in a place where most people do not want them  Your point of view is not ridiculous (although IMHO your thoughts on implementation are nudging that - denied good fuel!) but it's not going to gain much traction here.  

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mandoble said:

First, of course I expect a lot of work of any game estudio. 

 

This dev team are the hardest working bunch I've seen! Have seen the dev diaries? They are constantly improving and updating the sim and communicating with the community. Not to mention they're quite a small team. Seriously dude, are you a manager? "If they can do this much surely they can do more!" 

 

Honestly though what you want simply isn't going to happen, it's so arcade-y that even if the dev team had the time and money the community just wouldn't stand for it. My advice to you is find a way to enjoy it or find something else, preferably a game, not a sim. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I agree with Luke.

I personally don’t normally use it in my work but I agree that it can be used in a historically valid way.

If your mission is destroying a bridge, defending bombers, bombing an airfield etc, these things are easy to measure/account for. Ultimately survival is successful but it is possible to implement non-gamey mission goals.

 

I‚Äôm working on some low-level photo recon functionality. In this case there is a definite mission success/mission failed factor. Not that I plan on using the normal ‚ÄúMission Success‚ÄĚ message etc.

 

 

 

I will concede the point to a limited degree.  I am guessing that we don't really disagree too much.  if there is a specific target then yes, success and failure become clear.  So a bridge or some other structure on the ground is a good example. 

 

What I disagree with is "destroy these planes".  So you go up and destroy more than one plane but they are the wrong ones per the mission.  You failed.  I can think of only one time where "that plane" was the mission (Yamamoto).  Mostly it was go up, do the best you can.

 

I also disagree with tying larger goals to mission success.  Examples: "Stop the bombers".  So I shoot down three but three more drop their bombs.  Failure.    "Stop the assault".  So I blow up a half dozen trucks and three tanks but the larger assault is not stopped.  Failure.  

 

I further disagree with tying specific punishments to mission failure.  It almost never happened. 

 

Even rewards were not really ties to specific mission success.  Germans tended to give medals for sustained success, although rewards for a single heroic action were also given.  Allies tended to awards medals for heroic actions, although sustained success would often lead to higher ups looking for and finding a reason to give the award.  But it was not really mission success.  That was usually just doing your job.  Again, some very dangerous and special missions might be exceptions.

 

In the larger scope it was usually very difficult to discern success from failure from something in between. Dropping bombs on a factory: was it really successful?  Command would know that you dropped your bombs but their knowledge of the effect was usually fuzzy at best.  The bridge is a good example of the exception.  It's standing or it's not.  But mostly the notion of success or failure was more vague.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, raaaid said:

 

 

also guys like hartmann affected strongly the war

 

 

Err, no they did not. He affected the number of VVS aircraft available, but if he'd died in basic training the war would have been unaffected.

 

However, the principle of a dynamic campaign - where sucess or failure has some impact on the next mission - can be an attractive prospect. This approach has tended to be less polished than the hand-built missions from the great pilot campaigns, but it does add a sense of involvement. This is not the same as a single pilot affecting a campaign, but it provides some interaction with the wider picture.

 

Quote

In the larger scope it was usually very difficult to discern success from failure from something in between. Dropping bombs on a factory: was it really successful?  Command would know that you dropped your bombs but their knowledge of the effect was usually fuzzy at best.  The bridge is a good example of the exception.  It's standing or it's not.  But mostly the notion of success or failure was more vague.

 

If you have a mobile front line - for instance and your unit is very successful about killing certain opposing platforms - then other sims / games have it that the front line changes. Or that the opposition loses those assets and you face different ones. It is not about a single target (which as you say often matters little) than the cumulative effect. Obviously I don't need to tell you  about missions, but if for instance you and your unit down down a lot of 190s, then you  might tend to meet 109s more frequently until re-supply from Focke-Wulf has commended. Or destroying enemy tanks means that the opposition fails to advance / your side makes more rapid progress. That was true at an operational level so the player's actions impact this mechanism; the war lives vicariously through your pilot.

 

It's a personal view: you fly and the outcome is historically prescribed or you fly and the rate of progress / outcome varies. Online wars tend towards the latter.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another example of hollywood expectations. One lone hero winning the war!!

WW2 was a grind of millions of combatants....the results come out in the wash with no one individual having the slightest effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 40plus said:

This is another example of hollywood expectations. One lone hero winning the war!!

WW2 was a grind of millions of combatants....the results come out in the wash with no one individual having the slightest effect.

Only that this is a game, nobody is bombing your home in the morning, right? And nobody is talking about turning sides or winning the war.

 

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I will concede the point to a limited degree.  I am guessing that we don't really disagree too much.  if there is a specific target then yes, success and failure become clear.  So a bridge or some other structure on the ground is a good example. 

 

Yet that would not fix the principal issue. Even if the criteria to win/lose/draw is way better adjusted, you will not have any problem failing a mission and jumping to the next one if you consider that the current one is too risky, actually there is not a single problem is all your flight is destroyed while you just ran away. Just adding some critical missions that should not be lost at all cost could be a good starting point. 

 

If what you look is just for realism, the current implementation is the less realistic possible, war doesn't work this way at all, pilots were 100% responsible of their actions and the results, the very same as today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Only that this is a game, nobody is bombing your home in the morning, right? And nobody is talking about turning sides or winning the war.

 

Here is where you are sadly way off base...Warthunder is a game...this is a Simulation. It as close as is feasible to reality without being completely unplayable......There are hundreds if not thousands of games for every one proper sim. We'd appreciate it if let us who enjoy a more realistic experience have our one tiny corner of the industry please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‚Äé9‚Äé/‚Äé20‚Äé/‚Äé2020 at 12:39 PM, Mandoble said:

So far it looks to me that the results of the missions have no effect at all, is that correct?

 

If you're lucky you might get to relocate to another airfield closer to the front line.

 

When that happens the enemy usually turns up in an attempt to spoil the party. Those kinds of missions can be fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 40plus said:

 

Here is where you are sadly way off base...Warthunder is a game...this is a Simulation. It as close as is feasible to reality without being completely unplayable......There are hundreds if not thousands of games for every one proper sim. We'd appreciate it if let us who enjoy a more realistic experience have our one tiny corner of the industry please.

I think you are answering yourself.

 

Eventually you neither read the issue presented here nor the possible side effects/fixes. Losing ranks if you lose a particular critical mission or if you don't provide the expected support and just fee away is reallistic or arcadish? Losing the command of your squad after losing some missions is reallistic or arcadish? Suffering a shortage of supplies (amo, fuel, special equipments) after losing a particular critical mission is reallistic or arcadish? etc. Having no fear at all to fail any mission is arcadish or reallistic?

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mandoble said:

... Just adding some critical missions that should not be lost at all cost could be a good starting point. 

 

 

So the player has to fly it again and again until they succeed in whatever arbitrary goals the mission has set up.  You want to play "Groundhog Day"? 

 

You are coming up with every quest game trope and criticizing this product for not having them.  Since you have been told many, many times that your point of view is not shared, yet you persist in pushing it (hard), I suspect that you are not going to stop.  Have to agree to disagree.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

I think you are answering yourself.

 

Eventually you neither read the issue presented here nor the possible side effects/fixes. Losing ranks if you lose a particular critical mission or if you don't provide the expected support and just fee away is reallistic or arcadish? Losing the command of your squad after losing some missions is reallistic or arcadish? Suffering a shortage of supplies (amo, fuel, special equipments) after losing a particular critical mission is reallistic or arcadish? etc. Having no fear at all to fail any mission is arcadish or reallistic?

I think you're grasping at straws

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, raaaid said:

also guys like hartmann affected strongly the war

 

Based on what?  He shot down 352 aircraft, and Germany lost the air war in the East.  Total production of Yak fighters alone was 37,000, let alone Il-2, Pe-2, La-5, etc.  I'd argue that Erich Hartmann was a great propaganda figure for the Third Reich, but in a titanic clash between the USSR and Germany, I'd be curious to see the evidence that he "strongly affected" the war.

23 hours ago, raaaid said:

what about the butterfly effect

 

As for the butterfly effect, shouldn't this also work the opposite way to be logically consistent?  I.e. you shoot down every enemy aircraft in a mission, but due to the unpredictable nature of chaos theory, that leads to a massive enemy success that ruptures the frontline.  How demoralizing would that be for the player?  

Edited by istari6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

you have been told many, many times that your point of view is not shared, yet you persist in pushing it (hard).

 

Indeed, not shared by you and four more, I hope this game has sold a bit more than just 10 copies. Anyway I don't need to insist any more, my point of view is clear on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...