Question for MP pilots?

[Blooze]

Hello folks,

I have tried numerous times to organize a small group of A-10C/KA-50 pilots that enjoy multiplayer coop missions designed for small groups (6-10 players) which demand a good working knowledge of their aircraft. It seems that this has been attractive to some but the thrill has been short lived for most and eventually has led to a lack of interest. Being quite puzzled by this repeated outcome I thought I'd ask the MP community a simple question.

 

If you could describe a multiplayer scenario for the A-10C and KA-50 that included your likes and dislikes, what would it be and how often do you think you would want to participate if it was available?

Edited March 2, 2014 by Blooze

[Rondor]

Hey Blooze:

 

First of all, I very much prefer the type of mission you describe. It is much more satisfying to work together with a team that you know and accomplish something difficult.

 

Here is my list of what is best for me;

 

1) Time limit should be no more than 3 hours to finish up the mission.

2) Multiple aircraft types flown by human pilots are most fun.

3) Scripting is great but not all that important.

4) Low chatter level on TS once the mission starts. (Other than mission-related, of course)

 

I love to fly. I could definitely go for a once a week or even 2x a week at times. I live in Cali and can fly evenings or weekends for several hours at a time, no problem.

 

Had a good time flying on your server in the past. Would love to find some regs.

 

Bryer-Patch

[Mustang]

Personally i've found it's always been a problem with a2g only servers, there is only so much appeal to be had before killing AI ground units becomes tiresome and repetative, don't get me wrong i love doing ground-pounding! but i can see where some players lose interest.

 

Now getting into a server where other players are out to get you while you're bombing their units - total challenge and adrenaline pumping experience!

Edited March 2, 2014 by Mustang

[Rondor]

+1 but a bit more difficult in the planning IMHO.

 

Personally i've found it's always been a problem with a2g only servers, there is only so much appeal to be had before killing AI ground units becomes tiresome and repetative, don't get me wrong i love doing ground-pounding! but i can see where some players lose interest.

 

Now getting into a server where other players are out to get you while you're bombing their units - total challenge and adrenaline pumping experience!

[BIGNEWY]

its all about giving everybody something to do, keep them engage in the scenario

 

I also like to throw in an element of random into missions so they never play out the same way.

[Exorcet]

For a serious, well set up mission, ideally once a week might work, but in reality you might go to once every two weeks or once a month to account for potential conflicts, etc.

 

For long term mission groups, variety is probably important, especially considering the ground AI acts in a fairly simple way. Clever mission design and scripting can help with this, but the tradeoff is longer set up times from missions. Choose whether you want many missions or less missions with more variety.

 

What you do specifically will depend on your group.

[Devilman]

Hello folks,

I have tried numerous times to organize a small group of A-10C/KA-50 pilots that enjoy multiplayer coop missions designed for small groups (6-10 players) which demand a good working knowledge of their aircraft. It seems that this has been attractive to some but the thrill has been short lived for most and eventually has led to a lack of interest. Being quite puzzled by this repeated outcome I thought I'd ask the MP community a simple question.

 

If you could describe a multiplayer scenario for the A-10C and KA-50 that included your likes and dislikes, what would it be and how often do you think you would want to participate if it was available?

 

the hardest thing for the scenario you are talking about is keeping the missions varied and fun. its also a huge strain on a mission builder to keep motivated to pump out missions

 

i've been making missions for this game since flanker series and before that in usnf/mf exp.

 

at the moment i'm running a campaign mission for my squad members. every mission is unique and there are no limits to what the teams will come up with to fly.

[ENO]

I'm running into the same issue Blooze... by and large the extremely limited scope of what you can make the AI do on the ground (like... cross a bridge) really hampers the dynamics beyond changing where AI forces are spawned in. Nothing frustrates me more than spending dozens of hours putting together a mission just to see that they can't even keep a column formation on a road without getting turned inside out (a bug that has, admittedly, been reported but is still undoubteldy causing consternation amongst our regulars). It just destroys any sense of immersion that existed...

 

In addition, up until recently we've been plagued by abismal stability and many players are hesitant to commit their imaginations to the mission for fear that it'll end at any minute. I can't speak for your server, Blooze, but we were having trouble completing a mission. In fact, I think the first time we got a mission complete on any mission in the last 6 months was a few weeks ago. It takes its toll on the client side... no doubt about it.

 

Currently people are SO frustrated with trying to manage ground troops through CA that most barely even bother other than to occupy a JTAC position. Their path finding is so attrocious most just get logjammed in some precarious position and can't be fetched so then you're no further ahead.

 

I saw what Mustang wrote up there and that point is entirely valid. A few human OPFOR add tremendous potential but then as also stated it does create balance issues if not properly administrated.

 

With that being said- I know every time I see someone join on the red side in whatever capacity (I'm traditionally a blue man myself) my heart rate goes up a bit and I get a tiny ping in my stomach.

 

I'm glad you've brought this up because it does give me cause to reflect on my missions and why the firehouse population has dwindled lately as well. Maybe it's time for OPFOR slots and let the players balance it out by whatever means. Perhaps that's the challenge they've been waiting for?

Edited March 3, 2014 by ENO

[Roadrunner]

another opinion:

 

for me, i would also sit in a huey on a FARP, waiting if someone has to bail out of his craft, so i get called into the rescue, while other players fly RESCAP.

 

even if i'm not needed, i would do this and just wait in the mission.

 

the other side is, that i like to fly with guys i know for some time, having proper comms and behaviour.

 

i do not say, that random teams are bad, i just prefere the "i fly with my wing" version.

 

finaly, what i do not like, is that one cannot at least save the mission at some point, to have a template to create the follow up mission. AFAIK thats not possible.

 

oh, and i prefere coop against AI, guess that would be worth a poll to ask if PvP is wanted or not ;)

 

regards,

RR

[Supersheep]

I think every group (as in server, or community, or squadron) needs to decide that for themselves. Me, I don't like human fighters (because I lack any training for it, and because mission making gets more complicated). Then again, with CA, some completely different concepts are (or better: "will be") possible for red/blue missions.

 

 

To the OP:

In my experience, how often one takes part depends on the people and their expectations. When a group of similarly-minded players finds together, they're much more likely to stay so than if the group is a "second-best" choice. What do I mean? For example, training and learning from missions is one topic where the preferences are very different. Some only want to fly missions, and some also want to learn and improve from past missions. Mixing these groups has, in my past simming, never been too sustainable.

 

Making missions and the problems with it is another turn-off. I appreciate the effort that every single mission, even if seemingly simple, requires, especially in the form of testing. When there is one person doing this heavy-lifting, there tend to be problems in the missions that only come to light during the session. That kills a lot of fun and long-term interest, but is hardly avoidable if a mission is complex, real life cuts into the prep time, or there are "last-minute suggestions" from the players.

 

There isn't a perfect solution to this that I'm aware of. As discussed, having missions every two weeks instead of each weekend can help, as can prepping a stock of missions before the group comes together. This is, however, difficult for the mission builder as he lacks any feedback, gratitude, or learning experience while he slaves away in the ME... not very appealing.

 

Another point, maybe less relevant to the OP, is the hosting of a mission. There has to be a reliable way to host the session, and no asking "who can do it this week?". That works three out of five times at best and effectively annoys people. I had this experience in one group I used to be part of, and when I joined one with a reliable hosting method, it was a difference of night and day.

[FLANKERATOR]

...

With that being said- I know every time I see someone join on the red side in whatever capacity (I'm traditionally a blue man myself) my heart rate goes up a bit and I get a tiny ping in my stomach.

 

I think that's exactly what's all about in DCS. It might be cool to do coop ground-pounding for a while against predictable and limited AI or for training purpose, though I believe that wouldn't cut it in the long run.

 

DCS is a battlefield "simulator", and there are very few to no AI controlled units on a RL battlefield.

 

I'd say, let AI fill the gap when necessary, but try to make it PvP as much as possible, that's IMO where the whole fun and DCS future are.

Edited March 4, 2014 by FLANKERATOR