Multiplayer missions - Clients slots proportionality

[Falcon_S]

I notice that mission designers do not take care of the proportional inclusion of dedicated aircrafts for the MULTIPLAYER mission.

 

• How many bombers or helicopters enough to accomplish the mission?
  
• Types of craft and purpose?
  
• How many fighters would need to cover the area, cooperation with the bombers...?
  
• ...
  

 

Many more questions will be self-imposed.

 

I think most of them are more concerned about a large selection of aircraft for the client than on the needs of the mission and capacity of the server. Why do I say this? Well, if you have a limited capacity of the server to 30 players and offer you more than 20 bombers and a dozen helicopters in addition to many types fighters can happen that the bombers took most of the slots or vice versa.

 

For example: I see your server and on it around 25/30 players. I must mention that many of us before entering the server already know, what they want to fly and I for example take slot Su27. I took off and I feel bored after a while and realize that almost no fighters on the opposite side. Why? - Because the bombers and helicopters occupied slots. I know it can be the opposite, people fly what love but ... Likewise, the lack of slots, but one does stunts in the Mustang over the airport.

 

If the coalition need 6 bombers for several hours how long mission, why let 10 bombers to enter the server? Who's going to cover them if there are no slots for fighters? This gain imbalances and boredom on the server.

 

I know how is hard to make nice mission but why after so much effort to let players get bored in your mission or server?

 

:pilotfly:

Edited June 4, 2014 by Falcon_S

[Wrecking Crew]

I notice that mission designers do not take care of the proportional inclusion of dedicated aircrafts for the MULTIPLAYER mission.

 

• How many bombers or helicopters enough to accomplish the mission?
  
• Types of craft and purpose?
  
• How many fighters would need to cover the area, cooperation with the bombers...?
  
• ...
  

 

Thanks for letting me know about this ^^^

 

I'll be sure to consider it next time I make a mission. Are you interested in paying for a mission that I make for you? Introductory offer -- $30/hour. New missions typically take me about 60 hours to complete.

 

WC

[Falcon_S]

If you cared about these things maybe you sell some of the missions to someone. In this world, everything can be sold and and your missions too. ;)

[ENO]

Tell you what Falcon- if you have such tremendous insight then I encourage you to invest some of it in the creation of your own missions.

 

Frick I get tired of these threads.

[Falcon_S]

People! Why the arrogance? I do not see anything malicious in my criticism regarding the creation of the mission. But if I was offended you, my culture dictates me that I have to deeply apologize to you.

 

Sorry again.

 

S!

[dooom]

i think the issue many folks forget is that there is an IMMENSE dedication of time , frustration and energy to create missions for the public. mission makers really only want to her "thank you" ... tbh criticism of any kind will usually rub a mission maker wrong... we're a sensitive lot lol!

[Home Fries]

Falcon,

 

The two guys who responded directly to you are two of the most prolific mission builders for DCS, and their missions don't have the problems of which you write.

 

You should go on ENO's Firehouse or Hollo Pointe sometime for a good multiplayer experience.

[Exorcet]

Frick I get tired of these threads.

 

Tired of what? There is nothing wrong with the thread.

 

Falcon, you make good points, but I have to say that I don't see the issue on a large scale online. I stick mostly to the 104th and 51st servers though. Most open servers that welcome anyone at anytime are going to have a hard time organizing, so I don't know what kind of solution you would add to those.

 

i think the issue many folks forget is that there is an IMMENSE dedication of time , frustration and energy to create missions for the public. mission makers really only want to her "thank you" ... tbh criticism of any kind will usually rub a mission maker wrong... we're a sensitive lot lol!

Too sensitive, unless I'm grossly misreading this thread. You should welcome criticism. It's not an attack.

[ENO]

One more guy in here whining that mission builders don't make missions to their specific preference?

 

Yeah... enjoy. I've had my fill of whiners who do nothing but take and give nothing.

[Exorcet]

Communicating ideas is a lot more than nothing. Though it might not get anywhere if it's all shot down immediately. This doesn't look like whining to me at all, more like pointing something out. It may have been said before, it may be stated from only one point of view, but I think the replies back might be a little too hostile.

 

You don't need to be a full time mission builder to have the right to critique anyone's missions. There may even be advantages to getting ideas from someone who's not even familiar with the process. They're less likely to accept widely held misconceptions. You might disagree with him, but if this is about productivity, Falcon isn't at fault here for any of it being lost or wasted. I just don't understand the tone of the some of the replies.

[ENO]

Okay, I'll field this one.

 

Feedback is important to you- so... by that how about I go into every available multiplayer server right now and deliver feedback:

 

I don't like how this aircraft is set up, I want it set up with weapons when I come in, why not any warm starts... why are there air starts? I want cold starts... but I want them in a prepared pit... and I want it more realistic so that radio channels aren't just xxx.0. And, while we're at it... why can't I see from outside? Half of why I sim is for the eye candy... but what about his unrealistic mission? Why are we hunting ONLY AAA? Why is there a carrier? There wouldn't ever be a carrier in this part of the world... A-10C isn't a SEAD aircraft. Why are there so many missiles? Why are the missions to easy? Why are there no missiles? Why do you ambush with MANPADS? Why are there same aircraft on both sides... that gets confusing... but I'm always bored of fighting the same enemies... I'm tired of cheaters- why is there no balance? I get bored if I have to fly more than 15 minutes in one direction to get shot down and cold start again? Why not have positions available in the event a person is shot down so they can respawn in a warm pit? I've actually heard every single one of these things from different people- believe me. One more guy coming in here b1tching about how the mission doesn't line up particularly with his taste is NOT contributing or valuable. If guys are in looking for ideas- go on in. Deliver input. If it isn't requested- then maybe be a little more aware of the fact that it may not even be welcomed. Or it's already beaten to death. Focus on the latter.

 

The reasons those missions exist, and I can say this from experience, is that the people it was made for were a certain group of simmers who talked to a mission maker who tried it out. Maybe the guy made it for himself and forgot to lock it. Maybe They left the door open for people who were of similar mind to come and join in. For everyone else- who had ambitions to fly to a different tune... believe me- I'm sure they know where the exit button is. And it's not right next to a "feedback" button- Just because somebody left doesn't mean it's an open door for open commentary and opinion on how it all could have been done better and how that particular mission maker- whoever it was- did anything wrong.

 

Forums are a place to express opinions. Okay- so someone experienced something they didn't like. I have an idea... how about I come in here and openly just talk about how crappy everyone is doing and then walk away and let them swim in it for awhile. Actually- how about I just go ahead and skip the mission part and focus on this thread.

 

Who cares? It's just my opinion and just like the next person I'm entitled to smear it wherever I choose.

 

Unfortunately, on the opposite end of that entitlement, the people who are feeling like that person should go ahead and spend a few hundred hours building missions (that constantly break) to entertain an MP community of people who are in VERY short supply right now are equally entitled. I can sit here and shoot down these opinions scatter-gun style since it is my opinion that people who are so full of fantastic ideas to make things better can sit down like the rest of us and spend some time demonstrating it.

 

 

Yes... Now that you mention it... What every mission maker in here needs is more feedback like that. So please, by all means- carry on helping the mission making community.

Edited June 6, 2014 by ENO

[Winfield_Gold]

Damn ENO, I need to spread rep around before I can give it to you again.

[LFCChameleon_Silk]

theres something you must realize 238thFalcon just because i add 50 slots into the mission is to not limit the player (to much) in terms of selection so that they can fly what they wish to fly in my mission, I would never set my server for 50 ppl, i usually limit to 8 or 12 slots, so you can clearly see you would never have 50 planes airborne at once.

 

I also limit tankovys only to red side since 12 were created makes little sense to give blue such a limited quantity aircraft and helps force players to try and balance out blue and red a bit... what i hate is how i have ground attack mission and everyone jumps in the 2 F-15s and goes and trolls red teams ground attack -- no one ever jumps into a red CAP role unless its as a response to F-15C trolling... for this reason alone when MiG-21 is released i will be creating a different variant of Operation Perched Eagle with just MiG-21's for blue and red - and that will take over the player CAP for balancing reasons.

 

probably call it Operation Perched Balalaika :P

 

on another note, it seems that only 1 percent of people flying actually have half a clue as to what they are doing -- i can count on my hands how many people i know that actually know how to jink or understand ground attack at all... and this is just the basic stuffs.. nevermind how to read a VVI, HSI or anything else that isn't ripple firing 8 AMRAAMs at RMAX. its a running joke with the people in my circle when some unknown guy joins the server, on teamspeak we begin taking bets how long it will be before the player has died message appears or they just taxi into the grass and leave.... now don't mistake this for me being cold to new comers, I often help new pilots and show them the ropes but unfortunately I can't actually take the controls for them or make them understand the theory of flight faster then they can absorb it themselves.

 

back on topic though, I design every task to be possible to complete with a single aircraft in 1 sortie if done perfectly and a maximum of 2 if done sloppy, obviously with a wingman it becomes much easier to complete a task -- in this regard i agree with you fully, there are times I try other peoples stuff (that had a crappier designer then me) and i see missing bullseye information, no way to see the bulls, radio is full of bullseye calls, no waypointing for su-25s (like they don't fly the plane and therefore don't realize how or why to waypoint), unrealistic expectations of an aircraft capability... a great example of this was a training mission surrounded by radar sams and I'm in a grach and its like proceed to the range for practice... couldn't even get anywhere near my weapons envelope without a hail of SAMS... thats just the worst designed training mission i have ever seen and its quite common for ppl to give me a grach slot and then expect me to fire rockets at 20 km.. aka ain't gonna happen. the bottom line is its up to the community to not run such poorly created / designed missions and I'm not trying to hate on anybodys work but if it sucks it sucks don't shoot the messenger.

Edited June 6, 2014 by =LFC=Chameleon_Silk

[Sceptre]

The only thing I find annoying as an Mi-8 pilot is when mission makers cram the transport zones full of Shilkas.... other than that nothing has bothered me and as a content creator in Arma for 8 years I can understand the hard work that goes into large multiplayer missions.

[Falcon_S]

I think problem is born here:

I notice that mission designers do not take care of the proportional inclusion of dedicated aircrafts for the MULTIPLAYER mission.

I meant some mission designers - honestly. And i apologies to all other although not one of the authors I`m not personally called or a specific mission.

• How many bombers or helicopters enough to accomplish the mission?
  
• Types of craft and purpose?
  
• How many fighters would need to cover the area, cooperation with the bombers...?
  
• ...
  

 

Many more questions will be self-imposed.

This topic has been raised as suggestions and guidelines. Specific issues are bound to create a mission and I did not say that ENO or WC... or some other experienced designers ignore that.

 

I think most of them are more concerned about a large selection of aircraft for the client than on the needs of the mission and capacity of the server.

 

I know very well that they should be represented diverse type of aircraft type that anyone can pick a favorite. I was created some missions for one very popular FC1/FC2 server but we don`t had server capacity problem. In this topic accent is server capacity and because of that in topic name standing Clinets slots proportionality and i explain what i mean in quoted text below:

Why do I say this? Well, if you have a limited capacity of the server to 30 players and offer you more than 20 bombers and a dozen helicopters in addition to many types fighters can happen that the bombers took most of the slots or vice versa.

 

For example: I see your server and on it around 25/30 players. I must mention that many of us before entering the server already know, what they want to fly and I for example take slot Su27. I took off and I feel bored after a while and realize that almost no fighters on the opposite side. Why? - Because the bombers and helicopters occupied slots. I know it can be the opposite, people fly what love but ... Likewise, the lack of slots, but one does stunts in the Mustang over the airport.

 

If the coalition need 6 bombers for several hours how long mission, why let 10 bombers to enter the server? Who's going to cover them if there are no slots for fighters? This gain imbalances and boredom on the server.

And this:

I know how is hard to make nice mission but why after so much effort to let players get bored in your mission or server?

 

:pilotfly:

I show RESPECT for hard work and big time spent and personally, why I'm bored if quietly on the server, bombers tingle ground units and I do not to harass them because I do not have fighter opponent.

 

Falcon,

 

The two guys who responded directly to you are two of the most prolific mission builders for DCS, and their missions don't have the problems of which you write.

 

You should go on ENO's Firehouse or Hollo Pointe sometime for a good multiplayer experience.

 

Have I mentioned them somewhere? No.

 

One more guy in here whining that mission builders don't make missions to their specific preference?

 

Yeah... enjoy. I've had my fill of whiners who do nothing but take and give nothing.

 

Wrong. No one is whining and you should show a little more respect to participants in this forum. Man, is not you, no one called or just looking for something from you. :doh:

 

Finally, I put forward a proposal, well-intentioned criticism in the hope to bring forth some ideas in commenting but no to insulting my or someone's dignity and intellect. But, thats internet.

[Exorcet]

Okay, I'll field this one.

 

Feedback is important to you- so... by that how about I go into every available multiplayer server right now and deliver feedback:

 

I don't like how this aircraft is set up, I want it set up with weapons when I come in, why not any warm starts... why are there air starts? I want cold starts... but I want them in a prepared pit... and I want it more realistic so that radio channels aren't just xxx.0. And, while we're at it... why can't I see from outside? Half of why I sim is for the eye candy... but what about his unrealistic mission? Why are we hunting ONLY AAA? Why is there a carrier? There wouldn't ever be a carrier in this part of the world... A-10C isn't a SEAD aircraft. Why are there so many missiles? Why are the missions to easy? Why are there no missiles? Why do you ambush with MANPADS? Why are there same aircraft on both sides... that gets confusing... but I'm always bored of fighting the same enemies... I'm tired of cheaters- why is there no balance? I get bored if I have to fly more than 15 minutes in one direction to get shot down and cold start again? Why not have positions available in the event a person is shot down so they can respawn in a warm pit? I've actually heard every single one of these things from different people- believe me. One more guy coming in here b1tching about how the mission doesn't line up particularly with his taste is NOT contributing or valuable. If guys are in looking for ideas- go on in. Deliver input. If it isn't requested- then maybe be a little more aware of the fact that it may not even be welcomed. Or it's already beaten to death. Focus on the latter.

 

I understood from the beginning that there are multiple threads like this and that the subject may have been discussed before more than once. That's not a strike against whoever brings up the topic as they may not know about any previous discussion and it doesn't negate any points they make. It's a similar thing when it comes to all the conflicting ideas you mentioned. They're not all necessary mentioned by the same people so that they conflict isn't a problem. They are also individually valid for the most part.

 

The reasons those missions exist, and I can say this from experience, is that the people it was made for were a certain group of simmers who talked to a mission maker who tried it out. Maybe the guy made it for himself and forgot to lock it. Maybe They left the door open for people who were of similar mind to come and join in. For everyone else- who had ambitions to fly to a different tune... believe me- I'm sure they know where the exit button is.

Which?

 

And it's not right next to a "feedback" button- Just because somebody left doesn't mean it's an open door for open commentary and opinion on how it all could have been done better and how that particular mission maker- whoever it was- did anything wrong.

I'm not completely sure I know what you mean here.

 

In any case I don't see a problem with providing an opinion on a mission. An opinion or suggestion doesn't need to be listened to. A suggestion doesn't even have to apply to the mission that generated the idea in the first place. Someone posting a thread like this isn't shouting how everyone doesn't know how to make missions or demanding that everything be changed to suit their own needs.

 

Forums are a place to express opinions. Okay- so someone experienced something they didn't like. I have an idea... how about I come in here and openly just talk about how crappy everyone is doing and then walk away and let them swim in it for awhile.

What confused me about this whole thread is that from reading replies, it sounds like that is what the first post actually does. In reality though, it does no such thing.

 

Unfortunately, on the opposite end of that entitlement, the people who are feeling like that person should go ahead and spend a few hundred hours building missions (that constantly break) to entertain an MP community of people who are in VERY short supply right now are equally entitled. I can sit here and shoot down these opinions scatter-gun style since it is my opinion that people who are so full of fantastic ideas to make things better can sit down like the rest of us and spend some time demonstrating it.

You don't have to agree with anything anyone has said. You can say that your/existing missions are perfect as they are. I just don't get why a simple observation is treated like a personal attack.

 

 

I know very well that they should be represented diverse type of aircraft type that anyone can pick a favorite. I was created some missions for one very popular FC1/FC2 server but we don`t had server capacity problem. In this topic accent is server capacity and because of that in topic name standing Clinets slots proportionality and i explain what i mean

 

Now on the actual subject, I still don't really see this as a huge or common issue. More often I think I see a bigger problem come from the total number of people playing. This has apparently gone down on average since FC2 since DCS is more demanding on internet connections. That's not really under the control of mission makers.

 

As far as the allotment of slots for each aircraft, I'm not sure if restricting them is the answer. If you halve the number of attack planes, that doesn't mean that the attack pilots will go into fighters. They may just leave. Also, with the module system in DCS you risk alienating players by not having a high enough variety of aircraft.

 

A while ago I suggested a solution in the DCS Wishlist that involved flexible client aircraft slots. You would not go into a server and pick a F/A-18 or F-15 for. Instead you would pick a slot called "Fighter". The mission maker would create a list of planes considered fighters and you as a client would pick from that list when you entered a client slot. This at least solves the problem with modules. However it's again something mission designers can't do anything about. ED would need to code that into the game.

[xcom]

I gotta say, if you don't like a post, you don't have to answer.

There's nothing wrong in my opinion with anyone putting up questions like these.

 

I can answer that the missions which run on my server try to be as balanced as possible, usually slots are there as needed.

When flying on open online servers you gotta take under consideration that you are not gonna have the missions go optimal or as designed for.

 

Good luck

[ENO]

There then should also be no problem with someone expressing an opinion about an opinion.

 

I digress but I stand by my "opinion" that people who want to come in and complain about any mission/s not being up to their standard can STFO until they (AT LEAST) try to do better.

[Wrecking Crew]

People! Why the arrogance? I do not see anything malicious in my criticism regarding the creation of the mission. But if I was offended you, my culture dictates me that I have to deeply apologize to you.

 

Sorry again.

 

S!

 

OK, Falcon, I was bothered by my response. I should have said $25/hour , I wasn't in a good mood. (Geez there I go again, slap me with a wet trout.)

 

I think you meant good by your post, and it is probably more an issue with language. We have seen a few of these posts recently about the availability, quality, and what I like to call 'balance' in multiplayer missions.

 

And with that, the intellectual property rights of DCS content.

 

It really does take me about 60 hours to make a mission.

 

Please, next time, put your criticism in the form of a request to improve the mission that you are wanting to see different? General, broad statements won't ...

 

Wrecking Crew

Hollo Pointe Server

[Wrecking Crew]

I don't like how this aircraft is set up, I want it set up with weapons when I come in, why not any warm starts... why are there air starts? I want cold starts... but I want them in a prepared pit... and I want it more realistic so that radio channels aren't just xxx.0. And, while we're at it... why can't I see from outside? Half of why I sim is for the eye candy... but what about his unrealistic mission? Why are we hunting ONLY AAA? Why is there a carrier? There wouldn't ever be a carrier in this part of the world... A-10C isn't a SEAD aircraft. Why are there so many missiles? Why are the missions to easy? Why are there no missiles? Why do you ambush with MANPADS? Why are there same aircraft on both sides... that gets confusing... but I'm always bored of fighting the same enemies... I'm tired of cheaters- why is there no balance? I get bored if I have to fly more than 15 minutes in one direction to get shot down and cold start again? Why not have positions available in the event a person is shot down so they can respawn in a warm pit?

 

Eno,

My most memorable:

"Why isn't there a TGP available? What stupid idiot would make an A-10C mission without a TGP. I'm leaving."

 

WC

Edited June 7, 2014 by Wrecking Crew

[xcom]

There then should also be no problem with someone expressing an opinion about an opinion.

 

I digress but I stand by my "opinion" that people who want to come in and complain about any mission/s not being up to their standard can STFO until they (AT LEAST) try to do better.

 

There's giving an opinion and there's completely side tracking someone's thread (whom if you notice is repectivly trying to just get feedback while being slammed with critisizem) to deal with another issue, I suggest opening a new thread if you feel that people do not respect the mission makers.

 

I wanna add to my previous answer, Falcon, you can usually also make requests for changes, on most servers there are usually channels available to contact the owners.

[ENO]

^ okay. I'll hear that.

 

OP if you don't like the mission in the server you're in then pick another or make your own.

 

 

There... That better?

 

Crew- my favorite so far... "We have to fly 15 minutes to target?! That's excessive."

[Falcon_S]

...

 

OP if you don't like the mission in the server you're in then pick another or make your own.

 

...

 

Very constructive.

 

I can go down to your arrogant way of communication: "If you do not like it - go!"

 

Let's forget.

 

OP - OUT! (It's sunny outside...)

[CobaltDragon]

There is problem with "If you don't like, make yourself" approach, is that we arent content makers,,,, just custormer/player,,, if everyone made their own server then there would be too many.

Falcon was giving constructive crisitizm about something that can be improve,,,, althow not every one may see it that way. He was not anger posting about how bad is server....

[Raptor9]

IMHO, the core problem with the mission design process in DCS:W is two-fold:

 

1) Missions require such complexity in programming, testing, revision, more testing just to iron out a single scenario, it's very daunting. (EDIT: Good missions)

 

2) When an update comes out, said missions break, repeatedly, and mission designers lose motivation to constantly keep their files in working order.

 

*I don't build missions to the extent of Eno or WreckingCrew, but I have built several large ones that occupied my free time over the span of weeks, or in the last case, months to build up. So I understand the frustration of seeing work criticized or needing to be scrapped or fixed after an update. My two largest missions now have a laundry list of things that are broke (after update 1 of 1.2.8 ) which I can't seem to fix yet, and the third one I don't even want to try out for fear of what I'll find.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Raptor9