Open Conflict - Server Information

[Mirknir]

I would strongly suggest making the tankers invincible! They can be collided with and be destroyed currently (don't ask how I know :P)

 

Contrary to Khashuri mission, in Tuapse mission, the tankers are supposed to be operational ; not for training.

There are a bit more forward, toward the conflict zone, protected by ships but still part of the conflict.

Players can go try to kill them and if you fail to refuel, you kill it.

 

Since it's operational tankers, t's ok ; it's more dynamic like that.

They will still respawn 10 min after being killed.

 

Also could they have infinite fuel?

 

Being able to set infinite fuel / ammo on units have been requested to ED since 1866. :music_whistling:

 

The Russian tanker RTBs after two Su-33s take fuel, so late in the server time there may not be tankers available for others.

 

Late in the server, the tankers will have less fuel and maybe RTB depending on how they were used.

It's ok ; it's part of the operation.

They will still respawn 10 min after rtbing and landing.

 

Su33 have a forward and a far offshore carrier to refuel too.

 

Also, what happened to the low and slow tanker for the A-10s?

 

Nothing happened, they were never in Tuapse map.

I didn't feel the map size requires an operational tanker for A10C.

 

In Khashuri mission, the low and slow tanker is for training.

[doodenkoff]

I was flying around yesterday and BLOOEY! I couldn't use force trim in the Huey anymore. It simply disappeared during the flight. Not even the keyboard combo would work. I remember one weird moment where it looked like a hill in front of me was "transparent", and I thought I might have actually flown through it. Is that weird?

 

Has anyone here ever had the force trim simply quit?

 

BTW...it works in Open Beta and Open Alpha. Will not work at all anymore in 1.5.4 stable.

[acdelta57]

Only thing I can't think of check force feedback settings and or

Unplug all other usb devices that don't apply to dcs (like racing wheel or something). Perhaps the UH1 forums would be of more help

[Mirknir]

Only thing I can't think of check force feedback settings and or

Unplug all other usb devices that don't apply to dcs (like racing wheel or something). Perhaps the UH1 forums would be of more help

Dust-Off, the Huey whisperer

 

"The commanding officer of a severely traumatized huey pilot enlists the aid of a unique huey master to help the pilot and it's equally injured huey."

 

In theaters now :P

[acdelta57]

:megalol:Now that's was funny mirk

[doodenkoff]

Only thing I can't think of check force feedback settings and or

Unplug all other usb devices that don't apply to dcs (like racing wheel or something). Perhaps the UH1 forums would be of more help

 

Eventually, I removed and re-installed the Huey module. Seems to be working now. What was really weird is that it stopped working during a flight on the server. I'm not blaming the server.....just can't suss how its function could change mid-flight.

[JDarksword]

Couple of requests, can we have 2 more blufor F-15s? With 4 it makes it hard to get a slot sometimes. My other request is about tankers, could they be moved forward to just on the edge of the combat zone, and set so that they orbit around to the sea and poke out for carrier ops and then return to fly against the border. That would make tankers much more useful, as I would actually like to refuel after a battle.

[acdelta57]

lol Soo many requests. Poor Mirknir :)

 

I'm just at work like, hey wait a second, this doesn't look like Tuapse?! :lol:

Bonus points to those who name the city

[Bond 42]

lol Soo many requests. Poor Mirknir :)

 

 

 

I'm just at work like, hey wait a second, this doesn't look like Tuapse?! :lol:

 

Bonus points to those who name the city

 

 

 

Shooting the expressway visual 31 to LGA in the EMB-170?

[acdelta57]

Shooting the expressway visual 31 to LGA in the EMB-170?

 

**Gasp**:shocking:

[Bond 42]

**Gasp**:shocking:

 

 

 

I used to be based in Lga and flew the Emb-170 myself. Good pic!

[Mirknir]

Couple of requests, can we have 2 more blufor F-15s? With 4 it makes it hard to get a slot sometimes. My other request is about tankers, could they be moved forward to just on the edge of the combat zone, and set so that they orbit around to the sea and poke out for carrier ops and then return to fly against the border. That would make tankers much more useful, as I would actually like to refuel after a battle.

 

Yea I want to make the tanker more operational but I also need to protect them somehow.

I already have a version of the map with tankers going more forward.

I need to to some troll test to see how easy it is to kill them :music_whistling:

[Mirknir]

lol Soo many requests. Poor Mirknir :)

 

but no cigar :)

[acdelta57]

I would love to troll test killing tankers lol Just gave me a mission for friday :D hopefully some A10s will be trying to refuel too :D

[Mirknir]

Skynet Score Board vs DCS Score Board

 

Skynet already computes a score for each players, a more meaningful score than DCS's one ('-score' command)

Contrary to DCS scoring, mine takes into account the conflict zone, if units are active or statics, AI or players and support mission like rescue/delivery.

 

However, I can't remove DCS scoring and neither can I substitute DCS scoring with mine.

Because it can be confusing to have 2 scoring system ; I never really put emphasis on my scoring system.

 

At the same time, I always wanted to add some kind of team based scoring so that players can band together to beat the other team.

My idea is to keep my scoring but also add session stats for the teams.

Each time you increase your stats or your Skynet scoring, you increase your team stats and Skynet scoring.

 

Here is my idea:

Instead of a by-player rating like DCS does, Skynet scoreboard ('-score' command) will instead display team based information, stats and scoring.

There will be less confusion as the information will be different.

Each player could then decide to compete for their team in one aspect like having more pvp kills or more rescues....

 

Here are some screenshot of an early implementation.

I am not totally happy with the format of the display but you can see what kind of information would be displayed:

 

What do you think about this?

Edited July 26, 2016 by Mirknir

[acdelta57]

Looks pretty good! Is there anyway to have a rescue remove a loss? For instance a team has 2 losses, a huey rescues the downed pilot therefore removes a loss score? I think this would help ease the Bi**hing of helo pilots (myself included sometimes lol) being "defenseless" because now they would be directly affecting the overall score of other players? that make any sense? And i think that would really encourage COOP CAP missions for the little guys instead of everyone just trying to run up a K/D ratio.

[Mirknir]

Looks pretty good! Is there anyway to have a rescue remove a loss? For instance a team has 2 losses, a huey rescues the downed pilot therefore removes a loss score? I think this would help ease the Bi**hing of helo pilots (myself included sometimes lol) being "defenseless" because now they would be directly affecting the overall score of other players? that make any sense? And i think that would really encourage COOP CAP missions for the little guys instead of everyone just trying to run up a K/D ratio.

 

In my opinion, a rescue is a thing by itself.

It doesn't undo the loss of the rescued pilot's aircraft.

Same for capture, it doesn't undo the kills done by this pilot.

 

I prefer to keep them as separate stats, unlinked to loss.

Then, in the team stats, if people wants to compare or subtract loss and rescue, they still can.

 

For fighters killing transport/medic helicopters, I can always create the concept of un-honorable kills that would boost the victim's team AI's morale :lol:

The killer won't be punished ; it's open conflict, not restricted conflict but the victim side will "benefit" a bit more of his demise.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Mirknir

[acdelta57]

Yeah I see your point, i do like the way it is as it stands and i know a bunch of helo pilots agree.

 

Is there such thing as unhonorables kills?! lol i thought all is fair in love and war or in this case, all is fair in love and conflict zone :)

[acdelta57]

OH i remember what i was really going to ask few days ago and forgot! With tuapse being more of a functional combat map ( as opposed of training focused kashuri) what about the possibility of making AWACS destructible as well? That way the Datalink mongers would be set on a level playing field if the opposing team set up a successful strike package to taking out opposing teams awacs? A few of us regulars in TS have developed love/hate relationships for the awacs lol

[rtimmons]

I prefer to always be at risk of getting killed. Even in a medic helo. I doubt that the Vietnamese ever hesitated to fire at medics anyway. Neither would terrorist. But the main point is that the ability to die is what makes life worth living (exciting) :)

 

slyfly

[acdelta57]

I prefer to always be at risk of getting killed. Even in a medic helo. I doubt that the Vietnamese ever hesitated to fire at medics anyway. Neither would terrorist. But the main point is that the ability to die is what makes life worth living (exciting) :)

 

slyfly

 

Couldn't agree more. Infact whenever that red cross enters the landing zone fire always increases and is directed towards it.

[Shinhwa]

For fighters killing transport/medic helicopters, I can always create the concept of un-honorable kills that would boost the victim's team AI's morale :lol:

The killer won't be punished ; it's open conflict, not restricted conflict but the victim side will "benefit" a bit more of his demise.

 

I'll go against the grain and say I like it. Anything that makes the server events more dynamically linked. One of my favorite things is how PVP kills result in NPC rescues being spawned. So anything else that can happen dynamically like that is super. :thumbup:

[Mirknir]

OH i remember what i was really going to ask few days ago and forgot! With tuapse being more of a functional combat map ( as opposed of training focused kashuri) what about the possibility of making AWACS destructible as well? That way the Datalink mongers would be set on a level playing field if the opposing team set up a successful strike package to taking out opposing teams awacs? A few of us regulars in TS have developed love/hate relationships for the awacs lol

 

Your innocence is touching :)

It was like that at the beginning of Open Conflict and people would just change team, team kill the awacs and go back to their original team.

 

I am not happy with the Datalink OPness but without it, it would be the FoX3, then without it F15 radar OP ness and without it.... and so on and so on.

 

The current situation is the best of the bad solutions.

The only alternative I can think about is removing all long range air to air missiles then the playing field would start to be more leveled.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Mirknir

[acdelta57]

Lol i had no idea about the team killing of awacs thats hilarious. I could actually see myself doing that:D:D

 

Makes sense to have it setup the way it is then:thumbup:

[Mirknir]

Lol i had no idea about the team killing of awacs thats hilarious. I could actually see myself doing that:D:D

 

Makes sense to have it setup the way it is then:thumbup:

 

I wouldn't mind cut the bvr and removing all long range missiles but some people wouldn't be happy