Open Conflict - Server Information

[bertOC]

My only complaint is low ceiling, it really hurts ground pounders. And yeah, wind seems to be a little extreme.

 

I might have just bad luck but i can't really remember "good" weather for past months on this server. It's either dark, windy as hell or low ceiling.

 

Which groundpounders are you having problems with? An A10 can operate through clouds without a problem, and looking at real world weather, the 60-70km/h winds we are having right now is barely called a storm.

 

Keep it interesting Mirk :thumbup:

[Mirknir]

My only complaint is low ceiling, it really hurts ground pounders. And yeah, wind seems to be a little extreme.

 

I might have just bad luck but i can't really remember "good" weather for past months on this server. It's either dark, windy as hell or low ceiling.

 

Ok thanks for the feedback.

I am trying to use dynamic weather to offer difference kind of weather depending on where/when you are on the map.

The drawback is that it's hard for me to test everywhere/everywhen in the map so feedback is important. :thumbup:

 

I started to read on dynamic weather and edit my own weather outside the mission editor to get even more control on it.

 

As I release new weather pattern, I will name them and put this in the release notes so you guys can comment on them and I can better track and improve them :thumbup:

[Mirknir]

In Map: Open Conflict Tuapse - v3.5.2

Assault Fleet Objectives

* Decrease their strength so that they are more easily destructible

 

Weather

* First manually edited dynamic weather pattern "Coastal Storm 1"

* Mostly clear weather with a storm front offshore and a bit north (see images)

* Don't hesitate to comment on it since it's very hard to test everywhere / everywhen

[Mirknir]

Hello Guys

 

I've been working on Skynet ReGenesis lately and more specifically on the Fog of War aspect.

So far, I've been going towards something kind of realistic but with some simplification for gameplay purpose.

 

A unit could be undetected, detected-not-tracked or detected-and-tracked for lack of better words.

• Undetected units would not be reported or reported with [Location Unknown] depending on other parameters
  
• Tracked units would be reported with an accurate position like currently in Skynet [Dst:150km HDG:250° Alt:25000m]
  
• Detected units that aren't currently tracked would be reported with a last known position message [Dst:150km HDG:250° Alt:25000m][LastKnownPosition]
  

 

My questions are:

• What would be better names for undetected, detected-not-tracked or detected-and-tracked? Something maybe simpler or militarier :)
  
• What would be, for you, a good way to communicate in the Skynet popup the fact that the position given is a last know position without actually writing [LastKnownPosition]?
  

 

Thanks

[acdelta57]

For the seconds question what about "-pr" for position report? or "-rrc" Radar return check?

 

For the first question idk lol stealth mode, semi cloaking, and F*Cked respectively? jk :)

[bertOC]

First question I'd say call detected-and-tracked contacts Bogeys, the ones that have been detected a while ago but are not tracked at the moment (did I understand that one correctly?) Bogey Faded or Contact Faded.

 

Undetected and untracked units should not need a name right, since they are in the thick fog of war?

[zxrex]

Would it be possible to get a few more M2K slots. Lately when I log in they're all taken.

[Mirknir]

First question I'd say call detected-and-tracked contacts Bogeys, the ones that have been detected a while ago but are not tracked at the moment (did I understand that one correctly?) Bogey Faded or Contact Faded.

Undetected and untracked units should not need a name right, since they are in the thick fog of war?

 

So yea, I can explain a bit more what I am trying to do in term of fog of war.

As always, all this is still work in progress :)

 

First off, the design intent is to have something leaning toward realistic but with some short cuts due to DCS limitation, performance and how Skynet can talk to players.

 

Overwatch - Fog of war

 

In Skynet ReGenesis, I am implementing Overwatch that will play the role of AWACS/CGI as well as some more advanced features.

 

Each Overwath will receive every detection reports from its coalition.

An enemy unit can be detected by different ways (still in progress)

• By attacking a player
  
• By attacking a base/convoy
  
• Detected/Engaged by AI (air or ground) or players
  
• More...
  

This applies to air, ground or surface units.

 

While detected and X minutes after the last detection report

An enemy unit will appear in Overwatch as a clear contact (using Bert terminology proposition)

Overwatch will dispatch players using the exact position.

 

After dissapearing from detection/report

The enemy unit will appear in Overwatch as a faded contact (using Bert terminology proposition) for Y minutes.

Overwatch will dispatch players using the last know position.

 

After being faded for Y minutes

The enemy will disappear from Overwatch.

 

Notes:

Some aircrafts could be immune to reports and never appear in Overwatch like Medic / WWII Aircraft.

Even if it's less realistic (like WWII fighting the same battleground as F15 btw), I think it will help to create gameplay space for them.

In case of Medic, DCS doesn't have proper ROE so I don't want the system to purposely dispatch fighters on them like the DCS AWACS would.

 

 

Overwatch - Picture / Bogey Dope

First, like other Skynet systems, you will be able to choose your preferred unit system (imperial or metric)

 

In addition to the detection status (Not Reported / Clear / Faded) from the target, I would like to add a report precision depending on the requester.

 

The idea is to give less precise reports to aircrafts with more detection capabilities.

For example, a modern fighter with rwr and radar would get less precise information comparing to a trainer.

 

I am not sure how this will be displayed whether by introducing ranges and/or names

Full precision : [Dst:156km HDG:256° Alt:7800m]

Low precision (numeric): [Dst:100-200km HDG:180-270° Alt:5000->10000m]

Low precision (name): [Dst:Far HDG:SE Alt:Medium]

 

 

Fog Of Wars and Objectives

 

I also want to use this fog of war system for the objective popup.

An objective detailed popup will no longer gives you all the information about the objective but only the the position / composition of discovered units.

 

 

It's a big system to put in place but I think it would be more exciting and somewhat a bit more realistic than the current Skynet.

By integrating the role of the AWACS into a Skynet system, I can do more things like:

Overwatch not dispatching players on a Medic helicopter

Overwatch not dispatching players on a bogey in the opposite protected zone

Overwatch using your preferred unit system

Overwatch dispatching help to base under attacks

Overwatch using the SAM detection system to find enemies

....

[Shinhwa]

> Overwatch not dispatching players on a Medic helicopter

 

*ears perk up*

 

I've been killed just about every day in my gunless Huey. Everytime by the same guy, who I won't name because its perfectly valid gameplay. He says Gazelles are scary and he doesn't know if I am one or not.

 

I'm already flying nap of the Earth at 100kts. Is there anything else I should be doing to avoid kills like this? I rarely even see the guy killing me before the missile hits.

[acdelta57]

@shinwa sorry to hear bud. Let me guess, an F15 with 3 bags and all spamrams full burning through the conflict zone with his nav lights on? After about the 4th attempt to do a proper helo mission with my mates falling into spamram death moments after lift off from the FARP has forced me to put my rotor head on pause in OC.

[Mirknir]

@shinwa sorry to hear bud. Let me guess, an F15 with 3 bags and all spamrams full burning through the conflict zone with his nav lights on? After about the 4th attempt to do a proper helo mission with my mates falling into spamram death moments after lift off from the FARP has forced me to put my rotor head on pause in OC.

 

This post really doesn't help me :)

I am trying to keep the dialog running, try to keep you updated on what I am working on and usually answer concerns and am not hesitant to take actions even if I have been super busy lately.

 

I've always communicated that I don't want Open Conflict to become a sky quake server and always wanted to make space for everyone to play.

So to make this post a but more helpful for me, lemme ask you these questions:

 

• You are usually the first one to want stuff more hard core, more winds, more MANPADS, less help from Skynet...
  So what's changed for you?
  I've notice the amount of fighters in Open Conflict have increased and despite insistent requests, I've not increased the number of fighter slots and I even considering decreasing it.
  Is it a factor in your frustration?
  

 

• Even if a bit artificial, would some more protection from Skynet be something cool?
  I know sometimes it might appear unrealistic but in wars, usually you have the fight for the sky happening at a different time from the ground offensive.
  

 

• Speaking of fight for the sky VS ground offensive, for the next map, I was wondering if I should add 2 fronts to kind of reflect this.
  Still not sure how it could be done in a cool way but I am, as always, open to solution.
  

 

• I think the AI Caps stop spawning when there is too many players, is this extra defense more usually than we thought?
  

 

• Why especially the F15? I know they are pretty OP, easy to pilot and full of fuel but I was wondering if it's really a F15 problem or a fighter problem or aim120 or fuel tanks.
  

 

• I know the AWACS is not perfect or configurable in DCS so that's why I am trying to merge it with the next Skynet.
  

 

 

Any other solutions in mind?

Some major changes are already under way but it's will not be there tomorrow :)

 

I am also open to making some more minor changes to the current Skynet if I see that some aircrafts lost their place to have fun.

Let's keep the dialog running...

 

Thanks

Edited May 17, 2017 by Mirknir

[acdelta57]

This post really doesn't help me :)

I am trying to keep the dialog running, try to keep you updated on what I am working on and usually answer concerns and am not hesitant to take actions even if I have been super busy lately.

 

I've always communicated that I don't want Open Conflict to become a sky quake server and always wanted to make space for everyone to play.

So to make this post a but more helpful for me, lemme ask you these questions:

 

• You are usually the first one to want stuff more hard core, more winds, more MANPADS, less help from Skynet...
  So what's changed for you?
  I've notice the amount of fighters in Open Conflict have increased and despite insistent requests, I've not increased the number of fighter slots and I even considering decreasing it.
  Is it a factor in your frustration?
  

 

• Even if a bit artificial, would some more protection from Skynet be something cool?
  I know sometimes it might appear unrealistic but in wars, usually you have the fight for the sky happening at a different time from the ground offensive.
  

 

• Speaking of fight for the sky VS ground offensive, for the next map, I was wondering if I should add 2 fronts to kind of reflect this.
  Still not sure how it could be done in a cool way but I am, as always, open to solution.
  

 

• I think the AI Caps stop spawning when there is too many players, is this extra defense more usually than we thought?
  

 

• Why especially the F15? I know they are pretty OP, easy to pilot and full of fuel but I was wondering if it's really a F15 problem or a fighter problem.
  

 

• I know the AWACS is not perfect or configurable in DCS so that's why I am trying to merge it with the next Skynet.
  

 

 

Any other solutions in mind?

Some major changes are already under way but it's will not be there tomorrow :)

 

I am also open to making some more minor changes to the current Skynet if I see that some aircrafts lost their place to have fun.

Let's keep the dialog running...

 

Thanks

 

I apologize I wasnt trying to be disruptive to the dialog. Just sharing my condolences for a lost rotor man :( Let me try to answer these questions;

 

I dont think anything has really changed for me, what i do think has changed is the quality of players OC has attracted now. Back on the kashuri days, and even early Tuapse, OC was filled with mostly new players. While yes, new players still tend to frequent OC, I feel that the quality of players has drastically improved and more experienced combat fighters now play on the server regularly. Which is perfectly ok! (and even exciting to see someone come on new, and now watch them destroy in the conflict zone with tips provided by the regulars) So while I dont think anything you have done or created instigates the "quake" style of play, I think its the pure "size" of the conflict zone being to small that promotes air quake. (Or lack of option #2 which i will explain in a second)

 

Fort example, and one of the veterans has the track somewhere, but when an F15 fires 6 or so spamrams at 4 helicopters in formation, while being launched on by SAMs, shoots down the choppers is not just frustrating, but it shows proper technique I guess in killing aircraft so you cant necessarily fault the pilot, but what does really frustrate those dead helicopter pilots is finding out that very F15 then ejects to get a new plane because he doesn't want to go back to the airfield. So by the time the rotors begin to spin up for the seconds attempt the F15 already has loaded 3 bags of fuel and is full burning right back to the same spot. Now in this scenario, the F15 is not doing anything wrong by DCS standards. And being killed by jets is part of the game. But the fact that fighters can get back into the zone so rapidly even after ejecting or being shot down really puts a strain on those who like to challenge the advanced fighters in primitive aircraft.

 

-Side note, not even just challenge other aircraft, you have made some wonderfully fun and balanced objectives that are intriguing and exciting to attack. But the problem is the fact that short of bert dropping a CBU, the time you will be on station before being swarmed by full burning, 3 bag carrying, 8 amram launching F15s (with nav lights on) is minimal.

 

The reduced fuel load worked initially, and even continue to work the on the SUs. However F15s have found workarounds with external tanks as that fuel drains into the main tank.

 

Even with what I have stated above, and how I feel about being killed by F15s, I dont want to blame them, as its NOT their fault. They are doing what any good pilot should learn to do, maximize the efficiency of his aircraft, and deploy it in the most lethal way possible.

 

So we come back to "size." I think the size of the conflict zone for the increasing number of experienced pilots is too small and consequences of being shot down are minimal as its just a short amount of time to get back to the zone.

 

Now lets discuss lack of option#2, my favorite and what i wish so desperately to see in OC either, skynet, or reGen.

 

You mention about AI assisting in protection, I dont feel any more is needed. And your spawning AI cap works perfectly fine and the number of rage quits have ceased dramatically. I think its a perfect system in place and should not be changed.

 

What I WOULD love to see, is the ability for helicopters to be able to take a personal defense weapon. Or Portable stinger man. At first I wanted to suggest something like buddyspike does, the ability to deploy KUB sites with multiple deliveries. But I understand you want to run your own scripting, so I wanted to suggest something new.

 

You can even have this "PDW (personal defense weapon stinger or manpad) be able to be picked up from the FARP just like your explosive packs or cargo, and have him be able to be planted in the field. This would be great used in conjunction with your "fighter in vicinity warning" already in place. So if a group of helos wants to attack the incursion, they can deploy PDWs around the AO as a small bubble of protection. To prevent trolling as I know you are thinking, you can even have these PDWs de-spawn after X amount of time being deployed.

 

Something of that nature to give us some kind of protection or way to fight back against the blood thirsty missile slinging jet jockeys, I think would greatly improve helicopter game-play and assistance on the battlefield.

 

Why do I hate against F15 you ask?

Mostly I say F15 because they tend to be the most problematic, and you dont like them either so i feel its safe space;) lol

 

That and it is by far the easiest aircraft to fly (personal opinion) -at least the su you must think in Russian!:)

 

You mentioned 2 Fronts on the battlefield

 

This could be very intriguing! Also a solution to some problems encountered with the current conflict zone too as I would imagine this scenario would require more space and would split up the player congested areas. So I would be very happy to see that implemented at some point.

 

1 Question for you Mirk about Fog Of War, will flying for example, trainer aircraft, such as L39, "lift the fog" over ground objectives? Like if I use F10 menu and see only 1 objective that is available, will doing recon popup or activate other ground objectives for the team that can then be seen in the F10 menu?

Edited May 17, 2017 by acdelta57

[bertOC]

He says Gazelles are scary and he doesn't know if I am one or not.

 

If that happens next time, look at the scoreboard and call him out if there is no Mistral on your team.

[Mirknir]

OC right now seems like one of the servers where even without much training and communication you can be very effective as a lone wolf, but if we wanna go up together and not have a continuous stream of AMRAAMS flowing towards us, we gotta go on a private mission.

 

That's exactly what I don't want to happen.

Any idea what would help getting a bit more balanced?

Less fighter slots?

Less FC3 fighter slots?

No more AIM120?

No more fuel tanks?

More SAMS / Warships cover?

More scripted help?

A main front where most fighters slots are and another one less fighter slot heavy?

 

I wanted to push a new version of the map this week-end ; I should have time to experiment with some stuff.

I guess the less fuel on startup thing didnt help that much :(

[cosmicdoubloon]

If I can give my 2 cents on some of these...

 

I've notice the amount of fighters in Open Conflict have increased and despite insistent requests, I've not increased the number of fighter slots and I even considering decreasing it.

Is it a factor in your frustration?

For me this isn't a frustration, because on the whole the teams are pretty good at balancing themselves out so even if there are a lot of fighters, the number per team is still reasonably similar and rarely does one side have a distinct advantage.

 

[*]Even if a bit artificial, would some more protection from Skynet be something cool?

I know sometimes it might appear unrealistic but in wars, usually you have the fight for the sky happening at a different time from the ground offensive.

I don't think more protection from Skynet is needed, if too many aids are added it reaches a point where player ability and human thinking is hampered. That being said I feel there could be a couple of changes to the AI defences which I'll touch on later, and maybe another solution would be additional or respawning ground/sea objectives in the safe zones so that ground pounders and helos have more opportunities without necessarily going into the conflict zone. Yes I know there's already the Novo airfield + Anapa incursion for example, but the bluefor Lanchuni weapons factory isn't replaced on destruction, which leaves only defended objectives or the conflict zone, both potentially off-putting to new players and/or people learning a new plane.

 

[*]Speaking of fight for the sky VS ground offensive, for the next map, I was wondering if I should add 2 fronts to kind of reflect this.

Still not sure how it could be done in a cool way but I am, as always, open to solution.

A 2 front battle would be really cool! Although potentially this means double the AI due to the need to populate both sides with targets. It also could mean more of the map is used for the conflict zones, which raises an issue in that it can encroach on the separated duel zones.

 

[*]I think the AI Caps stop spawning when there is too many players, is this extra defense more usually than we thought?

I think the extra defence is maybe more vital than we anticipated and were overzealous to suggest the nerf and spawn delay. Here's why:

 

The combination of the FC3 fuel delay and CAP delay means that very often we see situations where almost all of your team's CAP is on the deck fuelling and there's absolutely no fighter cover in the conflict zone, which means the other team have pushed all the way up as far as they can. Yes the skynet flak and SAMs get some, but the smart ones (and there are quite a few!) simply stay far enough away from those objectives, but still are able to aggressively engage any aircraft before they have entered the conflict zone. This is especially apparent around the Bluefor Krasnodar Airfields where on occasion I am fired upon before even reaching the conflict zone. The Skynet destroys these missiles most of the time but I've been shot down before reaching the conflict zone before.

 

My solution(s): the bluefor HAWK site is far less effective than the redfor KUB down by Sochi. I think the launchers should be moved closer to the Krasnodar airbases so that they can more effectively deter fighters skulking in the north of the Bluefor zone away from the SAM base and fleet.

 

AI CAP: two possible solutions.

1) I think the AI CAP could respawn regardless of the number of fighters under a certain condition. If your side has the 'Your side is at a disadvantage!' warning then your CAP can continue to respawn, but the team with the advantage has its CAP spawn frozen as normal.

2) bring back the F16s. Now, before you all cry 'not more amraams!' hear me out! When both sides have enough fighters the AI CAP could be switched from the current F18/MiG-23s, which are good, but not effective against fighters in large numbers, to F-16/SU-30s. These are more capable fighters with AIM-120s and R-77s (We've never seen R-77 equipped AI in OC before, could be really cool!) and are better suited to fighting large numbers of players. When the fighter count drops back down again, it switches back to the F18/MiG-23 CAP.

OR

combine the two. If your side has the 'Your side is at a disadvantage!' warning your CAP gets upgraded to F-16/SU-30.

 

[*]Why especially the F15? I know they are pretty OP, easy to pilot and full of fuel but I was wondering if it's really a F15 problem or a fighter problem.

The F-15 is no more OP than the SU-27/33 IMO, yes it has the amraams and insane radar, but the SUs get datalink, helmet mounted sight + ufo missile, and the optical BVR system in general. Its just a running joke in the group that you can spot a player who is new to DCS because they're on the deck in an F15 at full burn with 3 external tanks and 8 AIM-120Cs, and they fire 3 or 4 amraams at one target at max range, turn around and full burn back to base. Nothing against the F-15 personally :) It's a general fighter problem as opposed to a specific aircraft, the F-15 just gets stick because its one of the most popular modules and so lots of people fly it.

 

That's about it from me, on a brighter note Mirk I'm compiling some pictures to bring a couple of nice stories of our antics which you can hopefully get to see soon :thumbup:

 

Keep up the good work as always!

[cosmicdoubloon]

Also because I didn't mention it, the less fuel on startup is a double edged sword. For one it on the whole discourages people just ejecting and grabbing a new plane, but the F15 has the workaround that Dust mentioned in that it can just take the external tanks. Maybe limit it so it can only carry one tank on the belly? I don't know if its possible but its one solution.

 

or maybe shift the focus on to the smaller fighters, so remove some of the F15/SU27/SU33 slots and replace them with M2K and MiG-29 variants. These are still very good planes, but lack the fuel capacity and missile numbers to dominate the conflict zone for 30-45 minutes at a time. If a player wants to do the 'airquake' of full burning to the objective they can, but they'll have a very small window of time on target before winchester/bingo. This also encourages conservative fuel/missile useage and might help to promote a more 'escort' style of play. Stay with the ground pounders and preserve fuel until an enemy gets close.

 

That and I'm a sucker for the MiG-29 and seeing more of them in the conflict zone is fine by me! :D

[acdelta57]

If I see F16 AI back in the conflict zone I'm uninstalling DCS lol we worked so hard to get Mirk to remove them! No more death by F16! At least the F18 looks pretty

[acdelta57]

In the meantime take that spamram! I made it back to base and got a repair even tho i need to go vomit and have a seizure due to the vibrations I just flew with. lol

[Frostie]

Why not restrict A2A payloads?

Have SARH only or just short range heaters.

 

Doing this you are bringing the fight more in tune with the strikers, missiles are easier to defeat and multiple targets will no longer be engaged from over 10nmi away. Not only that but this will also scare away the spamrammers.

 

Allow choppers to build defence networks to give them a comfort zone to operate in, even giving them the opportunity to build FARPs.

[Shinhwa]

:cry: *looks at the buzzing from the hornets nest he just kicked* :cry:

 

Honestly I ain't mad. I just figured there might be some techniques I'm not using due to my high level of noobness :joystick: . On the other map there are plenty of bendy, twisty, mountains and ravines to hide in, but on the current map not so much.

 

I still managed to make it back to the FARP alive 2 or 3 times, one time carrying my own rescue from a previous shootdown. My last trip last night I was on the ground at a safe house with another Huey pilot. He got exploded right in front of me and I took some damage. Looking at the screencap I took on the way back it was an F15 with an AIM120. I've blanked out the names on the screencap, but it wasn't the same guy who shot me down earlier. But I brought that pilot back to the FARP alive. Hell, even the copilot lived.

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Shinhwa

[lefty1117]

Suggestion - fly F15 AI CAP & increase AI CAP spawn rate based on number of opposing players in CAP slots minus friendly players in CAP slots

[acdelta57]

@shinhwa I like you cockpit mod, did you custom make that one or is it avail somewhere?

[JDarksword]

@shinhwa I like you cockpit mod, did you custom make that one or is it avail somewhere?

I'll send it to you today if you're on TS Dust, it's back about 50 or so pages but I still have the dl link. I could also throw up a G-Drive link or something.

Edited May 17, 2017 by JDarksword

[Shinhwa]

@shinhwa I like you cockpit mod, did you custom make that one or is it avail somewhere?

 

Snazzy isn't it? Unfortunately I just found it linked to a Youtube video and I don't even remember which one. It is labeled "Skullleader UH-1H Cockpit", but I can't find where he's released such a mod. I'll email him and see about it.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Shinhwa

[Mirknir]

*looks at the buzzing from the hornets nest he just kicked*

 

haha It's ok.

I'd rather have people express their opinions (in a constructive way if possible) than staying silent.

 

I have been focusing on the Skynet ReGenesis lately and without a new computer, I can't play DCS anymore so you guys and this forum are my eyes on the server.

I've been noticing lately that the aircraft composition on the server shifted a lot towards fighters, especially on the week end and I already wanted to investigate this.

I am not sure how it happens since OC didn't change that much since I started working on ReGenesis. Did the 104th closed? :)

 

If I can give my 2 cents on some of these...

I'll send you a Tacview file via PM to show an example...

 

Thanks all of you guys for the feedbacks and keep it coming.

A lot of good proposals and analysis; I will think on it and see what I can do now and what I will keep for next map.

 

Seeing the team composition, I was considering doing some more drastic changes than the low fuel and I think all you say confirms what I wanted to do.

 

Keep up the good work as always!

 

Keep up the constructive feedback!