Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 5

[Hansdampf]

Also curious how the other trans pilots feel about that. There were a lot of rounds (3hrs cycle) that we did nothing but refuel in a bloody group and still it's never even close enough.

 

I definitely share your frustration with the current fuel supply system. In the current campaign it feels like I spent more than 50% of my time doing fuel transports and I am really tired of it. There is so much more exciting stuff one could do instead of these flights…

 

However, what bugs me the most about the current system is the extreme imbalance which results from the distances between red and blue airbases especially in pak3 and pak6. It is easy for blue to keep Tibilisi/Soganlug/Vaziani refueled and keep pushing into pak3. On the other side it takes quite a significant amount of choppers to keep the red airbases in pak3 refueled. Assuming reasonably balanced teams red will always lose pak3 because a: we run out of fuel and cannot field any defense or b: too many people have to do fuel transports and we get outnumbered.

 

Of course I am aware that also blue has to refuel the bases in pak3 after conquering them. However, since blue cannot spawn F15s from there the fuel consumption is probably far lower and the airfields play a less crucial role…

 

 

Some things which could improve the current system would be:

 

- Allow Su25s and A10s to do fuel transports (as mentioned earlier by someone else). Just temporarily until C130s and Antonovs will be introduced as flyable aircrafts… (would be awesome... but will it ever happen?)

 

- Make the amount of fuel being transported depend on the distance travelled (for example 50 fuel/km). So if you bring a fuel crate to an airbase 10 km away you transport 500 fuel while a transport over 100 km gives 5000 fuel. I don’t mind flying back and forth between Krasnodar C and P ten times to get them refueled fully… but doing the same between Nalchik and MinVody would definitely drive me nuts…

 

 

Anyway, I would prefer a different fuel supply system which does not depend on chopper flights as main source of fuel. A while ago I posted the idea of a static fuel supply but unfortunately only ApoNOOB recognized the beauty of this system (thx mate!). Still want to promote the idea once again:

 

Since fuel transports by AI convoys or planes are apparently not an option how about some kind of “static fuel supply”:

Distribute a certain amount of refineries (or oil rigs or whatever) over the map (say 5 for each coalition). Every working refinery in the hand of on side provides a certain amount of fuel (e.g. 1/min) to all airports of the corresponding coalition. That means at the beginning of the campaign every airport has an income of 5 fuel per minute (equal to one new plane every 10 minutes). By destroying the enemy’s assets one could reduce their income (and by conquering increase the own income).

Additional fuel transports from refineries or less used airports to the front should be possible in case an airport on the frontline runs out of fuel. But these fuel transports should be some emergency measure rather than the main fuel income…

 

I think it could really add to the whole campaign. Besides of having additional objetives to defend/conquer/destroy it also allows the tactic of denying fuel and drying out the enemy team (which I think played a role in every modern age conflict since ww2).

[Foka1]

Chopper points:

 

1) Return lives (pilots abusing unlimited lives, doing hauling runs for SAM for instance you go there deploy crate, then go back to spectators and start new chopper and cut your travel time in half). Choppers spam should end, they don't care for their life anymore... IMHO you can find a suitable number for amount of lives.

Guys who think that spawn kill on FARP will waste your life, it is not, your life count start only after take off.

 

2) There is definitelly some changes needed in FUEL system. Somebody said it is not fun so do a straight flight... I say ok, remove CTLD crates and add normal slingload crates BUT WITH big amount of fuel in each crate. SO transporting this crate on slingload now challenging and one run can get fuel for a lot of fighters, but at the same time other side will try to hunt this fuel run and ruin it, here you have fun, you have challenge! (I suspect this scheme maybe not possible from scripting, server lagging point of view).

 

If not slingload then return hovering feature, make it more challenging somehow, and add amount of fuel to crates. This way other side wil give more attention to hauling choppers, they will try to ambush them as I already said...

 

3) If we have FUEL points, why we don't have munition points? Let's add ammo crates and go full retard :joystick:

 

Point for other things:

 

1) GUYS let's go to full madness, REMOVE F10 MAP NAVIGATION (I mean map is ok but remove your current position from it)! That will definitelly add more fun to choppers as they will try to navigate. And this will add to whole "realism" thing. Pilots will be forced to do more planning and coordinating, those cocky guys will now just not go point and shoot, they will try to understand route or stick to the other guys who knows what they are doing. I personally not so good at navigation, but I think this would add more FUN and strategy to the event. And GCI role will be more valuable in this case.

 

2) What is current numbers for airframes spawns? I assume in current state fuel points to spawn Su-27 is equal to spawn MiG-21, which is ridiculous. Please consider to play with this numbers and make older airframes to consume less fuel than 4th gen fighters. For instance Su-27/F-15 - 100 points, Mirage-2000C - 70 points, MiG-21 40 points. This will reward hardcore pilots and it is logical, Mirage for instance can't carry same amount of weapons than Su-27/F-15.

Edited February 27, 2016 by P61

[NaCH]

Chopper points:

 

1) Return lives (pilots abusing unlimited lives, doing hauling runs for SAM for instance you go there deploy crate, then go back to spectators and start new chopper and cut your travel time in half). Choppers spam should end, they don't care for their life anymore... IMHO you can find a suitable number for amount of lives.

Guys who think that spawn kill on FARP will waste your life, it is not, your life count start only after take off.

 

2) There is definitelly some changes needed in FUEL system. Somebody said it is not fun so do a straight flight... I say ok, remove CTLD crates and add normal slingload crates BUT WITH big amount of fuel in each crate. SO transporting this crate on slingload now challenging and one run can get fuel for a lot of fighters, but at the same time other side will try to hunt this fuel run and ruin it, here you have fun, you have challenge! (I suspect this scheme maybe not possible from scripting, server lagging point of view).

 

If not slingload then return hovering feature, make it more challenging somehow, and add amount of fuel to crates. This way other side wil give more attention to hauling choppers, they will try to ambush them as I already said...

 

3) If we have FUEL points, why we don't have munition points? Let's add ammo crates and go full retard :joystick:

 

Point for other things:

 

1) GUYS let's go to full madness, REMOVE F10 MAP NAVIGATION (I mean map is ok but remove your current position from it)! That will definitelly add more fun to choppers as they will try to navigate. And this will add to whole "realism" thing. Pilots will be forced to do more planning and coordinating, those cocky guys will now just not go point and shoot, they will try to understand route or stick to the other guys who knows what they are doing. I personally not so good at navigation, but I think this would add more FUN and strategy to the event. And GCI role will be more valuable in this case.

 

2) What is current numbers for airframes spawns? I assume in current state fuel points to spawn Su-27 is equal to spawn MiG-21, which is ridiculous. Please consider to play with this numbers and make older airframes to consume less fuel than 4th gen fighters. For instance Su-27/F-15 - 100 points, Mirage-2000C - 70 points, MiG-21 40 points. This will reward hardcore pilots and it is logical, Mirage for instance can't carry same amount of weapons than Su-27/F-15.

 

Yes to everything !

Brilliant ideas!

 

The only thing I will add and keep asking remove the f11 view!

 

One last thing to add GCI should not see the enemy type of enemy plane and the pilot name.

[gregzagk]

It's normal. We reached a point where you see we add more and more features and think that everything is possible. :)

 

While it truly is by getting them easily in the missions, you must not forget that prior to a nice idea comes the stability issues.

 

Blue flag was a no go 1.5 month ago due to the new built issues.

We managed to move on but didn't resolve dcs netcode issues. It's not on our hand. Whoever tries to host an mission close to Blue flag will face the same issues.

 

Our statements before (it's not only the pings, the data center etc) are based to many years of testing and we are not just trolling or ignoring feedback.

 

So we decided to go on with the current built and face the issues (like warping which occurs in certain circumstances such as scripts overload or units spawn depending on the map status) .

 

Unfortunately all the above ideas for choppers are not valid for us.

- sling loads are bugged causing crash. That is why ctld use this kind of function in the first place.

- when hovering function was on, lag occurred due to the timer counting each clients effort to hook a crate.

- weapons warehouse can't be used except of an external warehouse file which is probably going two be used in another round if of course it won't cause workload.

- by removing f10 map choppers will still have the knee board map while aircraft will lose sa cause they don't have way points (if you add way points mission file is getting bigger)

 

Will come back to this later.

 

Greg

[Sweep]

any chance of reserved slots being removed altogether?

 

Kinda sad how Tbilisi has 20k+ fuel...

[Toxic]

any chance of reserved slots being removed altogether?

 

Kinda sad how Tbilisi has 20k+ fuel...

 

+1, half of these reserved slots these squadrons haven't even been on and haven't used them once! :doh:

[NaCH]

Another day on the helicoper pilot life...

 

I did carried fuel and also With Red we setup a KUB defense system close to Minvody!

 

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

While I really like the idea of the fuel system, I have to underline what others say. It creates artifitial imbalance, and with the server-instabilities it simply kills gameplay and motivation for red and blue.

 

I hate to say this, I really like the idea, but it is far from balanced and what it does the most is keep us from having fun (and I'm not talking the other issues we can only solve with patience).

We would need an army of choppers to keep the north-east supplied especially taking the crashes into account ...

[Reaper6]

Why does Bluefor keep crashing the server everytime Redfor are making progress?

[Tello]

^Patience like a meditating monk since the birth of DCS that is. We need to point our fingers at ED and ask them if they really believe the MP-community is such a small part of DCS and deserve to be neglected as it currently is. Is it like rocket science to create a dedicated server that work ? - I have no idea. All other games in the world just seem to have break that code.

For me BlueFlag IS DCS. No reason otherwise to run.exe it. ( Oh man i'm having a bad day :P )

[qmaster312]

Well, why does Redfor crash the server when bluefor makes progress ;)

[Reaper6]

Well, why does Redfor crash the server when bluefor makes progress ;)

 

You have no proof of this.

[0xDEADBEEF]

To add something positive to the whole discussion, you guys have created something that keeps people busy although the foundation you built it on crashes about 30 times a day. This is a remarkable achievment and I would like to thank you for that once again. Your efforts are massively appreciated!

[Dafiew]

What about an 8 core machine with loads of ram and a backbone connection running on a dedicated server built by DCS that can handle multiple movable ground/sea units with fuel/ammo/convoy/frontline supply mechanics and we pay 5$ a month to play on it? :) would be more that willing to pay for that!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tello]

+1mio.

 

To add something positive to the whole discussion, you guys have created something that keeps people busy although the foundation you built it on crashes about 30 times a day. This is a remarkable achievment and I would like to thank you for that once again. Your efforts are massively appreciated!

[gregzagk]

What about an 8 core machine with loads of ram and a backbone connection running on a dedicated server built by DCS that can handle multiple movable ground/sea units with fuel/ammo/convoy/frontline supply mechanics and we pay 5$ a month to play on it? :) would be more that willing to pay for that!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Most of us have these kind of machines and DCS still crashes some times. It's more complicated than that unfortunately. At the other hand we are fortunate to have this server that has a quite good line and specs without paying that much :)

 

PS Come on, it's not crashing 30 times per day :P Otherwise we wouldn't sleep at all.

 

Greg

[0xDEADBEEF]

What about an 8 core machine with loads of ram and a backbone connection running on a dedicated server built by DCS that can handle multiple movable ground/sea units with fuel/ammo/convoy/frontline supply mechanics and we pay 5$ a month to play on it? :) would be more that willing to pay for that!

 

besides not the server itself being the problem, 8 core would not help much more, as dcs only utilizes 2 cores (1 for audio)

 

PS Come on, it's not crashing 30 times per day :P Otherwise we wouldn't sleep at all.

 

Dont take it as an offense, but if we also count how many times the server sometimes restarts before its actually running longer than 2-3 minutes, 30 is not very far off the shot. And I have not witnessed many server-rounds that lasted the full 3 hours. Again, this is no attack on you, just facts layed out, i am very aware that you guys are doing the best you can and I cant thank you enough for that! :)

[Ciribob]

besides not the server itself being the problem, 8 core would not help much more, as dcs only utilizes 2 cores (1 for audio)

 

Dont take it as an offense, but if we also count how many times the server sometimes restarts before its actually running longer than 2-3 minutes, 30 is not very far off the shot. And I have not witnessed many server-rounds that lasted the full 3 hours. Again, this is no attack on you, just facts layed out, i am very aware that you guys are doing the best you can and I cant thank you enough for that! :)

 

The crashes while the server is starting up in the first few minutes are due to people mashing connect... Not much we can do about it. :(

 

Yesterday I counted 96 connection attempts before the server had even got to the main spectator screen, which brings the server down shortly after.

 

So please, everyone, until the server shows an actual time of a few minutes, don't press connect!

[Sierra99]

Option 4 - Get more helicopters... and do more fuel runs... :)

 

The system is working as designed, its means that a large advance means supply lines are longer so its difficult to support. Hence a much more interesting Blue Flag where the frontline constantly shifts as it has done. :)

 

The problem with Option 4 is you force people to perform missions they may have zero interest in. The other night I heard the comment:

"We need people to fly helicopters...It's a shitty mission but someone has to do it". Uh...No. You're turning this into work...Thanks but I already have a full time job.

 

This is a game. As amazing as it is...It coexists with real life. Most days I only have an hour or so of time after spending time with family, eating and attend to the other things in real life to sit down and fly before I have to go to work. When I get into the Server and find there is no fuel available at a base(s) where I can spawn and realize it will take over an hour to fly a load of fuel to that base in a Huey...I go to a different server. The things you guys have done with scripting is amazing and I am NOT criticizing your work. But the frustration and pain factor is over shadowing the enjoyment factor. This should be fun.

 

The simple fact is this...The supply system as implemented is completely backwards. Why does a FARP literally in the middle of nowhere have an UNLIMITED supply of Troops, Fuel and Mobile SAM sites while a MILITARY BASE with warehouses, a runway and highway system has nothing? Due to their limited capacity FARPS and Helicopters should be the END point of the supply chain, NOT the originating point. Main Operating Bases should be the originating point of the supply system. We have transport aircraft available for both sides. Lets use them.

 

Designate 2-3 bases on each side as Main Operating Bases ("MOB"). These 2-3 bases are the PRIMARY supply points for the subordinate bases in their PAK, and have unlimited Fuel and supplies. MOBs should not be "Capturable" but once certain assets are destroyed, they should also take significant time to repair. (An Entire Server period perhaps?) During the time a MOB is "Down", NO Fixed Wing aircraft should originate from that base. However, Helicopters can still operate to move troops, SAMs and Fuel...albeit at significantly reduced capacity. Helicopter should still be able to Ferry repair troops in from FARPs and Bases to speed repair process.

 

1.) Set up AI Transport Aircraft to supply subordinate bases as follows.

 

A.) "CHANNEL MISSIONS" - Once each day, Subordinate bases get an AI cargo resupply mission from an IL-76 or C-17. NOT enough to completely replenish it, but enough to make a significant difference...Say 20 -30% of a bases normal capacity. Channel missions for each base should "scheduled"... If a subordinate base is under enemy control...No C-17/IL-76 resupply till tomorrow...if you recapture it.

 

B.) AERIAL DELIVERY MISSIONS - When a subordinate base falls below a given threshold for Fuel/Ammo OR after an enemy base is captured, an AERIAL DELIVERY MISSIONS utilizing AN-12s or C-130s generates to move critical supplies necessary to repair that base 10-15 % at a time until the base reaches a cutoff threshold...Again 20-30% of capacity. If an Aerial Delivery mission is shot down, another one should generate. Bases must be captured with Helicopters and Troops)

 

First this creates Strategic Targets. As long as a teams MOBs are intact their supply chain is intact. You wanna stop Blue CAP from flying out of Gudauta, You need to cut the supply chain for Gudauta.

 

Second it creates Tactical Targets. C-130s / AN-12s moving supplies at random times between point A. and B. This will shift the FOCUS of combat from individual bases, cities and FARPS to long Term Goals.

 

"Do we send CAP to repel an attack on Mozdok or do we escort the AN-12 flying supplies between Min-Vody and Sochi?" ... "Do we attack Mozdok or try to prevent Sochi's resupply by attacking Mi-Vody?"

 

Third this system removes the unrealistic expectation / belief that an entire war effort would rely on Helicopters and FARPs for resupply while maintaining a lengthy resupply process as FEBA moves North or South.

 

Finally it allows people to enjoy this game and Blueflag the way they wish not they way they must.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Sierra99

[Sweep]

-

 

This +100000000000000 :thumbup:

[Kortiah]

You guys need to do something about the server's population. It's been 15-20 vs. 35-40 for the last week (at least during European operating hours) making what seemed to be a great idea for a server at first a complete useless one-sided battle.

 

It was the other way around about 10 ten days ago, and now people must have switched or lost interest in Blue making it completely Red-sided.

 

My suggestion would be something preventing people from joining a faction when the opposite has less than 5 members of theirs connected (ie. when you need to type either "red" or "blue" in chat). Maybe also add an idle maximum time without a faction so that it doesn't clutter the 60 slots with people waiting to be able to type in "red" and prevent "blue" from joining the server intially.

[gregzagk]

It was the other way around about 10 ten days ago, and now people must have switched or lost interest in Blue making it completely Red-sided.

 

Not so true according to our logs ;)

You just watch the Red prime time. Come and check again in 4 hours :)

 

Greg

[Kortiah]

Your logs? I always have the map on a Chrome tab and every time I'm awake it's 20 blues vs. 40 reds. I don't know if your logs are telling you that it's the other way around after 2am GMT or something, but EITHER WAY it's a bad situation:

 

If your logs say it's balanced after 0300, it means the situation needs to be handle for the 1500-0300 players.

If your logs say it's balanced THE OTHER WAY AROUND during the rest of the 24 hours, then you have an even bigger problem because neither Red nor Blue are having fun on your server.

 

People don't like to fight unbalanced war in a game.

[gregzagk]

Your logs? I always have the map on a Chrome tab and every time I'm awake it's 20 blues vs. 40 reds.

 

You said it all here. Thanks

 

People don't like to fight unbalanced war in a game.

If it was like this it wouldn't be 16 days with full server.

We don't force anyone to join. It would be less work for us as well. ;)

 

Greg

Edited February 27, 2016 by gregzagk

[Sweep]

Totally disagree about putting any sort of player count limit.

 

I think blue simply needs more -active- players.

 

BTW...Greg, I think I asked this earlier but I'll ask again now: Can you bump the server limit up to 61 players? I think the host still counts as a player.