Mulitplayer missions balance

[Dave317]

Why does it seem that every multiplayer mission has all aircraft on both sides. It doesn't seem right that F15's shoot down A10's and Su's fighting against Su's. I expect it's a balance thing but it just seems so unrealistic to me.

[QuiGon]

Why does it seem that every multiplayer mission has all aircraft on both sides. It doesn't seem right that F15's shoot down A10's and Su's fighting against Su's. I expect it's a balance thing but it just seems so unrealistic to me.

 

You're not the only one bothered by that. It makes DCS MP almost unenjoyable for me. 104th server is a prime example for this. But there are at least some servers where this isn't the case.

[Windsortheater]

totally agree. All planes on all sides with loose briefings means most servers are just lone wolf gathering areas. DCS multiplayer needs help from the community and the developer.

[WinterH]

Because majority of online DCS is "unreal tournament : aerial edition" :).

[QuiGon]

Because majority of online DCS is "unreal tournament : aerial edition" :).

 

It's true and that's the problem and I don't really understand why that is the case to be honest. DCS as a high fidelity hardcore realistic flight simulator attracts a different kind of player base than Unreal Tournament, CoD, CS and all the other casual/mainstream games. At least that's what I thought, but the (public) multiplayer doesn't reflect that. It mostly consists of simple aerial deathmatches instead of immersive and realistic missions with realistic objectives and briefings like the Red Flag campaigns in singleplayer for example. I just don't understand it. :(

 

I tried to bring this subject up to discussion a while ago, but the result wasn't really satisfying : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125070

Edited April 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[CrimsonGhost]

Check out the Open Conflict server. The aircraft are there for those that want to do the "UT:Aerial Edition", but there are enough to objectives of all kinds to complete. I frequently find myself wishing the server didn't reset as often so I could do a few more things. Certainly worth checking out if you have never stopped in and given it a chance. And it's only going to get better soon with the authors new framework coming soon.

[StandingCow]

Check out the Open Conflict server. The aircraft are there for those that want to do the "UT:Aerial Edition", but there are enough to objectives of all kinds to complete. I frequently find myself wishing the server didn't reset as often so I could do a few more things. Certainly worth checking out if you have never stopped in and given it a chance. And it's only going to get better soon with the authors new framework coming soon.

 

Yep, that is where I have started flying more often. Really enjoying that server.

[OldE24]

This idea of "Mission ballance" doesn't work right now for large servers......the modules have different uses so you have SU-25 on one side and A-10 on the other this doesnt balance out..because the 25t/a-10 have different loadouts and do different things like sead and GBU's.

 

It's a good idea and all for it, but wont happen on scale untill there are modules that can fill teams, you would unbalance the map by splitting them up.

[Frostie]

:megalol:

This idea of "Mission ballance" doesn't work right now for large servers......the modules have different uses so you have SU-25 on one side and A-10 on the other this doesnt balance out..because the 25t/a-10 have different loadouts and do different things like sead and GBU's.

 

It's a good idea and all for it, but wont happen on scale untill there are modules that can fill teams, you would unbalance the map by splitting them up.

Opposing ground forces don't have to mirror each other, heck for variety it is good to have two completely different choices for A2G.

Not to mention the aspect of easy IFF when such airframes face each other at certain choke points in a map.

Red v Blue is good fun and always will be.

 

We tried making unbalanced missions on the 51st server a few of years ago, the complaints were ridiculous.

It stems from a lot of people not wanting or understanding dynamic missions that require team work, they just want to hold all the aces and shoot everyone down by themselves.

 

Thankfully Blue flag made the breakthrough and showed how amazing multiplayer can be.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Frostie

[Skjold]

It's true and that's the problem and I don't really understand why that is the case to be honest. DCS as a high fidelity hardcore realistic flight simulator attracts a different kind of player base than Unreal Tournament, CoD, CS and all the other casual/mainstream games. At least that's what I thought, but the (public) multiplayer doesn't reflect that. It mostly consists of simple aerial deathmatches instead of immersive and realistic missions with realistic objectives and briefings like the Red Flag campaigns in singleplayer for example. I just don't understand it. :(

 

I tried to bring this subject up to discussion a while ago, but the result wasn't really satisfying : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125070

 

Not everybody is as "hardcore" as you are, i think your perception of the playerbase as "casual" is largely correct but people have jobs, studies, families etc and they might just wanna hop onto the 104th for an hour or two to do some "Air Quake" instead of sitting through a 2 hour long briefing of a complex realistic mission and get nothing out of it. DCS does attract different players then CoD, CS etc, a much better community. People don't boast about "doing" your sister after trying to teabag you with a helicopter.

 

If you want to truelly experience the "immersive and realistic missions with realistic objectives and briefings" public servers aren't the place for that, but rather organised events done by squadrons etc. :thumbup:

 

I personally love Blue Flag, thats probably the one public server that runs fairly close to realistic objectives.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Skjold

[Vedexent]

The problem with realistic scenarios on multi-player servers is that they don't lend themselves to "drop in, drop out" traffic - any more than real military missions do.

 

The only scenarios which really lend themselves to realistically dropping in and leaving randomly are "Air Quake" and "Free Flight".

 

Guess which servers see the most amount of public MP traffic?

 

If you want to find realistic missions, you pretty much have to find a squadron which flies scheduled, well constructed missions - ideally with some other "guest squadron" running OPFOR.

 

Not easy to find, but there are a couple of squads out there like that.

[King_Hrothgar]

That's not true though. DCS is an anomaly when it comes to MP CFS's. The IL2 line from 2002 up to the present has always been mostly side restricted with frontline ground objectives. They aren't meant to be exact depictions of real battles, but are supposed to be characteristic of a real setup. RoF is the same way and so were many other CFS's over the years. DCS is an oddity. And the thing is, DCS MP can be balanced in a "realistic" way just like all the others were.

 

As things stand at this moment, east's advantages are SEAD and an attack chopper, west's are the AIM-120 and A-10C (far better than Su-25 for general ground attack). But those things can be balanced. Target area air defenses can be setup so that the A-10's have it easier than the east does since the east has proper SEAD ability. In terms of balancing the ground attack ability outside of SEAD, the A-10C and Ka-50 balance pretty nicely as is even if they couldn't be more different.

 

This just leaves the air to air component, which can be balanced with SAMs. The thing is, the eastern side has a far larger variety and far more effective SAMs than the west does both IRL and in game. Given the West's lack of SEAD ability in DCS, this can be used to create safe zones near the front for eastern aircraft to duck into, without harming the A-10's at their target areas. The F-15's might have better missiles, but with proper air defenses, they could be forced to fight on the Su-27's and MiG-29's terms.

 

The ultimate goal here is asymmetric balance. If one side has better fighters, give the other better air defenses. If one side has better ground attack ability, have that side fight tougher ground targets. This setup can be extended further as gaps are filled. The problem is, this kind of mission design requires thought while going with mirror images really doesn't. The hard part of bringing this change about is convincing 104th_Maverick and others to actually put in the effort to create a series of fun, reasonably balanced and semi-realistic missions instead of simply mirror imaging stuff all the time.

[QuiGon]

I really hate the word "balanced" in DCS. It is a combat simulator and combat more than often is not balanced! IMHO many mission designers (and players as well) are way to uncreative regarding mission design. A lot of the public MP missions are just mirrored for both sides. So every side has more or less the same situation. What King hrothgar said about asymetric balance is a good way to go, but it can go further than that.

I don't understand why apparently almost every MP mission needs to have all playable assets (apart from trainers and WW2 aircraft) in it or even on both sides. I would prefer more restricted missions with a specific mission situation and tasks instead of the common "pick anything you like and kill everything you can find".

 

Playing in a squadron isn't really something I'm wiling to do at the moment, because I also don't have that much time available and usally just want to jump in a server and fly 1-2h. Now some of you said that playstyle and those kind of missions don't work together, but I don't see a problem here. Why should it not be possible to just jump in such a mission and play for an hour or two like it is possible with the Air Quake missions? Just jump on the server, check the briefing to get a hold on the situation and tasks and jump into the cockpit.

 

BlueFlag is indeed a huge step forward and a blessing for the community. It is what I play most of the time now. :thumbup:

[Grimes]

Choice is a fickle mistress. We as the community choose how MP is played. We have the freedom to mix and match aircraft however we fit into the missions we play. Ultimately it seems that accessibility and convenience are the ideals that are adhered to most. There is no control over autobalance or matchmakers, or anything like that. So the freedom of choices can easily be abused to the detriment of fun. So we've resulted to putting as many aircraft per side as possible. Its basically removing the thought that "only X team has aircraft Y, which is better so I will use it because nothing is stopping me" from the equation.

 

There is also the economics and knowledge gap of DCS modules that will become more and more of an issue as we get more aircraft to fly. It is an expensive hobby in terms of time and money. I've already had to make choices over which aircraft I really want to dive into, learn enough to enjoy it, or pretty much ignore. How do you think aircraft ownership and knowledge is going to impact MP as a whole and all the way down to mission design? If I entered a Korean War aircraft only server I know I'd only be able to fly the F-86 simply because I don't know enough about the Mig-15 to use it. It makes me wonder how that same issue applies simply down to ownership. Think back to the earlier hypothetical of a player choosing one team or the other simply because one team has a better aircraft, now remove the option of the other team simply because the player doesn't own or know any of those aircraft...

[*Rage*]

The 104th run frequent East vs West missions (Op Bison I think) as well as restricted weapons loadouts.

 

In my opinion they're the most fun 'drop in' MP missions:)

[King_Hrothgar]

They don't do that for the ground objectives and non-fighter aircraft though. It's still almost always T-90's on both sides + Strela's and Shilka's. I don't think I have seen a single Vulcan, Chaparral, Avenger, Stinger, Roland or Hawk in 2+ years of playing on 104th. Occasionally the T-90's are swapped for M1A2's, but even that is rare. I've also never hopped in and found the Ka-50 on red only and the A-10 on blue only. And it could be done, both are equally popular atm it seems. It's far less of a problem than the spamram F-15's. But this is about more than just 104th. I am unaware of any non-WW2 servers that aren't 104th clones. And I've looked very recently for one. So this isn't just a 104th problem, it's community wide.

[QuiGon]

Not making use of correct unit types (both air and ground) is indeed a widespread problem in public MP, but it's not just about that. The other thing that I really dislike about the 104th is the way their missions are designed. There is a bullseye somewhere on the map where fighters "meet" to combat each other. Completely seperated from that are the ground target areas which are there for each side, completely independent of each other. Those ground target areas are usally just a bulk of units sitting ducks far in enemy territory which absolutely doesn't make sense at regarding realism.

 

I found the VSAF server is running some nice missions from time to time, which are more task focused and less air quike like.

I think the 159th are running a server which also has a more realistic mission setup (a huge frontline where both sides battle each other on the ground and in the air) than the 104th, but sadly it's almost always empty.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

@Grimes

What you say is valid, but that's what I meant, when I said I don't understand this community. In a hardcore simulator like this I would expect more people who want to fly interesting missions with different aircraft to complete specific tasks instead of all the "I'm only flying the best aircraft to have the best chances to achieve a good score"-type of players which I would expect in more casual games like War Thunder. It really bothers me :/

Edited April 15, 2016 by QuiGon

[firmek]

In a hardcore simulator like this I would expect more people who want to fly interesting missions with different aircraft to complete specific tasks instead of all the "I'm only flying the best aircraft to have the best chances to achieve a good score"-type of players which I would expect in more casual games like War Thunder. It really bothers me :/

 

+1 :thumbup: I really appreciate the time and effort that people are putting into creating the missions. Also running the server requires money. We're getting this for free but at the same time I can't resist the feeling that something is out of place when trying to figure out which F-15 is hostile on the A-10 RWR.

With dedicated, realistic eastern vs western setup the experience could only improve while still allowing everyone to jump into the server for 1-2 hours.

[Grimes]

What you say is valid, but that's what I meant, when I said I don't understand this community. In a hardcore simulator like this I would expect more people who want to fly interesting missions with different aircraft to complete specific tasks instead of all the "I'm only flying the best aircraft to have the best chances to achieve a good score"-type of players which I would expect in more casual games like War Thunder. It really bothers me :/

 

I'm going to go back to my old standby answer for this. Simply put the nature of the game and UI aren't conducive to achieving the realism you desire in a public game all the time. Aside for the already mentioned aspect of having as many aircraft available as possible, MP missions tend to prioritize drop-in/drop-out functionality over many hours. It doesn't matter when a player joins the mission, they can still have fun with it. As such the concept of "matchplay" doesn't really exist due to the length of missions. The UI also hampers more complex ideas becoming a reality because mission briefings are static and any update has to be given in cockpit via text. The type of mission and aircraft available play a factor. Full DCS module aircraft are more prone to having missions with dynamic tasks occurring. These missions also tend to be co-op and focus on a2g operations. PvP missions tend to simplify things and are usually air to air focused.