Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 8

[Reaper6]

I don't normally fly jets, actually I don't fly jets at all come to think of it. But I would say I am fine with heaters only or moving the Mirage to the Red side. If the purpose behind it was to even the numbers out a little, I would say it's worth a shot at least in testing. I think no matter what scenario BuddySpike comes up with, there are going to be people that aren't happy with it. So let's give it a try and, who knows!

 

Also on a side note about team balance. I haven't done any mission scripting in a long long time. But perhaps there is a way to limit capturing objectives if there is a very large difference in numbers for either side. If Blue or Red is occupying 75% of the server slots, then they wont be able to capture anything? Or maybe that side is limited on weapons or aircraft?

 

I don't think any of the changes they are making for the next round is necessarily a bad move. Why not try different things? That's pretty much what made BlueFlag so successful in the first place. No matter what there will be good and bad things on both sides. Imagine if the ground units were organic, Blue would be at a MASSIVE disadvantage! So I think we should all calm down, do the testing and see how it goes?

 

Reaper6

[Pikey]

Same, there should be a fair few blue move to red on this, which has been asked for. The fact it makes things lopsided on paper is not a reason that it will be lopsided in reality. So if you were thinking of rolling Red because of the Mirage, go roll Red. The balancing of the missiles is also a lovely prospect so we can do the beautiful dance together and have fun playing a visual game that probably helps newcomers not be put off by the more advanced use of the tech like EOS and R27T whilst making the less powerful 'on paper' planes come closer to the more modern ones.

 

Alot of the people posting in the thread underestimate how much Greg thinks these things through and from the less than thoughful posts that show their personal displeasure, please, have a think not about yourself, but of the impact to the wider game for everyone - a better game for all makes a better game for YOU.

 

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime you get what you need.

 

It's very true that the thing you most likely think you want, isn't the best in the end. Enough with the rhetorical, game on, same deal!

[Winterz]

What the hell... :noexpression: These posts sums up pretty much everything, I've probably skipped other posts like those. Tell me that's a joke right ?... What the heck is currently happening ?! If things are defined like this, I'll probably pass that round 9, I mean it, I do find no interest at all in such scenerio, neither my squadron. I don't know what came up in admins mind with that initiative, I really don't get it. Moving the M2KC in the REDFOR was maybe the biggest move which makes me really doubt of BS realism fidelity. This is just so wrong, how about removing GCI, setting up guns only just like any other arcade/training servers ? At some point we would probably end up being "wings only", when you you'd have to splash your opponent using your wings (however fuel tanks restricted, those are deadly).

 

Round 8 was a well design round, scratch the trolls out, it was a good round and it wasn't unbalanced regarding assets, it was more likely a server population issue which has to be expected on a public server unfortunately because of the slots restriction, but the assets were good to me. I had a really good experience by my side. Reading that Round 9 changes log made me laught at first as I tought you guys were just joking... now I'm just really disapointed and starting the question things out.

 

What I would suggest is actally getting the Round 8 up again, with slights changes and improvements, fixing the bugs, adding some AAR as it was requested many times, keeping things as Warsaw Pact vs NATO only. For now, things are really questionnable.

 

Finally if you guys want a feedback, how about creating a poll ? You'd have a clear idea of what the community desire the most.

 

You sum it up pretty well, no round 9 for me in such a configuration.

[Etherlight]

Greg, I'm very disappointed in you.

 

In my drawer here I have a contract that you signed with your own blood that all your server concepts have to bow to a very particular interpretation of realism by a select few on the forums and now this? We need to have a talk... :>

 

In other news: I like the idea of a heaters only round, could make for some interesting, dynamic fights and the odd furball here and there. Much more aligned with my particular talents as a mostly WW2-sim pilot and a kind of setup I never experienced before in MP. Looking forward to it.

[Naughty_17]

Also on a side note about team balance. I haven't done any mission scripting in a long long time. But perhaps there is a way to limit capturing objectives if there is a very large difference in numbers for either side. If Blue or Red is occupying 75% of the server slots, then they wont be able to capture anything? Or maybe that side is limited on weapons or aircraft?

Reaper6

That's a good idea, but it doubt that it could be implemented the straight way. Round 8 was my first round on the Blue side and to be honest I was shocked. Every time Red team had a least 1:2 numbers we (my squad) had to go completely defensive and we were still losing FARPS left and right. I know like a dozen of Red pilots who are capable of taking FARP/AF with only a few aircrafts in extremely small time frame and I have utter respect for them.

[LuSi_6]

Everytime I was flying it was like 6 Red and 24 Blue...

[amazingme]

'Heaters only' would also bring.. friends and enemies closer together which will make the community even stronger. ;)

[T_A]

You realise that not everyone have all the modules in the dcs but still want to fly in blueflag? All those people asking for vietnam-korea-whatever are literally going to spoil my DCS experience for a couple of weeks because there is only one actually playable thing in the whole DCS which is blueflag?

Heaters-only setup is OK by me, but blue must have MiG-29G and Mirage.

 

Non-FC3 modules have existed for some years now, if you dont want to put out 20-30$ once every 3 years for a new plane or helicopter (they can go even lower sale) that doesnt mean that the rest of us are destined forever to fly with FC3

[Reaper6]

That's a good idea, but it doubt that it could be implemented the straight way. Round 8 was my first round on the Blue side and to be honest I was shocked. Every time Red team had a least 1:2 numbers we (my squad) had to go completely defensive and we were still losing FARPS left and right. I know like a dozen of Red pilots who are capable of taking FARP/AF with only a few aircrafts in extremely small time frame and I have utter respect for them.

 

I agree, Red does have an advantage even when its 2 to1 in favor of Blue. I actually prefer those odds. 3 to 1 pretty much evens it out, but beyond that where you would see 40+ to 3 or 4 is unacceptable for either side IMO. I think now that they added more targets on airfields it will also be harder(at least for me in a KA50) to destroy an airfield on my own. Which I am totally in favor of, 1 person should not be able to bring down an airfield by their self. So I think that was a step in the right direction, even though it sucks for me.

 

Reaper6

[gregzagk]

Also on a side note about team balance. I haven't done any mission scripting in a long long time. But perhaps there is a way to limit capturing objectives if there is a very large difference in numbers for either side. If Blue or Red is occupying 75% of the server slots, then they wont be able to capture anything? Or maybe that side is limited on weapons or aircraft?

 

This idea came to the table in the past but we believed that it would be like a punishment for one side that just want to fly and have the bad luck to have no enemies in at a particular time.

 

Imagine there is a round that Red side will have these numbers and you have to sit and wait until enemy joins.

A 24/7 concept doesn't have to get equal numbers all the time but of course there should be enough pilot numbers for both sides.

 

As explained before, the huge difference during round 8 was due to the new airframes presented (Gazelle, M2k, F-5) which were available only in Blue. But the fact that the war ended after 14 days (and reds reached almost to victory at a point) showed that it's not the numbers but what these people actually fly and how coordinated. We try to help this out though and don't choose to use AI as they can cause stability issues.

 

Mirage on the Red side will definately bring more Red pilots in.

As far for the realistic vs unrealistic thing. Maybe some of you joined during round 8 which had the NATO vs Russia concept. Otherwise you may forget that till round 7 we had Mirage and same attackers in both sides...

 

We like realistic concepts but also bring different scenarios each time to challenge both side pilots. Otherwise it will be a no go in the future as we all know that there are "Blue" modules coming but no "Red" in the horizon.

 

There is also a difference in "realistic" and "historic" events. Espesially for the Mirage which was and is available in many countries that are not "Blue" in the real world.

Unrealistic is to bring a Mirage shooting air to air HAWK missiles like the Iranian F-14 :D

 

Making it fly in an other coalition is not unrealistic but maybe didn't happen in a previous conflict in the real world (Indian air force used it along with MiG-29s though).

We never said we will bring only accurate "historic" events out there.

 

I personally would enjoy different concepts in which I will be forced to use different tactics in.

 

Greg

Edited August 19, 2016 by gregzagk

[firmek]

Greg, I'm very disappointed in you.

 

In my drawer here I have a contract that you signed with your own blood that all your server concepts have to bow to a very particular interpretation of realism by a select few on the forums and now this? We need to have a talk... :>

 

In other news: I like the idea of a heaters only round, could make for some interesting, dynamic fights and the odd furball here and there. Much more aligned with my particular talents as a mostly WW2-sim pilot and a kind of setup I never experienced before in MP. Looking forward to it.

 

Guys, it looks like there is a lot of confusion about round 9 setup. It's clearly stated that setup currently available on the server is just for testing and fun while the round 9 final shape is being worked on and hasn't been decided at the moment.

Let's take it easy and enjoy the fact that the server is online even though the round has finished and wait for the specific details on round 9 to come:

Wow many feature requests

 

The 9th round concept along with our other moves will be finalised in the upcoming days.

The guys currently work on Simple Radio & Online map setup along with other stuff in the background.

 

For now we uploaded new mission files of Blue Flag that help us testing until we prepare things and mostly to have fun.

This is not the final concept of the 9th round though and it will propably change (small changes or completely depending on our final discussions).

 

Changelog of the current mission setup:

- Mirage 2000C moved to Red side. (India joined the war , NATO vs RUSSIA concept remains the same except of the Mirage change.)

- Replaced SA-8 groups with SA-3 SAM sites

- Dogfight missiles only available

- Cluster bombs (CBU-52/ MK-20/ RBK/ CBU-87) available again

- LGB Guided bombs removed

- Replaced the building (Barracks) in the airbases with 6x Armed houses

- Changed time of day (the night mission is replaced with a dusk one for better dogfighting)

- Added fuel trucks to Red FARPs

- Added 2nd Mi-8 to Beslan

 

As said before this is not close to the final concept. Let's get in for some dogfights

*Side selection reseted. You can select your side again.

 

Greg

 

 

That's a good idea, but it doubt that it could be implemented the straight way. Round 8 was my first round on the Blue side and to be honest I was shocked. Every time Red team had a least 1:2 numbers we (my squad) had to go completely defensive and we were still losing FARPS left and right. I know like a dozen of Red pilots who are capable of taking FARP/AF with only a few aircrafts in extremely small time frame and I have utter respect for them.

While the intention might be correct the solution that you're proposing is not. Disabling the capture possibility for team with more players:

1. it's a non-deserved punishment for that team

2. removes incentive for the team with higher numbers to participate as there are no goals apart of defending

3. on the team with higher numbers only CAP flights become usful while CAS and a big part of transport become quite pointless. Not everyone wants to play CAP

4. ironically the team with numbers in disadvantage also losses the goal. They don't need to defend their bases but also don't have a chance to construct effective counter attack.

5. can be easily abused - the team is pushed to the corner with few bases left – yep, let’s leave the server to save the day

6. it will remove some great moments from the event.

 

Much better solution would be a dynamic life numbers. If the team has a substantially bigger advantage in numbers their maximum number of life should get significantly reduced. Yes, some will complain that they're handicapped but in reality this would make it more interesting for both sides - defenders stand a better chance and actually see that fighting enemy hordes makes sense while it's more challenging for attackers as their life get more value.

Edited August 19, 2016 by firmek
typos

[Reaper6]

This idea came to the table in the past but we believed that it would be like a punishment for one side that just want to fly and have the bad luck to have no enemies in at a particular time.

 

Imagine there is a round that Red side will have these numbers and you have to sit and wait until enemy joins.

A 24/7 concept doesn't have to get equal numbers all the time but of course there should be enough pilot numbers for both sides.

 

As explained before, the huge difference during round 8 was due to the new airframes presented (Gazelle, M2k, F-5) which were available only in Blue. But the fact that the war ended after 14 days (and reds reached almost to victory at a point) showed that it's not the numbers but what these people actually fly and how coordinated. We try to help this out though and don't choose to use AI as they can cause stability issues.

 

Mirage on the Red side will definately bring more Red pilots in.

As far for the realistic vs unrealistic thing. Maybe some of you joined during round 8 which had the NATO vs Russia concept. Otherwise you may forget that till round 7 we had Mirage and same attackers in both sides...

 

We like realistic concepts but also bring different scenarios each time to challenge both side pilots. Otherwise it will be a no go in the future as we all know that there are "Blue" modules coming but no "Red" in the horizon.

 

There is also a difference in "realistic" and "historic" events. Espesially for the Mirage which was and is available in many countries that are not "Blue" in the real world.

Unrealistic is to bring a Mirage shooting air to air HAWK missiles like the Iranian F-14 :D

 

Making it fly in an other coalition is not unrealistic but maybe didn't happen in a previous conflict in the real world (Indian air force used it along with MiG-29s though).

We never said we will bring only accurate "historic" events out there.

 

I personally would enjoy different concepts in which I will be forced to use different tactics in.

 

Greg

 

Makes sense, I'm always up for a challenge. This is probably the only server I actual get a challenge, the other servers it's nothing for me to fly waypoint to waypoint and kill whatever is there. It seemed to be balanced a majority of the time based on skill level, team work, or whatever the case was regardless of the numbers. I think if numbers were really the big issue, we wouldn't have pushed Blue all the way back to Senaki. We lost focus and settled in for defense instead of pushing on for the attack. Whatever the case, you and your team are doing a fine job. Keep up the good work and making every campaign more and more of a challenge.

 

Reaper6

[Reaper6]

Just to add on my previous post...

 

I am accepting applications for a steady KA50 wingman(No experience necessary) to practice for the next campaign(due to the increased number of targets at airfields). We can train together taking out airfields, FARPs, or whatever. Two trained pilots in KA50s working together would be awesome! Anyway, if anyone is interested that would be great. Also having a Mi8 as another wingman during our training would also be a good idea, so we are all on the same page.

 

Reaper6

[Naughty_17]

Just to add on my previous post...

 

I am accepting applications for a steady KA50 wingman(No experience necessary) to practice for the next campaign(due to the increased number of targets at airfields).

 

Reaper6

 

I'm looking forward for such sort of cooperation and while I never had a chance to fly Ka-50 before I believe we could cooperate in terms of CAP/troop transport.

 

 

While the intention might be correct the solution that you're proposing is not. Disabling the capture possibility for team with more players:

1. it's a non-deserved punishment for that team

2. removes incentive for the team with higher numbers to participate as there are no goals apart of defending

3. on the team with higher numbers only CAP flights become usful while CAS and a big part of transport become quite pointless. Not everyone wants to play CAP

4. ironically the team with numbers in disadvantage also losses the goal. They don't need to defend their bases but also don't have a chance to construct effective counter attack.

5. can be easily abused - the team is pushed to the corner with few bases left – yep, let’s leave the server to save the day

6. it will remove some great moments from the event.

 

That's exactly what I wanted to say.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Naughty_17

[Frostie]

Just to add on my previous post...

 

I am accepting applications for a steady KA50 wingman(No experience necessary) to practice for the next campaign(due to the increased number of targets at airfields). We can train together taking out airfields, FARPs, or whatever. Two trained pilots in KA50s working together would be awesome! Anyway, if anyone is interested that would be great. Also having a Mi8 as another wingman during our training would also be a good idea, so we are all on the same page.

 

Reaper6

 

Pick me, pick me.

 

I'd love to apply but I couldn't full time it, as a priority i'm still in desperate need to ramp up my Flanker practice and time is not on my side unfortunately. But what a great opportunity for someone.

[microvax]

You know what is the real meme in the room here, the mistral gazelle will not be outranged by fighter planes by that much. :D

 

EDIT: Well they happen to be the worst missiles in game as of naow.

Edited August 19, 2016 by microvax

[M0ltar]

Just to add on my previous post...

 

I am accepting applications for a steady KA50 wingman(No experience necessary) to practice for the next campaign(due to the increased number of targets at airfields). We can train together taking out airfields, FARPs, or whatever. Two trained pilots in KA50s working together would be awesome! Anyway, if anyone is interested that would be great. Also having a Mi8 as another wingman during our training would also be a good idea, so we are all on the same page.

 

Reaper6

 

Reaper I'm down if you'll have me. Just picked up the ka50 in a thought of going red next round away from my beloved A10C. Would love to learn from someone that's flown it for so long.

[CheshireCat]

But the fact that the war ended after 14 days (and reds reached almost to victory at a point) showed that it's not the numbers but what these people actually fly and how coordinated.

This to me seems like a key point. It's not just the numbers, but how well people fly their chosen aircraft and how well they're able to coordinate with the overall team. I don't think a truly balanced BlueFlag is even possible, due to these very prevalent (and shifting) "soft" factors.

 

As such, I would keep balance in mind, but not as the one factor that will dominate every scenario decision. I didn't join BlueFlag because it was advertised as "come join the most balanced DCS server", but because it offered a chance to fly with more experience pilots to learn from and be a part of an organized team.

 

When I flew for red, the blue team usually had the numbers advantage, and while that fact was acknowledged, it didn't occur to anyone to say "well, let's just quit". We sat on our runways and tried to come up with a plan for deep strikes, surprise attacks, and defending what we still had.

 

Every BlueFlag sortie ended in my Ka-50 blown to bits out of nowhere, and every one of those was the most fun I've had with multiplayer DCS so far.

 

So if anything, please keep in mind why people flock to BlueFlag in the first place, and keep up the tremendous work you've been doing so far!

 

 

I am accepting applications for a steady KA50 wingman

 

I'd love to take the Shark out with you. Been playing off and on since it was originally released, and currently looking for a way to get deeper into the game. I'm in Europe and I've seen you fly when I joined BlueFlag during the last few days, so there seems to be some possible overlap flight time wise.

 

Not sure how you want to handle this, but feel free to put me on your list. If the next BlueFlag includes the Ka-50 again we'll both be goobering around in our Sharks either way :thumbup:

(I've seen your ABRIS screenshot btw, thanks for that! I'm already starting to add that to my flying and want to start a discussion on best ABRIS practices over in the Ka-50 forum.)

Edited August 19, 2016 by CheshireCat

[Jugdriver]

Well it's even possible being round 9 concept.

Nobody seems to read my post :D

 

Greg

 

I read it.

 

 

I don't think it is a decision yet, just the first test for round 9.

 

JD

AKA_MattE

 

 

Something to note for the guys who don't like the concept (if it stays as it is), fighter tactics training programs do heater only training all the time, just think of it as a training round for your WVR tactics!

 

JD

AKA_MattE

[Tello]

I can do the Mi-8 transport. I have defeated many strong western missiles in that machine. They call me Swallownator ! :weight_lift_2:

 

Just to add on my previous post...

Also having a Mi8 as another wingman during our training would also be a good idea, so we are all on the same page.

 

Reaper6

[kobeshow]

lol if you are going to give yourself nicknames, don't make it "swallownator"

 

edit: and the damaage is done btw, I'm going to refer to you only by that name from now on

Edited August 19, 2016 by kobeshow

[iLOVEwindmills]

If you going to do IR only why not just go full on Mig21 vs F5 scenario? Keep all helis and groundpounders in, but cap fighters at that. A10A/C without TGP, base Su25 as the main groundpounders. Would certainly be interesting.

 

Would force people to explore a lot of new possibilities with air to ground that are just not viable atm.

Edited August 19, 2016 by iLOVEwindmills

[Coxy_99]

I have a better idea scrap all form of air to air missiles, Including IR and go all out bvr :megalol:

[OperatorJack]

I have a better idea scrap all form of air to air missiles, Including IR and go all out bvr :megalol:

 

Scrap all missiles and go guns only

[Coxy_99]

Scrap all missiles and go guns only

 

Agreed, But that leaves your plane turns better than mine LOL