Operation "Blue Flag" - 24/7 PvP Campaign - ROUND 9

[QuiGon]

Flying for red, this is what I call a "target rich environment" :D

[Voodooflies]

Finally! Blue flag as it used to be!!!

 

Lovely ! Time to get back on Blueflag ! :joystick:

[levanoga]

Maybe give RED their 27ER for the difference in numbers?

[lemoen]

We've been talking among ourselves about good ways to allow RED to make up for the number imbalance but keep the 100% asymmetric airframes.

 

Some ideas:

 

* Allow reds to deploy SA-10 and SA-15 (maybe 4 crates and 2 crates)

* Move M2000 to red

* Reactivate Datalink (if it doesn't cause lag)

* ERs / ETs

* More lives

 

My personal vote is for SA-10 / SA-15 and maybe more lives. This will allow RED to construct a powerful safety umbrella under which to use the SU25 and KA50 for attack. Blue will then have to coordinate for SEAD because they lack a long range missile for the task. Could make for an interesting scenario. It also enables two different play styles for the two teams without breaking the asymmetry.

 

 

DcS is still broken ito invisible units so the registration numbers may not reflect typical numbers.

[Shadow KT]

SA-10s ? hahahahaha

 

just great, I wanna see how that works out

[kobeshow]

DCS does not have enough airframes (DCS level) to play "cold war gone hot" in a public pvp environment where the initial setup and winning conditions are roughly the same. I don't know why this still gets "tested" after so many years, and I don't know what people expect to do when the NATO fleet gets larger with every new module released.

Numbers speak for themselves and if I could join MP in current DCS I would sign up for Blue aswell.

Whenever we try to hamfist NATO vs. WARSAW into DCS's VERY limited "WORLD" (if you can call it that) the result is going to be the same.

[lemoen]

SA-10s ? hahahahaha

 

just great, I wanna see how that works out

 

?

[Shadow KT]

DCS does not have enough airframes (DCS level) to play "cold war gone hot" in a public pvp environment where the initial setup and winning conditions are roughly the same. I don't know why this still gets "tested" after so many years, and I don't know what people expect to do when the NATO fleet gets larger with every new module released.

Numbers speak for themselves and if I could join MP in current DCS I would sign up for Blue aswell.

Whenever we try to hamfist NATO vs. WARSAW into DCS's VERY limited "WORLD" (if you can call it that) the result is going to be the same.

 

I disagree.

 

The problem with Blue Flag is that before people just used to stack on the winning side as they don't want to loose (the majority not all) and because a lot of the West platforms were available on Red and Blue, unlike Eastern ones which were only RED sided.

 

There are plenty of dedicated pilots who fly only RED FOR aircraft.

 

104th's mission is a prime example. Most of the time RED has more people than Blue.

 

I think it will balance its self out. If you stack and number the modules by operators + future modules. RED FOR comes out with mode modules.

 

If you don't see what is wrong with SA-10s as a deployable unit, I am not gonna comment on it. I might as well be over reacting

[lemoen]

If you don't see what is wrong with SA-10s as a deployable unit, I am not gonna comment on it. I might as well be over reacting

 

Its a powerful foe, but if you look at the modules, Blue has overwhelming Fighter and attack plane strength at the moment, as well as numbers. So in my mind, allow them but make it effort to deploy one. if its 4 crates it means an 80km flight for a helo to deploy them all. So in my mind, it does make sense to allow red to deploy SA-10 or SA-11 maybe if 10s are too OP, in order to allow red to fight larger numbers of more advanced airframes.

[Shadow KT]

And next round there will be only REDs... as all the squadrons guys will flip to red.

 

I don't know why are you guys over reacting. Absolutely the same thing was going on and before...

 

Give it some time and it will even out.

 

The big groups who play together go to Blue, randoms want to fly the Harrier or they see that there are a lot of people on Blue so they join as well.

 

Dedicated Flanker/MiG pilot enters the server and see that... welp I aint going alone verses 20 and so on goes the cycle. Next time it will be vice versa, this is nothing new for BF

 

Put an SA-10 in a wide open area and it is pretty much untouchable, unless big groups attack it at the same time (sacrificing themselves in the process) or helicopters try to sneak around, fly an abizmul distance and get shot by a manpad

[kobeshow]

I disagree.

 

The problem with Blue Flag is that before people just used to stack on the winning side as they don't want to loose (the majority not all) and because a lot of the West platforms were available on Red and Blue, unlike Eastern ones which were only RED sided.

 

There are plenty of dedicated pilots who fly only RED FOR aircraft.

 

104th's mission is a prime example. Most of the time RED has more people than Blue.

 

I think it will balance its self out. If you stack and number the modules by operators + future modules. RED FOR comes out with mode modules.

 

If you don't see what is wrong with SA-10s as a deployable unit, I am not gonna comment on it. I might as well be over reacting

 

Sure, if you just ignore the capabilities of modules and only count their numbers, and disregard everything that comes with such considerations in a symmetric 24/7 PUBLIC PVP scenario, then you might be right.

 

EDIT: what I find interesting is that you perfectly explain why we have such numbers discrepancy, yet you expect it to "even out" or to be "vice versa" without changing the setup.

 

If you want BF to have heavily biased setups towards one side for one round, then totally change that for the next round "to even things out", then you will have two rounds of PvE instead of a dynamic PvP campaign

Edited February 7, 2018 by kobeshow

[QuiGon]

EDIT: what I find interesting is that you perfectly explain why we have such numbers discrepancy, yet you expect it to "even out" or to be "vice versa" without changing the setup.

The past has shown that it does indeed balance itself out as people and especially many of the squadrons will swap sides as SHaDoW STeP BG said.

[kobeshow]

Ok, lets continue our discussion here (or not, but I still want to defend my position here)

I have been on BF since round 5, and if the past has shown anything, is that if you put very different capabilities on both sides the outcome is predictable, player numbers are predictable, and so far since round 5 and throughout all of the testing phases my predictions and expectations have never been wrong.

Sure squadrons swap sides, but what makes them swap sides? changes in the setup. Remove, idk let's say the M2K from one side, the squads that fly Mirages (many, since this is our only DCS level fighter) will hardly jump into a FC3 plane to even out the numbers.

[QuiGon]

Ok, lets continue our discussion here (or not, but I still want to defend my position here)

I have been on BF since round 5, and if the past has shown anything, is that if you put very different capabilities on both sides the outcome is predictable, player numbers are predictable, and so far since round 5 and throughout all of the testing phases my predictions and expectations have never been wrong.

Sure squadrons swap sides, but what makes them swap sides? changes in the setup. Remove, idk let's say the M2K from one side, the squads that fly Mirages (many, since this is our only DCS level fighter) will hardly jump into a FC3 plane to even out the numbers.

There are different reasons why people and squadrons swap. Some actually do swap for balancing reasons as not all are attached to a specific airframe. Besides that, numbers aren't everything. I've seen red win heavily outnumered before (it just happened last month). BlueFlag is a dynamic campaign, simulating an air war (within the constraints of DCS). It's not a tournament that needs to provide an even playing field.

[kobeshow]

If you don't want an even playing field (WARNING: THIS DOES NOT MEAN SAME AIRFRAMES ON BOTH SIDES) you don't want a Dynamic 24/7 PUBLIC PvP Campaign, if you want more details check my answer in the German section of the Forum.

 

I don't know what expiriences you have had with BlueFlag so far, but how many REAL rounds have you participated in as the underdog? It becomes work instead of a fun expirience, and you get tired of it eventually.

[Shadow KT]

Ok, lets continue our discussion here (or not, but I still want to defend my position here)

I have been on BF since round 5, and if the past has shown anything, is that if you put very different capabilities on both sides the outcome is predictable, player numbers are predictable, and so far since round 5 and throughout all of the testing phases my predictions and expectations have never been wrong.

Sure squadrons swap sides, but what makes them swap sides? changes in the setup. Remove, idk let's say the M2K from one side, the squads that fly Mirages (many, since this is our only DCS level fighter) will hardly jump into a FC3 plane to even out the numbers.

 

You might have flown in round 5 and so on, but I guess you haven't flown much since BF came back in the Caucasus...

 

The same people have been switching their sides every round no matter the setup (as until this recent change), it hadn't been changed in any way for quite some time. This said, I don't see how your point relevant

 

And not only the numbers are equal, but I don't see how their capabilities are not even....

 

You got air superiority fighters on both sides, intercept fighters on both sides, transport and attack helicopters on both sides, ground attack on both sides. I would even argue that REDs have samo more efficient platforms when it comes to ground attack jets/helicopters and transport helicopters.

 

The only aircraft that I might find a bit tipping the forces can be the Mirage as it is a popular module, but not to such a degree.

 

And Quigon, please call me "Shadow"... it is in my signature people, makin' it easier for you folks :music_whistling:

 

I'll have to contact a moderator to change my username ....

[kobeshow]

I'm sorry but if you honestly think that FC3+KA50+Viggen can do more than Mirage+Harrier+A10+FC3 then we are arguing from completely different perspectives and viewpoints and there will never be an end to this discussion.

I am talking about the setup as it is right now, I am not talking about the past where there indeed have been rounds and phases where things were "equal" in terms of chances to win, not airframe separation, and you didn't and will never see me complaining when that is the case.

I am saying that going hardcore NATO vs USSR in terms of airframes is not possible within the premise of BlueFlag in DCS

[Shadow KT]

Su-27/33 + MiG-29 + Su-25T + Ka-50 +Mi-8 is on par with Mirage + F-15C + Harrier (low key trash) + A-10C + Huey/Gazelle

 

In a SARH environment all of these planes can carry the same missions and it comes down to the skill of the pilots and the guys on Red tend to be more skillful than the guys on Blue (especially those harrier guys)

 

In some aspect the aircraft on Red are even more capable.

[kobeshow]

Ok then, if that is really your perspective on the competitiveness of the aircraft, there is nothing more to talk about.

(Harrier is not as good as it will be when all of it'S systems come online, see the evolution of the Mirage in the environment of blueflag throughout the plane's development)

[QuiGon]

I don't know what expiriences you have had with BlueFlag so far, but how many REAL rounds have you participated in as the underdog? It becomes work instead of a fun expirience, and you get tired of it eventually.

 

I'm flying in Blue Flag pretty much since round one in 2015 and participated in most of the real rounds since then (including Case Blue). The balance discussion has been there from the beginning of Blue Flag and keeps running in circles since than. I've seen all kind of setups and situations, both regarding player distribution as well as aircraft distribution and what I learned from that is that the outcome is decided by player actions and cooperation more than anything, regardless of the numbers and airframes available.

[kobeshow]

You remember Round 6 then? That was the last time we had such a stark contrast in capabilities, and how did that turn out again?

[Shadow KT]

Yeah, you are right, We (I) have nothing further to discuss (with you)

[HWasp]

We've been talking among ourselves about good ways to allow RED to make up for the number imbalance but keep the 100% asymmetric airframes.

 

Some ideas:

 

* Allow reds to deploy SA-10 and SA-15 (maybe 4 crates and 2 crates)

* Move M2000 to red

* Reactivate Datalink (if it doesn't cause lag)

* ERs / ETs

* More lives

 

My personal vote is for SA-10 / SA-15 and maybe more lives. This will allow RED to construct a powerful safety umbrella under which to use the SU25 and KA50 for attack. Blue will then have to coordinate for SEAD because they lack a long range missile for the task. Could make for an interesting scenario. It also enables two different play styles for the two teams without breaking the asymmetry.

 

 

DcS is still broken ito invisible units so the registration numbers may not reflect typical numbers.

 

I think that the best option would be to move the Mirage to RED and maybe enable the datalink.

I do like flying the Mi-8 but still I think that hauling crates for hours to make up for numbers is not the kind of fun that I join the server for.

 

Since red has to play defensive most of the time due to the numbers, the datalink would suit this situation very well.

 

It could also be interesting to add a GCI script for the Mig-21/F-5 only (BRA for nearest threat in every 10 sec or so) that would promote the use of these interceptors more.

Having a human GCI on red with these player numbers is more and more unlikely.

[Ciribob]

I'm flying in Blue Flag pretty much since round one in 2015 and participated in most of the real rounds since then (including Case Blue). The balance discussion has been there from the beginning of Blue Flag and keeps running in circles since than. I've seen all kind of setups and situations, both regarding player distribution as well as aircraft distribution and what I learned from that is that the outcome is decided by player actions and cooperation more than anything, regardless of the numbers and airframes available.

 

This ^ 1000x :)

 

Plus, we put the number of registered users on the website for a reason.

 

It's up to YOU to decide to which team to join.

 

If it's stacked and obviously unfair, try a new airframe and join the other side. It's not fun to fly against no enemies. Who cares if you lose, the important thing is it should be fun :)

 

Pm xcom or myself if you want to switch.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Edited February 7, 2018 by Ciribob

[Shadow KT]

++++++