About the DCS:BS Campaign System

[Groove]

Do you have some specific examples for pilots being rewarded failing their missions ?

[Bucic]

Do you have some specific examples for pilots being rewarded failing their missions ?

 

Aaaaaargh, you're driving me mad :D

Please read few of my previous posts. The example with the loss of country capital is particulary good. You still don't see the difference between pilot's mission (his particular task i.e. CAP) and campaign mission (i.e. SEAD strike which is dependent on player's CAP mission mentioned)?

[Groove]

I know what you mean. In your example with the runway bombing player, there shouldnt be any reward for the player which couldnt bomb the runway because the SEAD package failed. Obviously the mission should be abortet and a new approach should be done. My understanding would be that as the whole mission ( part of the campaign ) failed and the enemy airbase is still operational you / your forces should "suffer" because of this. Read: Counter-attack from the still operational base for example.

 

You should always see yourself as a part of a whole. Its like in real life. If the SEAD package fails, you will have to live with the consequences with them, if some of them survived the mess :D

 

Other said: No medals for you, maybe when you downed some enemies attacking your strike packages.

[Rhino4]

Okay Bucic, check it:

You say that you shouldn't be held responsible for the mission builder's failure to privide you with AI that can accomplish your mission. I AGREE! However, since we're using a "semi-dynamic" system here, maybe the mission builder INTENDED for your strike package to fail so that you would be forced to play a specific mission next (Groove's counter attack). They are correct in saying that it is the mission builder's responsability to ensure at least the possibility of strike package success. If they didn't do that, then you should not be penalized, or even consider yourself penalized but rather trust that the mission builder has everything well in hand and just go with it (and if he didn't think of it ahead of time then he's a frickin' newb)...And ya know what? If you DO manage to bust your way in there without help and take out the SAMs AND your target, then maybe the next mission will be UBER cool in reward. So don't think of yourself as relying on the AI, but rather as relying on the mission builder. With the new system coming up I forsee some VERY interesting campaigns being built, but I also forsee some very crappy missions from inexperienced mission builders...

 

And since I'm in this thread, I would like to ask a question of my own:

 

Online cooperative campaigns - Everyone knows that most of the dedicated servers on hyperlobby have multiple missions that rotate on a time scale (usually two to three hours), or at least the 51st-dedicated does. Would it be possible to build an online campaign and set up a server so that it would rotate to the next mission depending on mission failure/success?

 

For example:

 

The campaign starts at the base/beginning mission for the campaign. If people join and complete the mission, then at the end of the two hours, the server will advance to the next mission in the campaign (depending on which triggers/goals/points were completed, this may be one of several missions).

Now say that people leave the server after completing two phases of a three phase campaign. At the end of two hours, the server would move the mission back to the previous mission and would continue doing so every two hours until the mission loaded would be the base/beginning mission again.

If people joined and completed the mission then the server would begin to advance the campaign again depending on which goals/triggers were met. However, if no one joined then the server would load a NEW campaign at the end of the two hours instead.

In this way you would be able to make it very unpredictable as to which mission they would find themselves playing every time they joined, as well as giving a group of players that joined together with the goal of completing the campaign a rewarding experience.

[Bucic]

I know what you mean. In your example with the runway bombing player, there shouldnt be any reward for the player which couldnt bomb the runway because the SEAD package failed.

Wrong example. This one was for the purpose of question 'will player have to repeat such mission over and over like in Lock On or will he be allowed to play another campaign phase?'. BTW, the question is still open.

You should always see yourself as a part of a whole. Its like in real life. If the SEAD package fails, you will have to live with the consequences with them, if some of them survived the mess :D

Again my point is despite it's true, real pilot will have a record in his files pointing he fulfilled his task exemplary altough the whole packagage mission failed. AND this record is considered generaly positive in particular pilot's file.

Other said: No medals for you, maybe when you downed some enemies attacking your strike packages.

This is what I am talking about. I was exagerrating using word 'medal' as a synonim of 'reward' or 'positive file record'.

Okay Bucic, check it:

You say that you shouldn't be held responsible for the mission builder's failure to privide you with AI that can accomplish your mission. I AGREE! However, since we're using a "semi-dynamic" system here, maybe the mission builder INTENDED for your strike package to fail so that you would be forced to play a specific mission next (Groove's counter attack).

Maybe, maybe not. I'm interested in mission builder independence in terms of realistic (logical) player's task evaluation. Let's not sugarcoat it - most of such situations come up as an effect of AI poor performance and my concern didn't come from nowhere. It came from experience.

They are correct in saying that it is the mission builder's responsability to ensure at least the possibility of strike package success. If they didn't do that, then you should not be penalized, or even consider yourself penalized but rather trust that the mission builder has everything well in hand and just go with it (and if he didn't think of it ahead of time then he's a frickin' newb)...

IMO such dependence is not good for health :) All I'm saying is providing realistic player's task evaluation brings nothing but good. It even does not have to take power from mission builder. Mission builders have to tune up their missions for, I don't know, maybe even hours. Implementing realistic player's task evaluation could make a mission still interesting and satysfying even when player would face some abnormal outcomes. And why the heck someone would not want something which reflects real life be implemented when it can be? This question bothers me the most.

And ya know what?

If you DO manage to bust your way in there without help and take out the SAMs AND your target, then maybe the next mission will be UBER cool in reward.

All what comes in my mind right now is - unrealistic. Ofcourse I mean a situation with player equipped with totally improper ordnance/airframe to play a hero.

So don't think of yourself as relying on the AI, but rather as relying on the mission builder.

You sure know, that I'm not much of a fan of relying on mission builders by far :D

With the new system coming up I forsee some VERY interesting campaigns being built, but I also forsee some very crappy missions from inexperienced mission builders...

It is a long way to finish a pack of campaigns from experienced ED mission builders so it's not my concern. What I worry about is AI. And still with perfect builder and porfect AI why don't implement realistic player's task evaluation?

 

________________

Anyway, I consider any statements that 'player facing S-300 with a load of dumb bombs as an outcome of SEAD flight failure is just rising the mission excitement' as an arcade lobbing. Same with saves, powerups and messing with ac's performance to 'balance' the multiplayer. I hope it doesn't sound 'agressive' again - It's just my opinion with hope that ED will look at it more kind that on opposite opinions. Some support from other forum members is also what I count on :shifty:

[Weta43]

Point b) still waits for answer.

 

Point b was answered earlier in the thread ...

 

This one was for the purpose of question 'will player have to repeat such mission over and over like in Lock On or will he be allowed to play another campaign phase?'. BTW, the question is still open.

 

I suspect you're realy not understanding how this thing has been described as working...

 

The answer (from my reading of the thread) is that - it depends on the mission builder.

Keeping the example simple - I think it goes like this:

 

Imagine a campaign with 3 phases, each with 3 missions with predefined probablities that a user will get that mission when playing from that phase:

 

Phase 1 : (mission 1[10%], mission 2[80%], mission 3[10%])

Phase 2 : (mission 1[33%], mission 2[33%], mission 3[33%])

Phase 3 : (mission 1[20%], mission 2[30%], mission 3[50%])

 

You started off playing phase 1, and hit the 10% chance assigned to mission 1, which you played & completed a level which progressed you to phase 2.

So case 1/ you're playing phase 2, mission 2, and you fail abysmally, so the designer of the campaign has you go back to phase 1, where you have a 1 in 10 chance of playing the same mission again & a 90% chance of getting another mission - remembering that individual missions can now have randomly (% weighted) appearing units, so wouldn't fly the same even if repeated.

case 2/ you do averagely & the mission designer has you stay in that phase, but assigns a mission from those in the phase according to the probabilities given to each - so in the case above you stand a 66% chance of getting a different mission (& repeating myself - even the same mission would play differently, because there's effectively a "lockon mission randomiser" built in..)

case 3/ you do well enough for the designer to send you to phase 3, where you stand a 20% chance of flying mission 1, a 30% chance of mission 2 etc.

 

Or the campaign builder could chose to do it exactly as it is in LO... Their choice :-)

 

I think that's the basic idea - I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong

[BBQ]

Anyway, I consider any statements that 'player facing S-300 with a load of dumb bombs as an outcome of SEAD flight failure is just rising the mission excitement' as an arcade lobbing.

 

I'm thinking of using this sentence as my new sig. :lol:

 

Just Kidding Bucic. You have a unique way of asking questions--IMHO, the whole idea of pilot evaluation is better realized within a virtual squadron, where you are evaluated by another human being. Remember it is primarily a flight sim, not an "pilot evaluation" sim. They had so many resources, and had to create priorities, which in the case of Blackshark, seems to be KA-50 avionics/systems/flight model simulation in combat.

 

Best,

[Bucic]

Point b was answered earlier in the thread ...

That it's all up to mission builder I suppose.

 

I suspect you're realy not understanding how this thing has been described as working...

 

The answer (from my reading of the thread) is that - it depends on the mission builder.

Keeping the example simple - I think it goes like this:

 

Imagine a campaign with 3 phases, each with 3 missions with predefined probablities that a user will get that mission when playing from that phase:

 

Phase 1 : (mission 1[10%], mission 2[80%], mission 3[10%])

Phase 2 : (mission 1[33%], mission 2[33%], mission 3[33%])

Phase 3 : (mission 1[20%], mission 2[30%], mission 3[50%])

 

You started off playing phase 1, and hit the 10% chance assigned to mission 1, which you played & completed a level which progressed you to phase 2.

So case 1/ you're playing phase 2, mission 2, and you fail abysmally, so the designer of the campaign has you go back to phase 1, where you have a 1 in 10 chance of playing the same mission again & a 90% chance of getting another mission - remembering that individual missions can now have randomly (% weighted) appearing units, so wouldn't fly the same even if repeated.

case 2/ you do averagely & the mission designer has you stay in that phase, but assigns a mission from those in the phase according to the probabilities given to each - so in the case above you stand a 66% chance of getting a different mission (& repeating myself - even the same mission would play differently, because there's effectively a "lockon mission randomiser" built in..)

case 3/ you do well enough for the designer to send you to phase 3, where you stand a 20% chance of flying mission 1, a 30% chance of mission 2 etc.

 

So it answers my question I asked earlier - assuming that mission builder is not Lock On fanatic :P player will be given a chance to play another mission and it's only a matter of probability that he will be assigned the same mission again.

Or the campaign builder could chose to do it exactly as it is in LO... Their choice :-)

Let's boycot his mission then :P

I think that's the basic idea - I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong

Thanks for the simulation. It's sometimes better than talking about general rules.

 

I'm thinking of using this sentence as my new sig. :lol:

Be my guest! :thumbup: Just don't forget to properly place the author's name :D

Just Kidding Bucic. You have a unique way of asking questions--IMHO,

It's a pity :) Asking questions I'm trying to seed some ideas in parallel and I'm not hiding it. One could also think I speak for entire community. Well I just speak for myself without giving up when I got no support from other members for the moment. I try to make some of my ideas prevailing because I think they're right and no support won't change it. In all this I'm open for discussion. Give me a good reason why my idea is not good and I will abandon it.

 

the whole idea of pilot evaluation is better realized within a virtual squadron, where you are evaluated by another human being.

It is better in Lock On. It's not necessary in Falcon 4. I was keeping myself from bringing up the Falcon 4 again but it kind of tease me when I see a discussion is getting to the "it's impossible/too complicated" point.

 

Remember it is primarily a flight sim, not an "pilot evaluation" sim. They had so many resources, and had to create priorities, which in the case of Blackshark, seems to be KA-50 avionics/systems/flight model simulation in combat.

Best,

 

First of all it's not that complicated to call it 'simulation'. It's even partialy there in Lock On.

 

Second - I'm not demanding (I have no right to I think) implementation of this feature in the first release of BS. I rather wait for a statement by someone from ED on this matter. Is the idea of independent (from campaign progress) pilot evaluation system (based on his task performance) good, to be modified or is it completely unacceptable? If It's bad idea then I would like to know why.

 

Two things more:

1. Sorry, but (IIRC) in Falcon 4 squadron members can rely just on built in pilot evaluation system.

2. Independent Pilot Evaluation System doesn't have too be the ultimate one. It can work together with campaign progress evaluation.

[BBQ]

Well, I don't think it's a bad idea, it's a good idea--it would increase the scope of the simulation--and perhaps in another, upcoming version, it could be developed. Perhaps even a third party could create a seperate application that could be dedicated to pilot development. From what I've read, this new product (DCS) is going to be very open to community mods using the LUA thingy.

[BBQ]

And check out my new sig ;)

[Bucic]

Well, I don't think it's a bad idea, it's a good idea--it would increase the scope of the simulation--and perhaps in another, upcoming version, it could be developed. Perhaps even a third party could create a seperate application that could be dedicated to pilot development. From what I've read, this new product (DCS) is going to be very open to community mods using the LUA thingy.

 

I'm glad you share hopes for it. So... that's one... who's next? :)

I'm not a programmer but I dare to say it's not that complicated.

 

And check out my new sig ;)

:megalol:

[Groove]

You`re idea is good. But instead of demanding your particular idea to be realized ASAP ( even dont knowing the real workload for you idea to be made possible ) you should change to suggesting it ;).

 

Be assured that ED is interested in all the ideas people have and im sure your idea will be evaluated too.

[Bucic]

You`re idea is good. But instead of demanding your particular idea to be realized ASAP ( even dont knowing the real workload for you idea to be made possible ) you should change to suggesting it ;).

Second - I'm not demanding (I have no right to I think) implementation of this feature in the first release of BS. I rather wait for a statement by someone from ED on this matter.

Oh no no - no ASAP as you can see. I know I forgot to say 'please' but you know that I'm trying hard:cry: ;)

Be assured that ED is interested in all the ideas people have and im sure your idea will be evaluated too.

I'm glad to hear this. Evaluation - I like this word :book:

[plane00]

Some hope

 

I'm glad to hear new advanced Campaign system.

 

(I play LOFC nowadays mainly for fun of Logbook updating, so I hope ED also care logbook system. more detailed more score based.

Dying is also recorded, I hope.)

[DaWu]

Where is the problem in developing a Falcon4 style like dynamic campaign? I dont get it. Falcon 4 was released 8 years ago and set the standard. The non dynamic campaign was the only reason why I did not buy lockon. I am a software developer myself and even though I know that its harder and takes more time to develop such a great dynamic campaign system it is nothing that is impossible!

[EvilBivol-1]

Falcon4 turned out to be a suicide mission for the developer. ED has said numerous times that a dynamic campaign system is possible in the future, but to get there, other elements of the simulation must be developed and put in place first.

[GGTharos]

In addition to what EB said, Falcon 4 was released 10 years ago as one of the buggiest POS in existence, and only years of labor by community persons on pretty much illegaly obtained code gave you what you have today.

 

Falconites like to forget this.

 

Where is the problem in developing a Falcon4 style like dynamic campaign? I dont get it. Falcon 4 was released 8 years ago and set the standard. The non dynamic campaign was the only reason why I did not buy lockon. I am a software developer myself and even though I know that its harder and takes more time to develop such a great dynamic campaign system it is nothing that is impossible!

Edited July 10, 2008 by GGTharos

[Wags]

While we hope to develop an automatic mission generation and world state system at a later point, our focus right now is on making the best mission editor system possible that can be used to create missions for staged campaigns and support our military contracts. A dynamic campaign while "fun" has no real place in "real" simulations. Again, that is not to say that will not do one, just not right now.

[DaWu]

I do not remember how buggy it was at the release. thats not my point. but I am not a mission builder. I want to fly non repeatable missions and not build missions where every aspect of a surprise is lost cause I know every action that will take place on my mission.

[DaWu]

thx wags. I am looking forward to it and looking forward to black shark. I will buy it anyway cos my hunger for a real hardcore sim besides falcon is too high. :)

[GGTharos]

I submit that while the DC gives you missions that you don't have to bother building, it isn't all that good at surprising you :)

The new ME allows for replayability and random events; it is good enough even in this incarnation to create a mission that can be replayed a fair amount of times ... I submit that a good mission builder will make you a mission that will be as unpredictable as just about anything you can fly in F4's DC.

 

Yes, it can't change the state of the world etc, but for now, them's the breaks. The campaign system, as was mentioned above, is not linear either so you won't necessarily run through the same mission every time.

[DaWu]

well I feel very suprised in the f4 dc though enemy ac can be everywhere.

 

of course a dynamic generated mission cannot compete in terms of quality with a well designed manually created mission. but the like you stated: its more about the complete world. it gives you the feeling of beeing a very small piece in a whole war machinery instead of beeing rambo.

 

if DCs new campaign system gives us at least some randomized situations it will be a step forward. further I hope that the community will be big enough and there will be many user created campaigns

[Vekkinho]

Where is the problem in developing a Falcon4 style like dynamic campaign? I dont get it. Falcon 4 was released 8 years ago and set the standard. The non dynamic campaign was the only reason why I did not buy lockon. I am a software developer myself and even though I know that its harder and takes more time to develop such a great dynamic campaign system it is nothing that is impossible!

 

DaWu that's a pretty bald post considering it's your 1st!

 

I must admit I was impressed with F4 campaign system but it also has some flaws! In fact it was a buggy mess when it hit the shelves! Latter Super Paks, Free Falcons and Global Falcon patches, upgrades, HFFM kinda ironed it out! To some level!

 

But look at my point!

On a D+3 of a Rolling fire campaign I chose Pinpoint strike over Northern Korea, objective to take out a bridge and this flight is departing within 6 hours! I had 5.5 hours to study the map, plan my approach (edit default Bee-line waypoints), plan my ingress route and safest NOE egress thanks to those sharpshooting Shilkas and few SA-6 securing the airspace around the bridge. So, I had to carefully plan each second of flying over hostile terrain! No prob, I took a clean sheet of paper and wrote down some timing notifiers to know exact second when to turn 14° offset, descend to 300ft, down the river bed into the bridge, pull 4G, pitch up to 40°, roll into the TGT, and have 4 seconds to allign CCIP marker on a bridge pillars I should hit!

 

OK, well prepared - well executed! It went smooth! When I RTB-ed there's another Pinpoint Strike sortie waiting in the list! I chose it just to see what's the objective:

 

Same bridge, same waypoints, same threats...

 

So DaWu welcome to forums.eagle.ru!

[Yellonet]

I submit that while the DC gives you missions that you don't have to bother building, it isn't all that good at surprising you :)

The new ME allows for replayability and random events; it is good enough even in this incarnation to create a mission that can be replayed a fair amount of times ... I submit that a good mission builder will make you a mission that will be as unpredictable as just about anything you can fly in F4's DC.

 

Yes, it can't change the state of the world etc, but for now, them's the breaks. The campaign system, as was mentioned above, is not linear either so you won't necessarily run through the same mission every time.

And I'm guessing that if the editor is as good as we think and hope it is, there will be plenty of people creating good missions to play.

[Vekkinho]

BTW Falcon was released in late 1998, IIRC.

 

I drove to Munich just to buy it since it wasn't available in Croatia at that time. I believe it was December and it was snowstorming in Austria when I made that trip! My car fell apart, well not entire car but windshield heating stopped working so I had to wipe the windshield with my glove 2 times per minute!

 

:doh: I was still a kid back then!