Now What?

[Steel Jaw]

Damn Mower/Bramage. You keep banging on. Sounds like sour grapes to me with the MP FC2.0 experience. Say it isn't true. :D

 

When I see 4 Slammers rapid fired at me, something aint right.

[Grimes]

When I see 4 Slammers rapid fired at me, something aint right.

 

Reckon people would do that in a DCS:F15C game also...

 

I always thought it would be fun to put a statistics penalty on firing several shots within a short period of time. So lets say you fire 4 slammers within 4 seconds, you'd get less points for a kill.

[RIPTIDE]

When I see 4 Slammers rapid fired at me, something aint right.

Man, they know its you. They ain't taking any chances.

[KeyCat]

Stop worrying so much. Start enjoying more. ;)

 

Trying ;)

 

Reckon people would do that in a DCS:F15C game also...

 

I always thought it would be fun to put a statistics penalty on firing several shots within a short period of time. So lets say you fire 4 slammers within 4 seconds, you'd get less points for a kill.

 

Thats a nice idea! Combine that with safe landings (as in IL-2) for getting full credits/points of air as well as ground kills and things will probably be a tad better.

 

/KC

[Cali]

Reckon people would do that in a DCS:F15C game also...

 

I always thought it would be fun to put a statistics penalty on firing several shots within a short period of time. So lets say you fire 4 slammers within 4 seconds, you'd get less points for a kill.

 

 

That's what I have been saying. No matter if it's DCS or FC2 people are going to do the same thing. I don't understand why people think there is going to be some huge change between the 2.

[bogusheadbox]

One way to improve the airquake slammer fest is to put a resource limit / constraint on airbases/farps.

 

Parameters would include, (1) how much of each weapon are stored, (2) how much time or supply drops before replenish (3) at what rate are the weapons replenished.

 

That way, all the quakers that take off full of only slammers (or mavericks for a-10 users) would quickly deplete the stockpiles limiting their ability and forcing them to use other ordinance.

 

Also it would enforce players to protect supply lines for resupply if supply drops were selected as an option.

 

Also it would promote team play to carefully select ordinance between players before taking off

 

Also it would encourage people to care about surviving more as losing a fully laden aircraft will reduce the available resources quickly

Edited October 17, 2010 by bogusheadbox

[RIPTIDE]

Reckon people would do that in a DCS:F15C game also...

 

I always thought it would be fun to put a statistics penalty on firing several shots within a short period of time. So lets say you fire 4 slammers within 4 seconds, you'd get less points for a kill.

That matters to the stats whores and them only. Also not sure why you would even want to do this. If some noob wants to waste his missiles, then let him. He'll get owned enough with empty rails that he's gotta 1) learn accordingly or 2) leave.

[RIPTIDE]

One way to improve the airquake slammer fest is to put a resource limit / constraint on airbases/farps.

 

Parameters would include, (1) how much of each weapon are stored, (2) how much time or supply drops before replenish (3) at what rate are the weapons replenished.

 

That way, all the quakers that take off full of only slammers (or mavericks for a-10 users) would quickly deplete the stockpiles limiting their ability and forcing them to use other ordinance.

 

Also it would enforce players to protect supply lines for resupply if supply drops were selected as an option.

 

Also it would promote team play to carefully select ordinance between players before taking off

 

Also it would encourage people to care about surviving more as losing a fully laden aircraft will reduce the available resources quickly

Thats an interesting concept. I would imagine it might play out with a guy joining a server with 20 120's 20 7's and 10 9's and he's got to make do with that. Maybe touches with real life in a full scale broad conflict. But to implement this... is another matter.

[Steel Jaw]

That matters to the stats whores and them only..

 

You're missing the point entirely.

 

It would force them to adopt RW tactics and behaviours.

[Grimes]

One way to improve the airquake slammer fest is to put a resource limit / constraint on airbases/farps.

 

Parameters would include, (1) how much of each weapon are stored, (2) how much time or supply drops before replenish (3) at what rate are the weapons replenished.

 

That way, all the quakers that take off full of only slammers (or mavericks for a-10 users) would quickly deplete the stockpiles limiting their ability and forcing them to use other ordinance.

 

Also it would enforce players to protect supply lines for resupply if supply drops were selected as an option.

 

Also it would promote team play to carefully select ordinance between players before taking off

 

Also it would encourage people to care about surviving more as losing a fully laden aircraft will reduce the available resources quickly

 

The whole notion of supply has been missing for quite some time. I was hoping there might have been a trigger condition based on weapon usage in DCS A-10. That way we could at least fake supply with triggers. The fact that you can use whatever the hell you want however much you want is a huge factor in how people play a game. Give 1 person 4 aircraft, if they lose the first 3, the value of the 4th aircraft would increase an insane amount. They'd fly more careful and smarter. Granted they might also quit the server...

[Cali]

One way to improve the airquake slammer fest is to put a resource limit / constraint on airbases/farps.

 

Parameters would include, (1) how much of each weapon are stored, (2) how much time or supply drops before replenish (3) at what rate are the weapons replenished.

 

That way, all the quakers that take off full of only slammers (or mavericks for a-10 users) would quickly deplete the stockpiles limiting their ability and forcing them to use other ordinance.

 

Also it would enforce players to protect supply lines for resupply if supply drops were selected as an option.

 

Also it would promote team play to carefully select ordinance between players before taking off

 

Also it would encourage people to care about surviving more as losing a fully laden aircraft will reduce the available resources quickly

 

There are a few servers that have or had missions that were limited loadouts. I didn't see people playing any different then if they could pick their own loadout. I think I'm one of the few that has AIM-7's in my F-15 loadouts. Normally people take 6x120's and 2xAim-9's and only because they can't take all 120's.

 

And like Grimes said, if they don't like whats going on in the server they'll just leave and fly in one that suit their needs. That's why some servers have more players then others.

[RIPTIDE]

You're missing the point entirely.

 

It would force them to adopt RW tactics and behaviours.

I don't know about you... but getting splashed because of premature spamming of missiles is more of an incentive than some arbitrary points deduct on a stats table. To me at least.

[GGTharos]

One way to improve the airquake slammer fest is to put a resource limit / constraint on airbases/farps.

 

Parameters would include, (1) how much of each weapon are stored, (2) how much time or supply drops before replenish (3) at what rate are the weapons replenished.

 

That way, all the quakers that take off full of only slammers (or mavericks for a-10 users) would quickly deplete the stockpiles limiting their ability and forcing them to use other ordinance.

 

... and they'd move on to the next server.

 

Also it would enforce players to protect supply lines for resupply if supply drops were selected as an option.

 

Also it would promote team play to carefully select ordinance between players before taking off

 

Also it would encourage people to care about surviving more as losing a fully laden aircraft will reduce the available resources quickly

 

... Or they could just move on to the next server.

[Steel Jaw]

... and they'd move on to the next server.

 

 

 

... Or they could just move on to the next server.

 

 

Fine be me: like hip hoppers, best they be penned up in one spot.:D

 

//runs away.

[GGTharos]

The problem is Mower, than I come in then, and WTF is this about having to use AIM-7's?

 

Oh, it's a challenge you say! Foxtrot Uniform say I! :D

[Steel Jaw]

AIM7s? Nah, GUNS only. :D

[GGTharos]

Go ahead, brings your guns to my missile fight :D

[Steel Jaw]

Go ahead, brings your guns to my missile fight :D

 

 

LOL...you got me: I have no clever retort to that.

 

:thumbup:

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I think were getting off topic here. The topic is what is losing FC 2.0 compatability going to do to server population for the foreseeable future, and will the server population recover over time. Lets focus. Air Quakers or whatever it is you call them, that is another thread all together. I mean would you rather fly with "airquake" guys or would you rather fly on an empty or low populated server?

[Grimes]

I think were getting off topic here. The topic is what is losing FC 2.0 compatability going to do to server population for the foreseeable future, and will the server population recover over time. Lets focus. Air Quakers or whatever it is you call them, that is another thread all together. I mean would you rather fly with "airquake" guys or would you rather fly on an empty or low populated server?

 

 

Same thing that happened when Black Shark came out. FC1.12 saw a drop in player numbers. To its credit it had been steadily declining for a while. But a drop is bound to happen. Perhaps some will feel the need for A2A and load FC2 back up, but I question how often that might occur. Realize though at certain times there were at most 20 people playing FC2/BS online at the same time.... in the world. We barely have enough people to fill 1 server, let alone multiple servers.

 

So to answer the original question of "now what?" As people learn the A-10C and play the beta the player numbers in FC2 will be low. Once Black Shark gets patched to be A-10C compatible there is little reason to choose "FC2: BS" over "DCS: Black Shark." Perhaps if we saw another FC2 patch it might give players enough reason to load it up, but unless its something completely amazing I doubt the players will stay.

 

The one positive of the DCS series is that missions tend to make more sense with just a handful of aircraft in game. Air to air combat is lonely when its 1v1 spawned 300 km away from each other, a2g co-op combat makes more sense in that situation. 8vs8 in Air to air makes alot of sense and feels right, 8 or 16 aircraft in a co-op can be a crowd. But it depends on mission design, if they are spread out it starts to makes more sense, but if they are all over one AO.... yeah thats lame.

[power5]

Flying bs on fc2 servers was really the same as playing sp. I have no idea where the fighters are until I get hit with a missile. I fly low and as hidden as possible but at some point they get me. Would be the same with a10. Can't see enemy unless they are close but a10 is much easier to pickup on radar than a low slow bs I would think.

 

I wish the servers were as populated as il2. I find it hard to join a squad because I do not have a regular flight schedule. It's whenever I have a chance to fly I do. But my skills are usually well below any squad member since I do not have dedicated practice time to become proficient with all the systems. Still don't know how to use datalink in bs. I was able to set up a flight plan from a carrier deck once though. That felt good.

[Arrowhead]

DCS: A10 will introduce "battlefield commanders" though. I imagine it could get to be very interesting having someone with an overview of the theatre online to be able to assign waypoints or whatever and get friendly fighters to better provide CAP to protect the mud movers.

[Steel Jaw]

One fundamental problem to this day with the FC2 servers is that only half at most of the particiapnts have the COURTESY to get on TS to coordinate with their team. But I guess if you're Air Quaker, why would you bother.

[Cyb0rg]

Lets wait for the compatibility patch for BS. We'll see from there.

[Cosmonaut]

Realistic game play has nothing to do with how many buttons you push to start up, missile logic or anything other than the capabilities of the mission editor and the mission you're actually playing. Red Flag would play out the same way as FC2 if the same approach was taken to the way the missions are and can be handled online.

 

Grimes hit the nail on the head-

 

The whole notion of supply has been missing for quite some time. I was hoping there might have been a trigger condition based on weapon usage in DCS A-10. That way we could at least fake supply with triggers. The fact that you can use whatever the hell you want however much you want is a huge factor in how people play a game. Give 1 person 4 aircraft, if they lose the first 3, the value of the 4th aircraft would increase an insane amount. They'd fly more careful and smarter. Granted they might also quit the server...

 

 

A war of attrition is exactly what is missing. We need to set a certain amount of planes and a certain amount of pilots. When you're side runs out of either you loose simple as that. In IL2 1946 we have had that for years and it's still, IMO, the most immersive, online, air combat sim around. Well with out having to coordinate anything like signing people up to an event etc.