104th Dedicated Server - Weapons Restrictions

[104th_Maverick]

After some key feedback from the community and our regular players on the server regarding the missile performance of the Aim120 the 104th are introducing 3 additional restricted payload missions to the dedicated server.

 

The restrictions allow only Aim 7, Aim 9, R27T, R-27R and R-73 for air to air combatants.

 

First out the box is our new Operation Crossbow that takes the fight to the newly added terrain around South Ossetia. Crossbow's weapons restrictions also extend to air to ground aircraft with the removal of all guided weapons (excl KA-50) leaving rockets and dumb bombs to get the job done in a different style!

 

Today we added a restricted version of our flagship Operation Moonshield mission, this will be followed by a restricted version of Operation Liberty in the coming days.

 

Until the next patch comes out most of our missions will involve weapons restrictions, as we move forward and the alleged issues with the missiles are fixed we will re-introduce more unrestricted missions.

Edited January 12, 2013 by [Maverick]

[luckybob9]

add regular su25's please

[Manawar]

Sounds like a great idea in this mission. We will get a few added :)

[Boberro]

Nice move. SARH is more adrenaline-makable then just ARH spam, however I must say flying an Eagle at 60 000 feet and killing poor MiGs is nice too :)

[104th_Maverick]

add regular su25's please

 

Done!

[luckybob9]

:) laser missiles for them? or just rockets

[104th_Maverick]

Just rockets sir ;)

[Stalintc]

Hopped on the server last night to play these as a KA-50 pilot, loved every minute of it! Great missions!

[Bambr]

Would be better to respawn a plane without fuel and weapons. Because at the moment it's faster to take new plane and don't wait for reloading and refueling.

[Mustang]

Would be better to respawn a plane without fuel and weapons. Because at the moment it's faster to take new plane and don't wait for reloading and refueling.

 

I'll forward your idea to [Maverick] since he's the one managing all the missions on the server.

[Watari]

I really like your missions but sometimes, usually late at night, i have the feeling that this is only a fc3 deathmatch server.

 

most of the guys on blue side just cycling around red base or WP to make a fast kill on a a-10 or ka50 without any teamplay or coordination.

could also happen that some guys make blue on blue kills cause of lack of enemys:noexpression:

 

 

would be great to have a team auto balance or something like that.

before fc3 there was really great sessions on your server....

[sorcer3r]

Maybe the airbases just need better air defense?

[104th_Maverick]

Hi Watari,

 

Thanks for your feedback sir.

 

I posted on another thread with a similar sort of message. The truth is sir, before FC3 came out, you guys had it way to easy! A lot of people seem to have gotten lazy or just plain fail to realise they are in a combat zone full of other people trying to kill them!

 

Obviously it's not fair for someone to come screaming down in an Eagle shooting all the KA50's etc, this makes it no fun for the guys trying to work the ground targets. Although it is unfair, it is definitely not against the rules.

Unfortunately there is no scope at present to have some sort of auto balancing active on the server, I agree it would be 'nice' to have.

 

However we are flying around in a combat zone and combat is not always fair, or has sides with equal forces.

 

Regarding the Teamkilling, we don't tolerate that or any kind of messing around on our server. If you see someone TKing/Trash Talking or being abusive please report them to either myself or another member of the 104th.

 

Finally I want to bring up what you said about people wanting to join for some quick kills without any teamplay or coordination.

 

I do agree with you....

 

However the air to ground guys are just as bad ... if not worse.... much worse!

 

I obviously fly in our server very often, so far in FC3 I have seen very few people join the server and start doing/asking the things they should be if they want to survive.

 

What target area is active?

Do we have any air cover in that area?

Can I please have an escort to X?

Do we have air superiority?

 

These are all things you should be checking/asking the online air to air and air to ground pilots.

 

Remember you guys also have RWR! Which means you should be bugging the hell out of the fighters identifying who is good and who is trying to kill you!

 

Eg..

Bomber : ''Maverick are you nose hot looking at TA Alpha from the East?''

Me : ''Negative''

Bomber '' Copy, I have nails painting me from 090 medium range''

Me ''Roger, on my way''

 

Likewise KA-50s should be talking with other assets to see how safe the area is they want to work in.

 

I know this may not be too attractive but sometimes you WILL have to hold outside of your Target Area for a while before you can safely enter (until your air cover is present), or even not enter it at all and extend back to your base and your SAM cover until the danger leaves the area or you get some air cover.

Again... I don't see enough people doing this, most people just seem to be semi-obsessed with just flying in a straight line to the target area regardless of what is going on around them.

 

So what I'm saying is it's not all the big bad fighters fault, a lot of the times the bombers that get killed mainly have themselves to blame.

 

Your not the only person to have brought issues like this up sir, so I am looking at different ways to build the layouts of new missions to keep the air to ground guys safer from the air threats.

 

But in the meantime.... keep hitting that chat button!

Edited January 23, 2013 by [Maverick]

[Bambr]

What's about CA? I think it's should be interesting if somebody will use tanks or something similar to help air-to-ground guys. I don't mean playable target vehicles. We need some ground forces specially for CA gamers. As example for Red side would be good to have near FARP several tanks, GRADs, maybe Tunguska or Tor and Shilkas. And... hm... maybe need to respawn these ground forces when some target is done?

[Mustang]

What's about CA? I think it's should be interesting if somebody will use tanks or something similar to help air-to-ground guys. I don't mean playable target vehicles. We need some ground forces specially for CA gamers. As example for Red side would be good to have near FARP several tanks, GRADs, maybe Tunguska or Tor and Shilkas. And... hm... maybe need to respawn these ground forces when some target is done?

 

CA options are exempt from our missions for now, when stability improves in future versions we may consider reintroducing CA elements.

[104th_Maverick]

Would be better to respawn a plane without fuel and weapons. Because at the moment it's faster to take new plane and don't wait for reloading and refueling.

 

We like this idea and have chosen to implement it in our new missions minus the empty fuel part. Now all fixed wing aircraft start with empty payload however are fully fueled.

 

We have also added 3 Black Wolf F-15C slots to;

 

Operation Moonshield Tanks

Operation Crossbow

Operation Gipsy Danger

 

These are located on the Blue Coalition and are the last 3 in the list!

 

Black Wolf skin can be downloaded here - http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=100520

 

Mav

[HiJack]

To hunt those FC3 deathmatch players add the possibility to call AI backup that follow the A2G player to the target area. This can be done just by adding a pre defined zone to fly over to trigger the backup and spawn an F/A-18C or simmilar. Limit the zone to trigger only when no backup AI is active and maby limited to one every 30 minutes or something in that style and maximum 4-5 times depending on mission lenght.

 

138th.Jack

[badger66]

I disagree about shooting down Ka-50 .

 

If they stop shooting up ground targets , which is part of their mission , I will refrain from shooting down Ka-50 ..... How do I feel when Ive dragged my A-10 half way across the map and get shot down , fair game .

 

If red cant shoot blue and vis versa , then there is no war . They can win a mission by taking out ground targets , but we shouldnt shoot them down , your having a laugh !!!

 

Ka-50 in my scope , he's getting it . And I feel its unfair to label people who shoot Ka-50 as playing unfair .

 

War is war , or are we now flying for the United Nations ?

[falcon_120]

I disagree about shooting down Ka-50 .

 

If they stop shooting up ground targets , which is part of their mission , I will refrain from shooting down Ka-50 ..... How do I feel when Ive dragged my A-10 half way across the map and get shot down , fair game .

 

If red cant shoot blue and vis versa , then there is no war . They can win a mission by taking out ground targets , but we shouldnt shoot them down , your having a laugh !!!

 

Ka-50 in my scope , he's getting it . And I feel its unfair to label people who shoot Ka-50 as playing unfair .

 

War is war , or are we now flying for the United Nations ?

 

+1

 

Not that I've done it myself, but when I'm flying the KA50 I don't expect the other side to let me free destroying ground targets.

Edited January 24, 2013 by falcon_120
Error

[Cali]

Nice post Badger, that's war! If people don't like getting shot down...oh well, that's online play for you.

[RedRain]

Not familiar with FC, just wondering if there is a high fidelity Vs low fidelity issue here (sim Vs arcade) ? There must be a significant fundamental difference between aquireing & destroying targets between a DCS and a FC module's, Eg, Dcs A10c Vs FC A10c ? I would imagine FC modules would have far more advantage on the battlefield over DCS modules ?

Also noticed FC pilots actively engaging slow & static targets (KA50's) via f10 map, they are sitting ducks, with no place to hide, not even behind trees, no competition.

Edited January 24, 2013 by RedRain

[Frostie]

Not familiar with FC, just wondering if there is a high fidelity Vs low fidelity issue here (sim Vs arcade) ? There must be a significant fundamental difference between aquireing & destroying targets between a DCS and a FC module's, Eg, Dcs A10c Vs FC A10c ? I would imagine FC modules would have far more advantage on the battlefield over DCS modules ?

Also noticed FC pilots actively engaging slow & static targets (KA50's) via f10 map, they are sitting ducks, with no place to hide, not even behind trees, no competition.

FC is not arcade.

On a serious FC/DCS server like the 104th arcade implemetations such as externals and F10 icons are disabled. To acquire and destroy targets in an FC aircraft is no different from doing so in a DCS aircraft. No matter which aircraft I fly it is always using the same principles. FC aircraft simply lack less options to prosecute the attack.

 

For me flying A2G there is more enjoyment and reward gained in destroying 1 or 2 targets in a bandit rich environment and getting back home than blitzing 20, 30 targets in a sortie with no serious threat.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Frostie

[104th_Maverick]

I agree with Frostie, the most enjoyment I've had so far in FC3 is being merged with a F-15C and SU-27 while in an A-10A and escaping!

 

I do appreciate though that it's not always as clear cut as this. 'Generally' speaking not a lot of people are flying MP at the moment for various reasons and hopefully with 1.2.3 that will all change. This means that servers can be slow to get started and what usually happens is some hot shot joins in as the only fighter and kills the 4-5 guys that have been populating the server for the past hour in A-10s or KA-50s.

This is not cool, but as I've said before most bomber pilots are not totally blameless for getting shot down.

 

Anyway on this note I went off and created a mission with a different sort of layout to what we normally run on our dedicated server;

 

Operation Watcher

 

A medium size mission with both sides Target Area's on the friendly side of the map.

Reds are based out of Mozdok, Besian and Nalchik with the Blues out of Kutaisi and Senaki.

The emphasis on Air to Air pilots is to CAP the airspace in between both sides and protect friendly A2G assets rather than push right into enemy territory picking off slow movers, SAM systems strategically placed semi-enforce this style of play.

Bullseye is over a lovely area of the mountains and has lots of valleys for submarine tactics with plenty of room for the fighters to run around in should be some great fights in them there hills!

 

Map is WIP however the brief is pretty thorough.

 

Operation Watcher, dreams come true! ;)

 

Mav

Edited January 24, 2013 by [Maverick]

[Grimes]

I kind of wanted to have a separate thread for this post, as the only line 100% relevant to the 104th server is the last line, but somewhat related discussion is occurring here, so oh well.

 

 

Ah the good old DCS vs FC discussion. TL;DR they are two very different games each with their own play style, now merged into one, thus is causes interesting discussion. :)

 

While I certainly agree that running an organized strike mission with proper CAP protection while being under the threat of enemy fighters is where you can get the most fun out of an Su-25A/T, its not really what the A-10C or Ka-50 are good at. Yes there are many DCS missions that feature "target farms", and I wish more higher threat DCS missions were made, but last I checked FC missions are also guilty of this. Really I could go into grumpy old man mode and argue that FC mission design has deteriorated since FC1 and its never fully taken advantage of what the mission editor offers. I mean back in FC1 our strike aircraft typically had to fly over the same front to get to their respective target areas possibly leading to hot A-10A on Su-25T dog fights... AND THEY LIKED IT. :lol:

 

But I digress. DCS pilots have gotten accustomed to certain gameplay environments and server settings. Yes we are used to not dealing with enemy fighters. In the case of the A-10C I can accept the argument that it can deal with the threat in a reasonable way. The Ka-50 on the other hand are a bit different and its entirely situational. But overall the DCS missions are MUCH more different than FC missions. DCS missions range from the very immersive Operation Bactria or FOB Vedka to the incredibly random and diverse Seperatist Aggression and On Station. There are many other great missions out there.

 

In DCS missions its not uncommon for things like external views to be limited to allied vision or Fog of War, with the other critical gameplay setting of padlock set to on/off. Afterall its a crying shame not to look at the beautiful external 3d models or sometimes that TGP view of a missile impacting isn't as good as the "real" thing. For MP there is generally very lax integrity checks allowing things like slmod, Tacview, TARS, Helios, etc to be installed and running. Some users foam at the mouth from just talking about TARS and it is an utmost requirement to play the game. Personally its cool and useful when there are enough people in game to make it useful, when there are only a few I tend to play with it turned off. External views and especially export.lua are generally frowned upon in the FC world for some reason or another. If I remember it started with LEAVU and was reinforced when that one hacker was causing havok.

 

The point is we have two very established communities now merged into one. Each are used to their own style of gameplay, the type of dedication needed to get into the game, and approximate types of missions/settings. The multiplayer experience is only going to get more complicated as more aircraft and theaters are added to the sim and each will change MP in one way or another. It wasn't long after Iris announced their intentions of making an F-22 that some had already decided to never include it in their missions. If we get functional two seaters in MP it will change things as the number of players needed for an interesting game could possibly double. I also look forward to seeing what people can come up with using the scripting engine. In the end there will be no absolute formula to define the multiplayer environment. I honestly hope we will see servers running missions across a wide spectrum of overall mission types.

 

PS. Please put your IC files at the top of mission descriptions if you are going to modify the default check.

[Watari]

It was not my intention to flaming against FC3 players or yelling for a "free way" to my tgts!!!

I just want to bring some suggestions for a future mission design.

Im 90% flying the bs. (still 1.1.1.1 and world) and I had no problems to wait on clearance to advance from a game or side commander or something like that.

I can also imagine that this server get closed and after regsitration i get the pw and a specific objective (sead, cas whatever). Im just thinking out loud.

but 2 ka´on red against 5 figters in blue i guess is not what this mission want to be when i read the briefing