104th Dedicated Split Servers A2A & A2G

[104th_Maverick]

From today we are going to be doing a trial of running two separate dedicated servers for the public.

 

The first of these servers will be an Air to Air exclusive server bar the exception of 2 SU-25T assets for SEAD purposes.

 

The second of these servers will be an Air to Ground / Co-op server.

 

The Air to Air server (Dedicated 1) will be running new missions that do not involve ground target areas for the most part. The objectives in these missions will be to defend airborne assets or high value ground/sea target such as power plants or oil rigs that can be destroyed with dumb bombs from SU-27 or Mig-29 aircraft.

These missions include AI aircraft tasked to attack airbases giving clients further taskings of escort and interception.

 

The Air to Ground / Co-op server (Dedicated 2) will be running new and existing missions that do not feature air to air clients on opposing sides. Clients will still have air threats but these will come in the form of AI aircraft and not from other players in fighter aircraft.

 

We have chosen to do run this trial due to the restrictions we have had to place on our dedicated server regarding the number of clients we can have connected due to the BETA nature of FC3.

This has led to a lack of high intensity air to air engagements as 'generally' most clients at anyone time will be flying A2G aircraft, when the server is full this stops other air to air clients from getting in on the action.

 

So we have created a dedicated air to air platform to try and recreate the glorious fur-balls from FC2, at this time our player cap is set to 21 clients which means we can look forward to 10 vs 10 engagements in missions fully backed up with AWACS and Tanker assets.

 

We want to stress to everyone this is a trial and we expect to making some changes as we progress. We are well aware this idea will not suit everyone and would like to point out that our long term aim once FC3 moves out of BETA is to have everyone back in the same place again. We are only going down this path to see if the public like this style of setup and to see if we can generate some high intensity air to air action.

 

If it falls on its face we will re-evaluate it, but please feel free to give as much constructive feedback as you can on how we can make these missions and servers better for you!

[HiJack]

Sure hope this will work until we can have more than 21 players. Can't wait to try it out :D

[sidjjj]

This is great news. Perhaps now I can stop getting my butt kicked by F15s.

 

Thank you.

[SmokeyTheLung]

I hope you guys might consider running the air to ground server with both fighters and strikers (the way it's been since FC3 came out). I can totally understand wanting a full air to air "furball" server but I think what made your server stand out for the DCS crowd (a10/ka-50) was the added threat/excitement that fighters brought to the action.

 

One of my most exciting moments since I started flying simulators was shooting down a Mig-29 in an A10C on your server! Hope I get to try that again (and probably fail :D)

[Speed]

I hope you guys might consider running the air to ground server with both fighters and strikers (the way it's been since FC3 came out). I can totally understand wanting a full air to air "furball" server but I think what made your server stand out for the DCS crowd (a10/ka-50) was the added threat/excitement that fighters brought to the action.

 

One of my most exciting moments since I started flying simulators was shooting down a Mig-29 in an A10C on your server! Hope I get to try that again (and probably fail :D)

 

Yea, it can add extra excitement, but with the small client numbers, you will frequently get times where there is no one or hardly anyone to cover your back :(

[104th_Maverick]

I hope you guys might consider running the air to ground server with both fighters and strikers

 

Hi Smokey,

 

Yes we certainly will sir, it is very early days at the moment for the Co-op / Air to Ground server so we are still testing out different set ups.

 

What we will probably end up going with is missions that only have 2 or 3 fighters per side to keep some variation in the air threats posed to ground attack aircraft.

 

We have added several missions to both Dedicated 1 and 2 that we will be trialing out during the week. We are hoping this weekend to have 2 full servers of 21 people, so any changes we can make to make them more attractive will be implemented!

 

We do ask however that if clients want air to air sorties that they join the A2A server, ideally only clients who are wanting to co-operate with the air to ground strikers should be joining fighter aircraft in the Co-op server.

 

As I mentioned we are hoping to ramp up the air to air intensity, this is why we set up Dedicated 1 - Air to Air, so we kindly request any clients who feel like killing someone to come along and show us what you've got and help get the server going!

[Speed]

Instead of an air to ground only server, why not just an asymmetrical mission server? Have a mission where there's AI aircraft, plus slots for human F-15s, A-10s, Ka-50s, Su-25s on blue, vs. a handful of human Su-27s and several AI aircraft on red? Red wins if blue does not conquer them within a certain time frame. It will breed a whole different, and interesting, set of tactics.

 

It might seem like the odds are stacked against red, but a smart pilot can still get kills and come home alive, by using tactics like running back to his SAM coverage, pouncing on stragglers, using ambush and hit and run tactics, etc. This all will serve to slow down blue, which is red's objective. Red has at best, only a very minor air-to-ground objective. Most likely, red has NO air to ground objective.

 

Instead of slowing down blue, maybe red's objective could simply be to cause maximum casualties on blue. For example, blue could kill every single red unit, but still lose the mission because they lost too many aircraft.

 

A comparable real-life analog would be Chennault's 1st American Volunteer Group, the "Flying Tigers". Though heavily outnumbered by the Japanese, they were still able to put up a good fight and slow down the Japanese. The majority of Japanese strike aircraft got through, but the Flying Tigers were a consistent pain in their side. After each mission, the majority of the 1st AVG pilots got home too. They adopted tactics to suit the asymmetrical situation they were in, and made a good fight out of it. It is possible to create a similar dynamic in DCS.

 

Anyway, I could build such a mission, and I would if I had any confidence it might actually get run. I've seen too many excellent force-on-force missions get built and never run by any servers for me to risk building one myself.

 

IMO, I just think that the current 104th missions are so focused on symmetry that they are flawed. The majority of people I've talked to have said they would like to see ACTUAL red aircraft on one side, and ACTUAL blue aircraft on another- at least, the fighters. No more F-15s shooting down F-15s. Now, granted, the majority of people I've talked to are DCS pilots. I don't know what the traditional LOMAC crowd favors. It might be that they like the fact that the exact same aircraft are available on both sides.

 

So, anyway, I think that if you are going to have two servers, I think it is better if one server dishes out the traditional 104th mission formula, while the second server features an asymmetrical scenario, similar to what I detail in my first paragraph. Just because the scenario is asymmetrical does NOT mean it is unbalanced! By tuning mission objectives and forces, you can have an asymmetrical scenario be very balanced. And even if it IS unbalanced, there is no reason why the side at a disadvantage cannot have fun either. Just make sure that the side at a disadvantage can still have some way to fight back, and people will have fun!

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

P.S.- also don't get me wrong- I think that the traditional 104th mission formula of extreme symmetry has a place- I do NOT think that such missions should go away. But I'd also like to see the asymmetrical mission concept get explored, because it has more appeal to us DCS pilots who want to see a more realistic scenario, and it has been completely neglected.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Speed

[104th_Maverick]

Thanks Speed!

 

On the Co-op / A2G server we are planning on having only Russian Aircraft on Red and US aircraft on Blue.

 

On the Air to Air server we are going to keep the same set up of having both aircraft types available on both sides.

 

The reason why we don't do this more is down to practicality. Online it just doesn't work out the way you want it, most new clients 'generally' get in an F-15 when they are starting out in the game. What we have seen in the past with this set up is far to much bias on the Blue side, leaving an overwhelmed Red side which leads to people leaving the server.

 

We also want to keep it this way to give us the flexibility of flying against each other (104th members) and to make it easier for us to balance the teams, despite there being a strong feeling in part of the community that only Russians should fly on Red and US on blue we do not agree and find that the current set up is more practical for our server.

 

The reason we don't have lots of AI aircraft supporting in air to air engagement is we feel there is not the same challenge in taking on AI aircraft as there is vs a human client.

This is something we witnessed in FC2 as well, what is more popular is clients getting the chance to fight against lots of other clients. Regardless of how difficult it is to kill an AI, it's just not the same as being mixed up with a human client or several of them!

This is what really ramps up the intensity online, not fighting against AI aircraft.

 

Our aim over the next week or so is to keep the air to air missions as simple as possible and slowly add more features to them.

We have had issues with the current 1.2.3 build crashing the server with more complicated missions, so the aim for us is to have something that is consistently stable rather than immersive and complicated for now. At least until we get to the stage where we are running a server with 21 clients with complicated actions built in that will not crash the server due to triggers etc.

[Aries]

It's not the F-15 guys that are the problem... it's their 6 x AMRAAM attacks on single craft that are buging me... :)

[Speed]

;1697008']Thanks Speed!

 

On the Co-op / A2G server we are planning on having only Russian Aircraft on Red and US aircraft on Blue.

 

Will you have human slots available on red too? You need to- it will up the tension for blue aircraft considerably.

 

On the Air to Air server we are going to keep the same set up of having both aircraft types available on both sides.

I tend to think that the 104th formula may in fact be one of the best ways to do a symmetrical air-to-air mission. However, I personally favor asymmetrical scenarios, and so do significant portions of the community. Undoubtably, a significant portion of the community favors your symmetrical mission format instead. I just hope that the option to select an asymmetrical player-vs-player mission actually EXISTS one day.

 

The reason why we don't do this more is down to practicality. Online it just doesn't work out the way you want it, most new clients 'generally' get in an F-15 when they are starting out in the game. What we have seen in the past with this set up is far to much bias on the Blue side, leaving an overwhelmed Red side which leads to people leaving the server.

 

We also want to keep it this way to give us the flexibility of flying against each other (104th members) and to make it easier for us to balance the teams, despite there being a strong feeling in part of the community that only Russians should fly on Red and US on blue we do not agree and find that the current set up is more practical for our server.

 

The reason we don't have lots of AI aircraft supporting in air to air engagement is we feel there is not the same challenge in taking on AI aircraft as there is vs a human client.

This is something we witnessed in FC2 as well, what is more popular is clients getting the chance to fight against lots of other clients. Regardless of how difficult it is to kill an AI, it's just not the same as being mixed up with a human client or several of them!

This is what really ramps up the intensity online, not fighting against AI aircraft.

All your issues are easily solvable, for an asymmetrical mission, by making a fun objectives that can accomplished without humans in opposition. One of the balancing factors IS to use AI aircraft to make up for a lack of humans. The focus of an asymmetrical mission IS NOT air to air- air to air is just one component.

 

So how do you make it fun still? Say that an AI SEAD flight takes off. Once airborne, a call will go out, asking for any humans to come escort it. BRA can be sent individually to all humans, directing them where the AI SEAD flight is. If no humans respond, then a set of AI aircraft can escort it instead.

 

So if only a few people are still on the server, then instead of everyone flying around bored, action still goes on. But if people are actually ON the server, then people get to fight people instead of AI aircraft.

 

For red side, since air-to-air is more limited, a lack of human pilots will not be felt as severely.

 

In the end, the best air to air action might occur on your symmetrical air to air server. Those who prefer (what usually turns out to be) relatively structureless air-to-air combat, that is, however, guaranteed to be player-vs-player, will have the most fun there. However, for those who want to see a more realistic scenario (that still has a strong air-to-air component) the most fun will be had on the asymmetrical mission server.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Speed

[104th_Maverick]

One of the balancing factors IS to use AI aircraft to make up for a lack of humans.

 

We have already done this.

 

The AI SEAD idea is already implemented in the new missions.

 

There are F-18's on the Blue side and SU-24s on the Red Side that attack each others SAM systems that require escort and intercept, calls and alarms go off on each side... bells and whistles! :)

 

As I mentioned we're not massive fans of AI air to air combat but that doesn't mean we won't use them for other tasks, if you join the A2A server and have a quick look at the brief you'll see some of the changes we have implemented mate.

 

Going forward we are keen to add more AI aircraft performing roles other than air to air, but again to reiterate we want to keep them nice and straight forward to start with and slowly add more features as we go along.

Edited March 11, 2013 by [Maverick]

[Cali]

Hopefully this will get fixed before I get back and set up to fly. Hate flying in missions that are strictly A2A or A2G.

[monotwix]

;1697008']

The reason why we don't do this more is down to practicality. Online it just doesn't work out the way you want it, most new clients 'generally' get in an F-15 when they are starting out in the game. What we have seen in the past with this set up is far to much bias on the Blue side, leaving an overwhelmed Red side which leads to people leaving the server.

 

 

That’s an interesting observation, however I would think that there’re various reasons why seasoned pilots leave the red coalition when confronted with overwhelming number of F-15C, yes the main reason is that no one wants to be constantly blown out of the sky, another reason could be that many missions had been flown as a pointless sequence of disorganised engagements and more experienced tend to fly with squadrons, surely there are plenty of good Mid-29 and SU-27 pilots who would be capable to play red vs blue missions.

 

I do like 104th server and at the same time I support the idea of realistic arrangements for military hardware between coalitions, as it goes, from a tactical point of view I would not ask for a pair of SU-27 to go and maintain air superiority against a pair of F-15C over an area which has no SAM coverage. In RL we can assume that with the support of AWACS, Electronic Countermeasures, Data Link, COMs, Mig-31, SU-27 etc could carryout an offensive engagement but the reality of multiplayer is not like that. Perhaps from the tactical point of view it would make sense to structure the red side based on defensive scene such as SAM installations, for example: in order to extend the air superiority coverage the SAMs have to be destroyed> in order to destroy medium range SAMs the SEAD has to be within range, SU-27 and AI SU-30 on 25min intervals deny that range with the advantage of short altitude SAMs which means that the offensive force has to operate above certain altitude with limitations on vertical manoeuvres.

 

 

I’m only having my ideas with the hope that the culture of balancing based on the mixing of hardware will be phased out one day, IMO the advantage of clarity outweighs the chaos especially in MP, I must mention that it’s very nice to have 104th as public server thank you. Public also can be described as people with uncertain skills and intentions, it is also reasonable to think that designing a mission based on the idea of getting a full server can create a conveyor belt effect where the pilots with the experience gained will simply drop off at the end.

[Loki_]

Suggest adding more A10c slots to op watcher a2g. If its gonna be an a2g server might as well have plenty to go around. Ran out tonight in prime time, also ran out of 25-t.

 

Suggest considering the possibility of leaving 1 server the old fashioned fc3+dcs (a2a+a2g) and 1 server a2a.

 

Best server(s) on DCS MP bar none, thanks again for hosting.

[badger66]

Hopefully this will get fixed before I get back and set up to fly. Hate flying in missions that are strictly A2A or A2G.

 

+1 ..... hope you guys can manage to get this sorted soon . Love flying A2G with A2A threats .

 

Wish you the best of luck .

[Cali]

+1 ..... hope you guys can manage to get this sorted soon . Love flying A2G with A2A threats .

 

Wish you the best of luck .

 

Hope you guys? Hope ED can fix it so more people can fly online without having problems.

[Ebs]

Hey Maverick. Really love the new A2G server. But i do have a small request. The tankers are way too fast! They must be doing around 270-280. Impossible to catch them in the hog. If you could slow them down a bit ill be on the server a lot more often :)

[104th_Maverick]

Will get that done mate, thanks for the heads up!

[Exorcet]

Instead of an air to ground only server, why not just an asymmetrical mission server?

I've been pushing for this forever. I'll let the 104 manage themselves, and thanks for having one of the top servers in this community, but I would ask that if you are able to implement asymmetric missions.

 

If the natural tendency is to have more Blue fighters in this case, then make the sides uneven. If 21 aircraft is the current limit, why not 13 Red, 8 Blue? Or perhaps even better, make the Red side on the defense and give them home field advantage. They are closers to airbases, they have more SAM's, and more complete SA. We'll probably need mutlirole fighters (F-18) to really implement such a thing, but I think it should be an important future goal.

[Speed]

I've been pushing for this forever. I'll let the 104 manage themselves, and thanks for having one of the top servers in this community, but I would ask that if you are able to implement asymmetric missions.

 

If the natural tendency is to have more Blue fighters in this case, then make the sides uneven. If 21 aircraft is the current limit, why not 13 Red, 8 Blue? Or perhaps even better, make the Red side on the defense and give them home field advantage. They are closers to airbases, they have more SAM's, and more complete SA. We'll probably need mutlirole fighters (F-18) to really implement such a thing, but I think it should be an important future goal.

 

One idea I had was to give them home field advantage, some SAMs to help them out (arranged into a crude integrated air defense network), and early warning radars/AWACS to give them GCI.

 

The GCI can be created entirely through scripting- we can give each individual red aircraft continuous BRA to the nearest bandits, if any are in range. The GCI will take into account LOS and the Doppler notch.

 

So, while red is heavily outnumbered, they have a huge SA advantage against any blue aircraft that get within range. In combination with the SAMs, this will mean they will be greatly encouraged to stay within their defensive perimeter, and it will probably force blue fighters to group up and work together in order to survive. The air to ground strikers will need to get in and get out quickly, before red is able to relaunch from their home base, and they will need to group with blue fighters to take out the EWR sites.

 

Alternatively, you could try to sneak in low, using terrain masking to keep yourself hidden from the EWR.

 

F10 allies only view would be enabled to help the Flaming Cliffs people find each other and group up. Possibly, some sort of additional data-link-like feature could be implemented for blue.

 

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure this would be more fun than the current missions, but I do know that at the least, it would be something different. Like I said before, there's nothing necessarily bad with the 104th's missions, except that we've been flying what is essentially the same mission since at least FC2. We need some variety! I'm thinking that between the VTAG server and the 3 squadron server, I could probably set this mission up to be available to the community, but if I do decide to take this route, it will be some time. I've got a lot of things to do- maybe if I can make Graywolf and Grimes excited at the mission idea, we can team up and create it more quickly.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Speed

[159th_Viper]

+1 ..... hope you guys can manage to get this sorted soon . Love flying A2G with A2A threats....

 

Are the T-Toads not slapping the Hogs out of the sky quick enough? :D

[badger66]

Naaa , you know what I mean man ..... its completely more realistic having A2A and A2G in the same server , Im not having a go at anyone .....

[104th_Cobra]

Are the T-Toads not slapping the Hogs out of the sky quick enough? :D

 

I'm sad that there aren't Mustangs available anymore, to stalk and bring Warthogs of the sky...:cry_2:

[HiJack]

It's not at all the same action on the servers now as before the split :( I vote for two servers with A2A and A2G pilots in the same manner as in mission "Operation Final Dawn" before the split.

[Crescendo]

This is by no means scientific, but I've logged on to check the servers 10-15 times over the last three days or so, and every time the A2A server has had 0 players. :(

 

No such problems for the A2G server. I don't mind moving mud, but it is decidedly sterile without the aerial threat of dedicated player-controlled fighters. To each his own I suppose, but I find it surprising that the online community is so slanted towards PvE (player-versus-environment) gameplay.

 

I welcome the experimentation, but if this trend continues I hope to see the return of the combined server. Futhermore, I would personally like to play some combined missions where there is an actual FLOT. I disagree with the prevailing philosophy of the A2G and A2A aircraft having their own segregated 'playgrounds'. It's unrealistic and 'carebear-ish', and is like war with training wheels.

 

Before anyone gets upset, it goes without saying that this isn't my server — I'm just voicing my opinion as one faceless and insignificant online player. Obviously the administrators have found a balance between realism and accessability that they feel best accomodates the community's preferences. It would appear that PvE players make up the bulk of the playerbase, so perhaps this is the way it must be to have a routinely populated server. A realistic FLOT would frustrate these players because they would no longer be able to plink AI targets largely unmolested. I think that's a short-sighted way to look at it, but I can't fault people for what they find fun.