104th Dedicated Split Servers A2A & A2G

[104th_Crunch]

I think you may have missed the point of why the 104th have went to 2 servers for A2A and A2G. It is because current online stability for FC3 with more than 20 players is bad. Separating A2A and A2G means more people can try to fit in their choice of A2A and A2G. The 104th did not create 2 separate servers to purposely divide A2A and A2G.

 

I really do not like the idea personally, but I can see why it was done. You want to fly A2A and the server is full of A2G. I guess though, if what you are saying, that the A2A server is not busy, then perhaps there is no need for an A2A server. I have been offline for a while and can not confirm that.

 

Hopefully FC3 will return to the days when FC could handle 50+ players with good pings soon!

 

edit: In regard to your comment about a FLOT. It think it is nice to have both options. Not every A2G operation happens on the front line anyway.

 

 

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.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Crunch

[Speed]

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.

 

The only way a FLOT can work, and still have the gameplay fun, is to have an asymmetrical mission, which I spoke about earlier in this thread. Only ONE side should be doing air to ground, and that side should also have a significant advantage in air to air aircraft. The defending side needs to have some advantages, maybe good GCI, strongly defended airbases, and maybe they will win by default if the attacking side does not accomplish certain objectives within a certain time frame. Otherwise, if you throw the perfectly symmetrical air to air and air to ground forces against each other on the SAME FLOT, not only will it be unrealistic, but air to ground aircraft will have a half-life shorter than element 118.

[Frostie]

The only way a FLOT can work, and still have the gameplay fun, is to have an asymmetrical mission, which I spoke about earlier in this thread. Only ONE side should be doing air to ground, and that side should also have a significant advantage in air to air aircraft. The defending side needs to have some advantages, maybe good GCI, strongly defended airbases, and maybe they will win by default if the attacking side does not accomplish certain objectives within a certain time frame. Otherwise, if you throw the perfectly symmetrical air to air and air to ground forces against each other on the SAME FLOT, not only will it be unrealistic, but air to ground aircraft will have a half-life shorter than element 118.

Lets not get too carried away with extreme asymmetrical missions. Equally strengthed forces is a very realistic scenario. A FLOT doesn't have to exist within a 50km area there is plenty of scope in territory to have a 200km+ FLOT. This would create less focus on one area and a higher survival rate for strikers.

 

To create a realistic asymmetric scenario in the territory avaliable would be a handful of Georgian Su25A's vs the Russian war machine, to get air cover for those Georgian's would be a case of adding USAF F-15's and A-10s, and ofcourse if this would happen that then would require the inevitable SEAD the Russians would use to try and obliterate the strikers SAM cover. Now you're suddenly bordering on an equally staged mission. This isn't even taking into account the Russian arty attacking Georgian/US SAM units which would then require a counter etc.

 

To create a PvP asymmetrical mission with a combined A2G and strong fighter force verses a weak fighter force your not going to get that USAF v Russia. It would need to be Russia v Georgia/Ukraine. If your mission is not going to include A-10C and F-15C then it's not going to be too popular with many on the other hand if you're including these aircraft then realistically that force is going to be strong.

The way to go is with unrealistic asymmetrical missions.

 

This is the ultimate dilemma when creating missions for an extremely popular server like the 104th.

[Speed]

Lets not get too carried away with extreme asymmetrical missions. Equally strengthed forces is a very realistic scenario. A FLOT doesn't have to exist within a 50km area there is plenty of scope in territory to have a 200km+ FLOT. This would create less focus on one area and a higher survival rate for strikers.

 

 

Symmetrical forces, at least with large numbers of air to ground attack aircraft, is a unrealistic scenario. First of all, the number of operational aircraft the USAF could throw into a theater far exceeds what the Russian air force has. Secondly, the USAF simply does not send the A-10 on suicide missions into airspace filled with enemy fighters.

 

I don't think you see the difference between when I say asymmetrical and what is meant by unbalanced. I would give the side with fewer fighters certain advantages (already mentioned) that would balance the scenario out considerably- or at least, ensure that the outnumbered side is not overwhelmed in unfair fights. The point is about making a mission that is fun.

 

 

To create a realistic asymmetric scenario in the territory avaliable would be a handful of Georgian Su25A's vs the Russian war machine, to get air cover for those Georgian's would be a case of adding USAF F-15's and A-10s, and ofcourse if this would happen that then would require the inevitable SEAD the Russians would use to try and obliterate the strikers SAM cover. Now you're suddenly bordering on an equally staged mission. This isn't even taking into account the Russian arty attacking Georgian/US SAM units which would then require a counter etc.

 

That would be YOUR idea of what a scenario would be. I have a completely different one (read previous posts).

 

Secondly, you're getting hung too much up on realism. My idea of improved realism is to move away from these meticulously symmetrical missions that are so symmetrical that the exact same aircraft fly on both sides. A significant portion of the community... well, to be honest, everyone I have talked to apart from 104th members- does not like this. We want F-15s on one side, and Su-27s on the other. No backstabbing Israelis :D

 

Basically- improved realism = just a more realistic force balance (force balance ~= mission balance) and keeping east and west segregated as much as is practical. (It may not be practical, for example, to deny the blue side Su-25Ts- they might need player-based SEAD assets.)

 

To create a PvP asymmetrical mission with a combined A2G and strong fighter force verses a weak fighter force your not going to get that USAF v Russia. It would need to be Russia v Georgia/Ukraine. If your mission is not going to include A-10C and F-15C then it's not going to be too popular with many on the other hand if you're including these aircraft then realistically that force is going to be strong.

The way to go is with unrealistic asymmetrical missions.

 

This is the ultimate dilemma when creating missions for an extremely popular server like the 104th.

 

You're not addressing anything I proposed as a mission design- you've invented a concept that no one is in favor of, and is not related to anything that I previously stated. For example, where on Earth do you get this idea that I would make a mission that does not include F-15s and A-10Cs? :huh:

 

Secondly, again, I think you're vastly overestimating the current state of the Russian air force.

RuAF: ~300-400 Su-27

~200-300 MiG-29

 

USAF: ~1200 F-16

~700 F-15

 

And while probably the vast majority of those numbers for the USAF are in fact operating aircraft, I wouldn't be surprised if significant numbers of those Russian aircraft were in fact not operational- either in need of repair, waiting for parts, or cannibalized for parts.

 

And finally, as far as realism goes, extreme realism is not the point. Making a scenario that could possibly happen in real life is not the point. Enhanced realism is the point. It doesn't even matter what the real life force balance is between the RuAF and the USAF, the mission I would build does not take place in real life.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Speed

[Frostie]

Symmetrical forces, at least with large numbers of air to ground attack aircraft, is a unrealistic scenario. First of all, the number of operational aircraft the USAF could throw into a theater far exceeds what the Russian air force has. Secondly, the USAF simply does not send the A-10 on suicide missions into airspace filled with enemy fighters.

A lot of missions are created in an alternate reality where the cold war lived on and make best of what limited aircraft choices are avaliable. Realistic scenarios are possible but not aircraft selection.

The A-10 wouldn't be present if the US was pitted against Russia on home turf. The only mission it's suited for is killing insurgents. But that's our lot in DCS, we have to make do, if you want SEAD we're forced to use Toads, if you want to resemble a modern Russian airforce we're restricted to old 29's and 27's. Players don't have access to Mig31s, su27sm, 30 or Mig29smt, platforms that make the RuAF one of the strongest in the world. So ofourse this would turn into a large scale war in equal measures from both sides.

[RIPTIDE]

A significant portion of the community... well, to be honest, everyone I have talked to apart from 104th members- does not like this. We want F-15s on one side, and Su-27s on the other. No backstabbing Israelis :D

Who did you talk to Speed? Numbers?

 

The significant portion of the community speak as individuals or small monothematic groups.

 

Let me put this to you .... The F-15C guys would rather this simply because they can categorize things on their TEWS display unit according to 29 and 15 nails. In fact speed if I was a betting man, that is the prime motivation of those you spoke to. Though you can tell me I am wrong if you like. ;)

 

Mission designers have to think beyond that sometimes. For things like balance. When it hits 6pm Eastern time and all the Yanks come on looking for F-15C we'd like some of them balanced out on each side. When the RedFor guys come on 12hours later, likewise.

 

Your ideas are great for closed sessions where everyone arrives on time into their assigned slots and war breaks out. It's not really practical when the eb and flow of the server dictates what airframes are mostly in use at a given time.

 

Also there are squad considerations. Some squads are multi platform squads with pilots who spend most of their time in certain airframes. Sometimes fanatically so. Personally I don't understand such mentality but it's there and has to be considered.

 

I know one of the <51> missions used to be like this that Case made. I know also that Tyger made a mission called Op. Rebellion for the 104th back in the day. While the latter was a fantastic mission from my point of view (my point of view meaning that I have no problem with airframes or useless ideas such as red or blue), much of the online community spent half the time trying to Rotate Vote it. That tells you something. Nothwistanding my previous assertions about trying to forge expectations of our online customers to a more professional level, still we can't move so fast on this.

Edited March 20, 2013 by RIPTIDE

[104th_Maverick]

Speed,

 

As Riptide says, your idea's are great but they are great for a closed server not a public one.

 

There is a long way between building the kind of missions your talking about and building something that can be enjoyed by a large number of people with different skill levels.

 

And who are all these 'people' you talk too?

 

You mentioned most of the people you fly / talk with are DCS pilots, most of whom do not fly FC3 aircraft very much online, in fact I don't even think I have ever seen you flying in our server, so I'm a little bewildered about how you get all this feedback etc.

 

No-one I talk to has a problem with the F-15s being on both sides, only hardcore realism nuts who want everything to be as real as possible. The only time I see any issues with this is on this forum from a select few individuals, again most of whom seem to be DCS pilots that don't appreciate what's involved in an online air to air campaign.

 

I have said many times before that we have this set to encourage gameplay and to keep the teams even. Again I want to point out Speed that you do not fly online in open public servers that are very busy, so please trust me when I tell you that it is not practical for our server and everyone would just end up on the Blue Side.

 

We have been hosting this server now for many years, as a Squadron we have a lot of experience in MP Air to Air combat, ultimately this is why we have the sides set up with the aircraft that they do.... Because experience has told us many times that this is the best set up regardless of the wishes of the hardcore realism crowd.

 

The harsh reality is the same people that are asking for us to have only Russia on Reds etc... are the same people that do not fly FC3 aircraft! I have never seen the most avid supports of this idea (Speed and others) actually fly online in FC3 aircraft in Public Servers for any kind of duration. So again I am a little confused as too why you guys think you know what's best for Air to Air, the truth is you don't, because you don't fly Air to Air online.

 

I really appreciate your feedback Speed and I hope we can factor in some of your suggestions in the future, but please appreciate that we know what is best for our server because we play in it everyday.

[Grimes]

Step 1: Create thread announcing something for 104th Server

Step 2: Discussion quickly becomes about gameplay

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Profit

[Speed]

Who did you talk to Speed? Numbers?

 

The significant portion of the community speak as individuals or small monothematic groups.

 

Let me put this to you .... The F-15C guys would rather this simply because they can categorize things on their TEWS display unit according to 29 and 15 nails. In fact speed if I was a betting man, that is the prime motivation of those you spoke to. Though you can tell me I am wrong if you like. ;)

 

That may in fact be a lot of their motivation. But it goes beyond that too. I remember flying in the 104th as a Ka-50 pilot. Several times, I got buzzed by a "friendly" aircraft that was just trying to show off. I can clearly VID the aircraft as like a F-15. Because all aircraft are on all sides, and I am a Ka-50 pilot, I have no idea if this is some guy trying to show off, or some guy hunting Ka-50s at low altitude. So I go into panic mode and try to hide...

 

The fact is, besides the non-realistic nature of it, target identification both by TEWS AND by VID, which is the only method the air to ground strikers have, is completely broken when you have an aircraft type on both sides. If I am in an A-10, and I visually spot a MiG-29, I have NO IDEA (unless he gets close enough for me to see the actual markings) if I should shoot him down, or if I should ask him to form up with me. AWACS can give me an idea, but it is not 100% reliable.

 

Mission designers have to think beyond that sometimes. For things like balance. When it hits 6pm Eastern time and all the Yanks come on looking for F-15C we'd like some of them balanced out on each side. When the RedFor guys come on 12hours later, likewise.

 

Your ideas are great for closed sessions where everyone arrives on time into their assigned slots and war breaks out. It's not really practical when the eb and flow of the server dictates what airframes are mostly in use at a given time.

 

Also there are squad considerations. Some squads are multi platform squads with pilots who spend most of their time in certain airframes. Sometimes fanatically so. Personally I don't understand such mentality but it's there and has to be considered.

 

I know one of the <51> missions used to be like this that Case made. I know also that Tyger made a mission called Op. Rebellion for the 104th back in the day. While the latter was a fantastic mission from my point of view (my point of view meaning that I have no problem with airframes or useless ideas such as red or blue), much of the online community spent half the time trying to Rotate Vote it. That tells you something. Nothwistanding my previous assertions about trying to forge expectations of our online customers to a more professional level, still we can't move so fast on this.

 

That is a valid point. Maybe the asymmetrical mission would not work so well during times when you have a lot of eastern pilots. It might be a good idea to have two of them- one for eastern times, and one for western times.

 

And again, let me stress, as I said earlier, I do not favor the entire elimination of symmetrical air-to-air missions. I see the merit in them. I just favor the addition of the asymmetrical mission into the fold.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Speed

[Speed]

;1702809']Speed,

 

As Riptide says, your idea's are great but they are great for a closed server not a public one.

 

There is a long way between building the kind of missions your talking about and building something that can be enjoyed by a large number of people with different skill levels.

 

And who are all these 'people' you talk too?

Everyone I've talk to in my squad, the VTAG, a lot of whom spend a lot of time on your server. Everyone not affliated with the 104th who I saw posting in this thread. Several other community members I have talked to. It is probably at least a dozen people. To be honest, I still haven't talked to anyone who prefers the traditional 104th mission model who is not in the 104th or 51st, but that could be because I usually fly with DCS pilots, not FC pilots. I could also be getting a biased sample due to the effect that people who are happy rarely say so, it is only those that are dissatisfied that speak up.

 

You mentioned most of the people you fly / talk with are DCS pilots, most of whom do not fly FC3 aircraft very much online, in fact I don't even think I have ever seen you flying in our server, so I'm a little bewildered about how you get all this feedback etc.

Of my DCS time, 3/4 of it is spent modding/testing. Of my remaining 1/4 time, I would rather not fly on a mission I do not enjoy, so why should you expect me to play on a server that only hosts missions I do not like? When I go online, and the VTAG is flying on the 104th, I just go back to modding/testing, or I hop onto another server and see what is going on. I didn't want to just openly say I do not like the missions that the 104th traditionally hosts, but I can see no way around saying it, because you asked why I never fly on the 104th.

 

I'm sorry if that upsets you- that I don't like the missions the 104th traditionally hosts- but let me ask you- when has anyone ever created anything that EVERYONE likes? It has not happened in the history of the human race. The best movies in the world still get negative reviews. All the missions I've made- I get a significant fraction of players who do not like them at all. I try not to take their criticism as a personal slight unless it's clearly in a disrespectful manner.

 

I have also tasted dozens of beers over the years, light, dark, cheap, expensive, etc, and I find the taste of every single one of them terrible. That does not mean beer is bad, that just means that I do not like it. So if you feel affronted that I don't like the missions the 104th hosts, and that others might like the missions you host but wish for something to be improved... then maybe just think of the 104th missions as something like beer :D

No-one I talk to has a problem with the F-15s being on both sides, only hardcore realism nuts who want everything to be as real as possible. The only time I see any issues with this is on this forum from a select few individuals, again most of whom seem to be DCS pilots that don't appreciate what's involved in an online air to air campaign.

So having western aircraft only on one side, and eastern aircraft only on the other side is "hardcore" realism? Even HAWX probably had aircraft types segregated according to national origin. I am not an advocate for hardcore realism, at least for a public server mission, because hardcore realism is probably incompatible with a public server mission.

 

I have said many times before that we have this set to encourage gameplay and to keep the teams even. Again I want to point out Speed that you do not fly online in open public servers that are very busy, so please trust me when I tell you that it is not practical for our server and everyone would just end up on the Blue Side.

 

We have been hosting this server now for many years, as a Squadron we have a lot of experience in MP Air to Air combat, ultimately this is why we have the sides set up with the aircraft that they do.... Because experience has told us many times that this is the best set up regardless of the wishes of the hardcore realism crowd.

 

The harsh reality is the same people that are asking for us to have only Russia on Reds etc... are the same people that do not fly FC3 aircraft! I have never seen the most avid supports of this idea (Speed and others) actually fly online in FC3 aircraft in Public Servers for any kind of duration. So again I am a little confused as too why you guys think you know what's best for Air to Air, the truth is you don't, because you don't fly Air to Air online.

 

I really appreciate your feedback Speed and I hope we can factor in some of your suggestions in the future, but please appreciate that we know what is best for our server because we play in it everyday.

 

Actually, from the way you are reacting, challenging my experience and implying I am being less than honest about the other people I have talked to about the 104th air-to-air mission style, it seems apparent that you don't appreciate my feedback. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but that's the way it seems to me.

 

I do appreciate what you and the 104th provides for the community. If at any point I let my frustration through that I do not enjoy the 104th missions that a lot of other people do, I apologize. As I have said repeatedlyin this thread, I think that the 104th's symmetrical mission formula is a good one and it should not go away. It is clear from the number of players that participate, from common-sense arguments I agree with, and from valid points raised by Frostie and Riptide, that the traditional, symmetrical 104th/(51st?) style mission has a place and shouldn't go away, at least not anytime soon. But it is not for me, and that is why you never see me on the 104th server, and lots of other people, many of which are in fact regular 104th flyers, would prefer an alternative as well. If the 104th only had one server available, then I could understand the reason to stick to the old tried-and-true formula, but since there are TWO servers, then why not try something new? Maybe, on one of your air to ground server missions, just add some red slots, maybe add a bit of blue AI fighters that only spawn if no blue human fighters exist, and see what, if anything, happens.

 

I guess my point/ideas could also be summarized as this- for some reason, when it comes to incorporating PvP into missions, we ONLY ever see people creating missions that are either "all in" or "all out". The mission editor is fully capable of creating "halfway" missions- and the asymmetrical mission model I propose is one such "haflway" mission.

 

Anyway, whenever I get time, I will probably eventually try creating this asymmetrical mission... I have two servers with fairly high bandwidth that I could try hosting it on. Maybe we can find out if it works.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Speed

[RIPTIDE]

That may in fact be a lot of their motivation. But it goes beyond that too. I remember flying in the 104th as a Ka-50 pilot. Several times, I got buzzed by a "friendly" aircraft that was just trying to show off. I can clearly VID the aircraft as like a F-15. Because all aircraft are on all sides, and I am a Ka-50 pilot, I have no idea if this is some guy trying to show off, or some guy hunting Ka-50s at low altitude. So I go into panic mode and try to hide...

 

This is no reason to remove the aforementioned self balancing nature of all airframes on each side. Not good enough, Speed. You should read it back. Because what you're basically saying, from a Striker point of view, that a server should have seperate airframes (counter to ED's provisions of different Country Coalitions) batched off on each side, because some ground pounders get panicked a bit because of poor communication? No, that won't do.

 

 

The fact is, besides the non-realistic nature of it, target identification both by TEWS AND by VID, which is the only method the air to ground strikers have, is completely broken when you have an aircraft type on both sides. If I am in an A-10, and I visually spot a MiG-29, I have NO IDEA (unless he gets close enough for me to see the actual markings) if I should shoot him down, or if I should ask him to form up with me. AWACS can give me an idea, but it is not 100% reliable.

The fact is it isn't the A-10's job to be flying around trying to ID aerial targets. If you see a MiG-29, why don't you know what coalition he's with? Has he just took off? Is he on Comms? Can you chat on MP chat? Have you checked the pool? Has other A-10's on your wing reported losses or harassment?

 

Or maybe, it IS a friendly MiG-29, which BTW is Realistic. More realistic than A-10Cs with the Red Star of the Motherland on it. :music_whistling: But, there's realism and then there's realism. Creating danger zones above otherwise unimportant Urban areas in a mission is realism that I'm interested in. Creating an accurate level of difficulty inside a cockpit is the realism I'm interested in. Forcing Strikers to adhere to hard decks is realism. Not really too bothered about US Army markings on Ka-50s though. ;) That's gameplay.

 

 

 

That is a valid point. Maybe the asymmetrical mission would not work so well during times when you have a lot of eastern pilots. It might be a good idea to have two of them- one for eastern times, and one for western times.

 

And again, let me stress, as I said earlier, I do not favor the entire elimination of symmetrical air-to-air missions. I see the merit in them. I just favor the addition of the asymmetrical mission into the fold.

Point taken.

[monotwix]

The fact is it isn't the A-10's job to be flying around trying to ID aerial targets. If you see a MiG-29, why don't you know what coalition he's with? Has he just took off? Is he on Comms? Can you chat on MP chat? Have you checked the pool? Has other A-10's on your wing reported losses or harassment? Have you checked if he’s still there after making a beverage?

 

 

With the slight modification this VID checklist could be fit for a manual.

[Exorcet]

;1702809']The harsh reality is the same people that are asking for us to have only Russia on Reds etc... are the same people that do not fly FC3 aircraft! I have never seen the most avid supports of this idea (Speed and others) actually fly online in FC3 aircraft in Public Servers for any kind of duration. So again I am a little confused as too why you guys think you know what's best for Air to Air' date=' the truth is you don't, because you don't fly Air to Air online.[/quote']

Well for the record I FC3 quite a bit when I fly MP, though I spend more time on the 51 since their missions are less symmetric, and also because in FC2 they disabled kill messages.

 

I agree that it's not as easy trying to implement asymmetric missions, but I also can't really recall any serious attempt by a server to really make use of them - correct me if I'm wrong.

[104th_Maverick]

Anyway, whenever I get time, I will probably eventually try creating this asymmetrical mission... I have two servers with fairly high bandwidth that I could try hosting it on. Maybe we can find out if it works.

 

 

Good luck!

Edited March 22, 2013 by [Maverick]

[SmokeyTheLung]

Very happy to see the "mixed" server available to us. Thanks 104th admins, I missed flying in a full server!

[Cali]

Mav and Rip, I think he was just trying to help out and you guys just raped him. Hope the problem with having a good amount of people in servers get fixed.

[104th_Maverick]

He didn't get raped.... we just don't agree with him.

 

I don't think it too unreasonable for us to not agree with him considering we fly on the server pretty much everyday and have been involved in its running for a few years now. I've have tried my best to avoid saying 'we know what's best for our server' but there you have it...... believe it or not, we know what is best for our own server. We only know what is best for our server by flying on it all the time, it not as if we are never there or have no presence and just build missions and make rules from the sidelines.... the way the 104th server is setup is due to an evolution of MP hosting and experience of trying different set ups.

We watch tracks of how missions play, get feedback from people in game and on teamspeak, fly on both sides air to air and air to ground so we feel we have a very good grasp on what works in our server and what doesn't. If we are being flat out objectionable it's because we know Speed doesn't fly in our server and therefore cannot possibly know what is and what isn't going to work for us.

 

After years of providing a hosted platform to the community we believe our current set up is best for an open public server. We are not trying to deliver a platform with ultra realistic or intense immersive missions, no one from the 104th has ever said that. We are trying to provide a server where anyone can join in and get some action regardless of their skill level. I totally believe 100% that complicated immersive missions should be left to people like Speed and Grimes to produce who have the talent to do so. By not taking his ideas on board doesnt mean we dont think they are good idea's, we just dont think they would work out with the number of players coming and going in our server and the varying skill levels they display.

 

We are willing to try new ideas out in the future, we're not locked into any particular set up, the simple truth is we like the way its set up just now and WE find it is the best formula. If speed's alleged raping comes down to us not wanting to implement his ideas, its because we don't think they would work in our server, no other reason. I think Speed has lots of great ideas, I just don't think they are that practical for application in our server.

 

I have no doubt he can make this work on his own server we just don't think it would work on ours.... I dont think any of us are saying his idea's wouldn't work, we're just saying we don't think they would work on our server at delivering the type of MP experience we want from the server.

Edited March 22, 2013 by [Maverick]

[badger66]

Very happy to see the "mixed" server available to us. Thanks 104th admins, I missed flying in a full server!

 

+1 ..... great to see this server up again .

[Case]

Though I haven't flown since the release of FC3 I'd like to share some observations from the FC1.12 and FC2/BS eras.

 

The majority of players is looking for some quick action and easy kills. They'll pick their favourate aircraft regardless of how lopsided this makes the coalitions at that time. Players will leave a server if they can't fly their aircraft. Hence, to make a popular server where the sides have balanced numbers of players the best way is to place the same aircraft on both coalitions.

 

During FC1.12 and FC2/BS we had to work really hard to make the 51st server popular with assymetric missions. By integrating the stats page with the missions (I think) we were able to get players to accept some of these assymetric missions, and some of them, like Exorcet, seemed to like them.

[RIPTIDE]

Very happy to see the "mixed" server available to us. Thanks 104th admins, I missed flying in a full server!

Yeah. We realised that the Ground Strikers were populating the servers initially, and that then snowballed into other airframes. The A2A ONLY server wasn't getting the strikers obviously so the A2A guys were buggering off somewhere else.

 

Damn strikers. Always complicating things. ;):D

[RIPTIDE]

Mav and Rip, I think he was just trying to help out and you guys just raped him. Hope the problem with having a good amount of people in servers get fixed.

Raped? lol I want him to thrash out all these ideas so we can have them answered. If there is anyone wondering why things are the way they are or have any ideas and are wondering why they don't see X, Y or even Z, then we can talk about them.

 

I simply answered the question about why it's best to have most airframes on both sides. And I countered his reasons as being not sufficient enough. The pro's outweighed the cons from our point of view.

[HiJack]

But in this process the 104th lost a lot of players now playing elsewhere, was that the goal?

[RIPTIDE]

But in this process the 104th lost a lot of players now playing elsewhere, was that the goal?

:huh::doh::helpsmilie:

[Cali]

Though I haven't flown since the release of FC3 I'd like to share some observations from the FC1.12 and FC2/BS eras.

 

The majority of players is looking for some quick action and easy kills. They'll pick their favourate aircraft regardless of how lopsided this makes the coalitions at that time. Players will leave a server if they can't fly their aircraft. Hence, to make a popular server where the sides have balanced numbers of players the best way is to place the same aircraft on both coalitions.

 

During FC1.12 and FC2/BS we had to work really hard to make the 51st server popular with assymetric missions. By integrating the stats page with the missions (I think) we were able to get players to accept some of these assymetric missions, and some of them, like Exorcet, seemed to like them.

 

Very good post and this is how a lot of people fly and want "quick action and easy kills". Some people don't have the time, patience or just don't care to learn tactics on how to kill another player and stay alive at the same time.

 

Raped? lol I want him to thrash out all these ideas so we can have them answered. If there is anyone wondering why things are the way they are or have any ideas and are wondering why they don't see X, Y or even Z, then we can talk about them.

 

I simply answered the question about why it's best to have most airframes on both sides. And I countered his reasons as being not sufficient enough. The pro's outweighed the cons from our point of view.

 

Maybe it was the way I read the post from you and Mav. I know he said he doesn't fly in your server because of certain reasons, so he doesn't have a full knowledge that you guys have cause you fly in it everyday.

[monotwix]

Oh Mr Cali I believe Speed does have the knowledge.

Let’s make an average assessment from LOMAC to FC, CF2, FC3: hooray for all the skills,.. And years of experience.