So true! In the begining, you will learn just by checking the mission cache, how other people solved common problems. That was only needed on online wars, not on coops.

Also the number of missions available to fly with was incredible.

It was 10 years ago, perhaps we can have the option to encrypt the mission transfer in the GUI to protect online war campaigns but open it for general CooP missions and Public pilots.

:)

Fresh air? Did I feel it? ;)

True. Geographically I am at the epicenter of ignorance. But on days when there are no work hours I can visit servers with harder settings based in continental Europe and further East during their prime-time. And when it is convenient for us, a small circle I belong to hosts a server with hard settings except for limited friendly icons(not by my vote).

Any type of hard-settings server can have merit if it is done well. I like it when there are map objectives, when your flying makes a difference in the ground war and front line movement on the next map. Pure dogfight or duel servers do provide a place to test aircraft and to practice various skills etc..


Another pet peeve:

Server Bias. When a server admin, or hosting squad cherry-picks the maps and plane sets to favor themselves.

I have been honored in the past more than once by server administrators and hosting squads that have changed plane sets and maps to try and stop me from shooting them down or maybe winning their maps.

*an unnamed server*, the champions of petty, ridiculous and biased servers, changed their plane sets, weapon loadouts and maps more than once because I was kicking their asses all over the place, and I was flying solo!
Imagine how poorly trained a hosting squad would have to be, and how poorly a map would have to be designed to let a solo pilot's actions dictate the administration and changes on their server.
Recently a server based in France eliminated my sides airbase nearest the front line, giving their side three bases to the two we had to fly from. My flying activities were too inconvenient for them.

Just as hilarious and ridiculous are the dogfight servers that actually dictate how you are supposed to fly, banning energy-fighting for instance. Make sure you don't get any more energy than your opponent or we will ban you! LOL.......

That does sound frustrating. I assume you and they always fly on the same sides with the same teams?

IMHO, the only way to design an objectives based dogfight scenario is to ensure that both teams have the opportunity and the tools to achieve the objective. Each side may have unique challenges but they should be equipped to deal with the variety of situations. Simultaneously the idea is to offer unique scenarios so that you get different aircraft and interesting matches.

Jumo, if they changed the map on you alone that would be quite frustrating. If they changed it because the lineup was fundamentally unbalanced (one side has all the fast planes and the other has nothing to compete) and you just exposed that weakness then that is another.

Sometimes it takes a knowledgable player to expose a fundamental design weakness.

Still.. I fall back on that equal opportunity in a dogfight objective scenario is required.

Bro, you done?
It's a game.

Pretty much this.

I used to care about topics like this, but not anymore.

Jumo will never be happy, and he pretty much never has been as far back as I can recall.

If there is a server with rules you don't like, just don't fly there. Simple.

For me coops died a long time ago, not because of changes that Oleg did, but because they by and large are done so that the coop builder wins. And once one has run online it's over, they have no repeatablilty as the objectives are known, and no one ever flys the waypoints anyway.

I never bitch about it, I just don't bother with them.

https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/...72870559_n.png

I see your point. But I do think that a map builder can be, if they so choose to be, impartial to a point. I can see the fault in thinking that I can be fully impartial to my design... the best I can do is guess at what a skilled veteran can do versus a relative newbie player and then keeping in mind the objectives and goals for each team design a scenario that does work for as many as possible.

Again, if you design a scenario with a specific set of targets (say tanks) then you should provide the aircraft and weapons that will eliminate them. With options for skilled veterans that may perhaps be more rewarding as well as options for less skilled players that still work fairly well. The difference say between using a Hs129B-3 (and that lovely 75mm gun) to crack open some T-34s or IS-2s versus a Ju88A-4 with a 2000KG bomb that a more newbie player may not necessarily land the marksman hit on the tank with the 75mm but he can still potentially take out the target with a little skill and luck.

Fighter versus fighter tends to be highly skill based with some degree of fighter performance on the table as well so the best I can do is provide a couple of options that should work well on both sides with a variety of pilot abilities and go from there. For example I find myself tending to put the A6M Zero on a lot of Japanese scenarios even when higher performing types are available. The N1K2J is essentially superior but its a little trickier to handle in places and so many newbie players do better with the Zero because its easier to handle... so I make sure that option is there. Slowly they graduate to the more complicated type. Depends on what they are up against too!

I may be flawed in my thinking here but I attempt at least a modicum of humility and attempt to be as unbiased as possible. Both teams should have the tools available to win. The rest is definitely up to the skill of the team. To be honest, I'd like to fly on either side and win or lose on my teams merits.

As for MODs...well that's a whole other discussion :cool:

You're right, he probably never will be satisfied with the outcomes here but I guess its worth discussing alternative viewpoints as an attempt. I've certainly said my piece by now and the rest is up to individual attitudes. Not everyone will be as biased as Jumo suggests. I don't think I am but I could be self deluded :)

I don't know if you remember this but I remember Friday night IL-2 coops that went on for quite a while. Those were fun and players were engaged and interested most of the time in flying the mission and having fun with it. There seemed to be an attempt by the guy building the missions to make sure that they worked on both sides... sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't but I think we had fun for the most part.

Later on when other players were around they became less fun. I think what you tend to see is when the community is small, everyone gets to know each other and people try to be fair. When the community got larger then there was more anonymity and some personalities tend to become very self centered from there. This is more of a hypothesis rather than real data but I would at least hazard a guess that this is kind of what happened.

IL-2 is still insanely fun when a bunch of people get together to collaborate on flying a dogfight or coop mission. I've had some great Stuka gaggles and bomber raids over the years. Even if we get massacred... its often hilarious to see what lengths people will go to to try and down a massed formation of TB-3 bombers for example :)

This happens to many group activities that suddenly become popular. It is to be expected. You surely are right on the spot.

Even so, balancing il2 scenarios is not an easy task. It is better to admit that one side have the advantage, and the other must show the guts to stop it whatever the odds. War is not fair.