ATAG Dedicated Server is up!

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Actually, you're not disagreeing with me at all...just talking about something different in half of your post. I agree with what you're saying completely here. Reds love throwing their aircraft into the meat grinder for some reason despite constant efforts to rally or strategize the mindless uncollectiveness. I am not one of those, mind you...10k ft is my MINIMUM engagement/first contact altitude in any sortie.

The battle of Hawkinge...I'm not saying this is bad mission design by common definition, but it's a condition that hasn't been addressed effectively, so affords some sort of fault to the mission design simply because it's a misallocation of resources and motivation to get those "meat-grinder" pilots away from the deathmatch areas and start engaging in a proper flight SIMULATOR fashion. I understand what the mission designer was trying to accomplish, but that's not what is happening. It's like trying to make a irrigation ditch with the intentions of routing water around the Eastern side of your house, implementing your planned dig route, then when the water escapes and flows on the Western side of your house you just stare at it and say, "Well, this isn't what's SUPPOSED to happen."...that isn't going to fix the issue. We all know the problem, now the next step is to find the solution. The players are "gaming the game", so now the mission builders need to "game the game" right back to balance it out.

Example, there's not a lot, well...enough motivation and emphasis right now on objectives for the common non-regular player, whether that be to go bomb something (which is not on the common Red pilot's mind/agenda...we only have one buggy bomber), escort AI bombers (no real reason to other than hopes to find other enemy fighters, possibly exacerbating the air-quake mentality issue) defend a grid/building from bombers, etc. If there was a constant stream of AI bombers attacking each Army's *vital, round winning objectives* and actually had purpose there would be constant pressure to take out bomber formations and get pilots off the airfields and onto escorting/intercept missions. As I see it right now, AI bombers are fairly immaterial and just serve as target practice and/or a stage for a high altitude contact scenario with their escorts, if applicable, and go to the wayside never to be seen again after the engagement.

This is a matter of a mission designer providing motivation to do the fun, interactive and balanced activities this simulator has to offer (bombing runs, escorts, interception, recon), meanwhile discouraging the less desirable, unfair, unbalanced activities (vulching, base raping, unrealistic altitude engagements, lone wolfing, "gaming the game"). Stuff like Wolf's Channel Command seems promising with missions on demand, limited aircraft supply (this will be a big one, as it will discourage unrealistic/unsportmanlike bailing out/crashing to skip the flight home), random AI fighter engagements, etc.

Bliss you seem to turn a blind eye to the current mission's faults and have repeatedly cited the pilots as the issue (did you make it yourself or something?), while I don't disagree with you, the pilot's actions are not something that is going to change because of forum posts. Said pilot's actions are a constant. We cannot force or change them, but the mission parameters in-game can. It can be something complicated like an aircraft supply system, or a simple on-screen notification of a formation of bomber's location heading toward a critical mission objective...Or ailerons falling off of an aircraft upon spawn because you don't want to deal with that aircraft in the sky, you big blue babies .

See, you're saying that people spawning at Hawkinge is still a problem, that low flying combat is a problem. Basically what you are saying is the mission should tell people how they should fly. Again, I completely disagree. If we were running some sort of hosted event with signups and everyone knew the exact objectives with the intent of the whole event completing them, had a tactical plan, etc., then I would expect people that signed up to fly a particular way that was intended.

But we are not running an event. We are a public server. The last thing I will ever do is force someone to fly a certain way. One of the main reasons we started the server is because we were sick and tired of playing on servers that had ridiculous rules. If someone wants to spawn at hawkinge and die repeatedly, so be it. If someone on blue wants to dive their Ju88 right into a red airfield, have fun. I'm never going to tell other people how to fly and I'm sure as hell never gonna penalize someone for how they want to fly. Team killing is a different story obviously, but this isn't about that.

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Also, the "easy pickings" attraction of the front lines base would be nullified if there were more severe consequences for entering that airspace, like a guaranteed 15 sec max survivability chance due to AA damage, no fly zone. This would force the fight at least off shore a bit, which in turn would open up the possibility for the fight to move farther out and into the rest of the map. If Red or Blue still used AA as a safe zone to hide in, that would leave the rest of the objectives completely unguarded to bomb/capture/whatever for the opposing team, so the overall mission feel would inherit a "if you hide you lose, be pro-active you win" sense which we need, imo.

As I stated above, I will never penalize someone for how they want to fly. When I'm on red, I enjoy spawning at hawkinge and getting a quick fix. I also enjoy spawning further inland and doing a proper high altitude flight.
But the last thing I'm going to do is penalize people for not flying a certain way. Every single person that joins the server should have every right to do w/e they want (sight seeing in a Tiger Moth, landing a JU88 at london, or w/e minus team killing) without having to hear a rash of crap about it. They paid for the game just like I did and I'm not about to tell them how they should play it.

I'm sorry you seem to think all your desires should be implemented, but when it comes to forcing or penalizing players for their styles of playing the game, I will never agree with you. The missions we run are designed that way. So again, there's no fault in the mission at all. That's how our server is run and will always be run, albeit some special event. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's who we are.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

See, you're saying that people spawning at Hawkinge is still a problem, that low flying combat is a problem. Basically what you are saying is the mission should tell people how they should fly. Again, I completely disagree. If we were running some sort of hosted event with signups and everyone knew the exact objectives with the intent of the whole event completing them, had a tactical plan, etc., then I would expect people that signed up to fly a particular way that was intended.

But we are not running an event. We are a public server. The last thing I will ever do is force someone to fly a certain way. One of the main reasons we started the server is because we were sick and tired of playing on servers that had ridiculous rules. If someone wants to spawn at hawkinge and die repeatedly, so be it. If someone on blue wants to dive their Ju88 right into a red airfield, have fun. I'm never going to tell other people how to fly and I'm sure as hell never gonna penalize someone for how they want to fly. Team killing is a different story obviously, but this isn't about that.





As I stated above, I will never penalize someone for how they want to fly. When I'm on red, I enjoy spawning at hawkinge and getting a quick fix. I also enjoy spawning further inland and doing a proper high altitude flight.
But the last thing I'm going to do is penalize people for not flying a certain way. Every single person that joins the server should have every right to do w/e they want (sight seeing in a Tiger Moth, landing a JU88 at london, or w/e minus team killing) without having to hear a rash of crap about it. They paid for the game just like I did and I'm not about to tell them how they should play it.

I'm sorry you seem to think all your desires should be implemented, but when it comes to forcing or penalizing players for their styles of playing the game, I will never agree with you. The missions we run are designed that way. So again, there's no fault in the mission at all. That's how our server is run and will always be run, albeit some special event. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's who we are.

Haha, no one is talking about penalizing...unless you mean losing a round counts as penalizing because you didn't play the mission to its objectives, which makes very little sense. This is a multiplayer game, with set parameters (rules, if you will) for winning as per the objectives/rounds/team-based structure. By your logic, the server should be on free flight with no mission loaded at all...and that's not speaking in hyperbole, I'm being literal.

I'm not the only one frustrated about the issue. A few pages back there's a couple other people citing gameplay changes. So what's ATAG's goal with this server? Free flight do-what-you-want or realistic BoB mission style sorties? Declare it now so I can stop rambling about mission suggestions.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Haha, no one is talking about penalizing...unless you mean losing a round counts as penalizing because you didn't play the mission to its objectives, which makes very little sense. This is a multiplayer game, with set parameters (rules, if you will) for winning as per the objectives/rounds/team-based structure. By your logic, the server should be on free flight with no mission loaded at all...and that's not speaking in hyperbole, I'm being literal.

I'm not the only one frustrated about the issue. A few pages back there's a couple other people citing gameplay changes. So what's ATAG's goal with this server? Free flight do-what-you-want or realistic BoB mission style sorties? Declare it now so I can stop rambling about mission suggestions.

The issues discussed have been long discussed since the inception of this sim. Just like your other misunderstanding about the hard drive issue, this has been discussed in our forums for quite a while now and if you would take the time to do a little reasearch you wouldn't come in here assuming a whole bunch of stuff that I don't need to explain for the 100th time, along with the various reasons why you can't do this, that or any of the other things that the people that don't build missions don't understand why.

That is the exact reason why I stated for you to build a mission, maybe that will be the only way you'll understand why certain things are done certain ways. Then and only then maybe you'll start to get an appreciation for the sheer amount of time and creativity it takes to work around the problems to get mission playability seem somewhat on the norm.

If you're going to be a condesending jack ass, by all means please stay out of this thread.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

The issues discussed have been long discussed since the inception of this sim. Just like your other misunderstanding about the hard drive issue, this has been discussed in our forums for quite a while now and if you would take the time to do a little reasearch you wouldn't come in here assuming a whole bunch of stuff that I don't need to explain for the 100th time, along with the various reasons why you can't do this, that or any of the other things that the people that don't build missions don't understand why.

That is the exact reason why I stated for you to build a mission, maybe that will be the only way you'll understand why certain things are done certain ways. Then and only then maybe you'll start to get an appreciation for the sheer amount of time and creativity it takes to work around the problems to get mission playability seem somewhat on the norm.

If you're going to be a condesending jack ass, by all means please stay out of this thread.

My "misunderstanding" was a simple question about whether the server was in-house or company owned and whom was responsible for repairs, I believe it was you and 4-5 others that misunderstood.

I'm flabbergasted by your dickheaded attitude. I take pity on the next person that shows genuine interest in a community that you, Bliss, are involved in and tries to spark up discussion about improving online gameplay in a seemingly dying environment they wish to preserve. You convey a message of elitism from an outside-of-ATAG and non-mission perfection-making god's perspective with your recent posts and it's gross.

EDIT: I've mentioned countless times on forums and in-game how I'm grateful for ATAG's efforts, by the way. And I truly am. If this is the way a civil and intentionally constructive vocal interaction from the community that you host is going to be handled then this game truly is doomed.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Woah!

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

Example, there's not a lot, well...enough motivation and emphasis right now on objectives for the common non-regular player, whether that be to go bomb something (which is not on the common Red pilot's mind/agenda...we only have one buggy bomber),

Well, actually the Blenheim is much less buggy than the 111 currently. The 88s has the same issues as the 111 but it is usable because it can at least dive bomb. I fly all bombers except the Br.20 and have done extensive testing in them, spent entire nights reading up whatever technical resources i could find online about bombsights and their operation, etc.

The Blenheim is probably the most accurate one right now and especially the bombsight is a good mix of realism and functionality. There are a couple of operations that are simplified or handled automatically by the simulator, but other than that it's pretty close to the real course setting bomb sight.

The problem is that it's impractical because it lacks an autopilot and a way to adjust the view to look under the canopy framing in the nose. This means people have to bomb from no more than 4000ft, so that they can see the target early enough to make course adjustments.

I have proposed binding the level stab command that currently does nothing to a new AI control mode that would function somewhat similar to the German autopilots (so that code can be reused) and made available to all bombers. This mode would give control of flying the plane to the AI once engaged, but only the control surfaces. The player would still be able to adjust his engines, but the aircraft would fly straight and level. Then, using the "course autopilot left/right" commands, the player would command the AI to turn. One to three keypresses would result in level, rudder-only turns. Four or more keypresses would result in banking turns, with bank increasing as more keypresses as dialed in. Finally, pressing a key to turn the opposite way would cancel all turns and have the AI return to level flight.

This would simulate the way many bomber crews did it, where the bombardier was guiding the pilot to the target over the intercom: "left, left, steady" etc...

As for the forward visibility issue, the Blenheim sight doesn't have an up/down adjustment neither an automation toggle. Maybe it would be possible to use those keybindings to adjust the view, with the camera rotating up/down in a way that makes it possible to look ahead and under the canopy framing while in bombsight view. Then pressing the automation toggle would return to the proper view angle that aligns the forward and backward sighting rings so that bombs could be dropped.

I think this would be relatively easy to code because it would use existing resources copy/pasted and edited a bit from other bombers, without introducing new keybindings for us.

However, the thread i had opened with bug reports and suggestions didn't gather too much interest apart from the people who fly bombers regularly. So, give me some help you fighter boys and 1C will probably take notice and fix these issues, which will in turn result in more people flying bombers and more targets for you


As for mission design, i agree more or less with what you say, but i don't think it's the responsibility of people like Bliss because they don't have the tools to be effective. There are scripting commands that don't work correctly yet and some netcode issues that prevent the kind of mission environment we would all like to see. Mission designers often have to cut down on features because of this, since there is no known work around for some of the issues.

For example, i was browsing Wolf's thread on the ATAG forums about his new channel command mission and he has had to cut down on static objects quite a lot in order for the mission to run acceptably.

The good thing in all of this however is that focus is gradually moving to the type of missions you describe and a lot of people in the community are engaged in the effort. I think that even with the current problems we can still get a workable mission environment: maybe the scripts will be tweaked a bit to force a work around, which in turn will necessitate smaller amounts of objects on the map to run well, but we can still have maps with interesting objectives that will get people to fly in a certain manner while also enjoying it.

However, this hinges on there being a reason for players to fly bombers. I have been trying to "advertise" this viewpoint for a while because in a sense, fixing the bombers will also give the fighters the kind of engagements they would like to see. However, my success has been limited because everyone was and still is up in arms over getting exact accuracy for fighter FMs, 100 octane and so on.

I'm not insinuating these are not important issues.
All i'm saying is that when the fighters are finally fixed to an acceptable level, there still will be no other use to them apart from your aptly named "battle of Hawkinge" furballs, unless there are bombers around that:

a) are usable and can bomb accurately (fixing the bomber bugs) and
b) the results of that bombing can affect availability/serviceability of fighters (scripting/FMB bug fixes)

So come on fighter boys, rally with us and drum up some support for showing the bombers some love, you'll get free targets out of it

On another note, let me just say that you guys have always seemed to me like level headed people. I think you are getting in a cycle of misunderstanding because written text on the internet can't convey facial expressions and voice tones, so we all tend to often misunderstand eachother's intent.

In short, i don't have you guys cut out for trolls who stir up trouble on purpose, i've flown with a lot of you on ATAG and while i often don't use a mic because i fly late at night, i've been on voice comms and listening to the lively banter and i didn't get a bad impression about anyone. I think you are genuinely misunderstanding each other. So please be nice and don't go insulting each other over this

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

My "misunderstanding" was a simple question about whether the server was in-house or company owned and whom was responsible for repairs, I believe it was you and 4-5 others that misunderstood.

I'm flabbergasted by your dickheaded attitude. I take pity on the next person that shows genuine interest in a community that you, Bliss, are involved in and tries to spark up discussion about improving online gameplay in a seemingly dying environment they wish to preserve. You convey a message of elitism from an outside-of-ATAG and non-mission perfection-making god's perspective with your recent posts and it's gross.

EDIT: I've mentioned countless times on forums and in-game how I'm grateful for ATAG's efforts, by the way. And I truly am. If this is the way a civil and intentionally constructive vocal interaction from the community that you host is going to be handled then this game truly is doomed.

No this was your question:

Is this one of the reasons why people give ATAG money every month? Easy, quick replacement of new hard drives, or is this a different sort of issue?

Perhaps your problem is you're unable to type what you actually mean? As I've already stated, all the info is available in the forums on just about anything server-side including answers to your problems.

And I have no "dick head" attitude. You came in here suggesting, even saying "bad mission design". Currently mission design is based upon soo many factors of which you can't even begin to understand until you've actually built a mission. Again, that's why when many of these same questions have been brought up, they've already been answered 100 times.

And perhaps you should look at your own attitude. I wasn't the only one that saw your insults. That's why the others that saw exactly what you did called you out on it. I think you should read what you write before you hit submit. The only person coming on here with an attitude is you.

And there's no elitism in saying that I know what works and what doesn't work in current IL2COD. I've spent literally 1000's of hours testing and building missions. You can have an assumption about something all you want, but until you have any sort of experience with it you really don't know what you are talking about. That's why, yet again, the only way you'll probably figure this out is trying to learn it on your own. It seems you are incapable of believing the person that actually builds missions own words.

Be flabbergasted all you want, but if you honestly think you are trying to have some sort of civil discussion here you truly are lost.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

No this was your question:



Perhaps your problem is you're unable to type what you actually mean? As I've already stated, all the info is available in the forums on just about anything server-side including answers to your problems.

And I have no "dick head" attitude. You came in here suggesting, even saying "bad mission design". Currently mission design is based upon soo many factors of which you can't even begin to understand until you've actually built a mission. Again, that's why when many of these same questions have been brought up, they've already been answered 100 times.

And perhaps you should look at your own attitude. I wasn't the only one that saw your insults. That's why the others that saw exactly what you did called you out on it. I think you should read what you write before you hit submit. The only person coming on here with an attitude is you.

And there's no elitism in saying that I know what works and what doesn't work in current IL2COD. I've spent literally 1000's of hours testing and building missions. You can have an assumption about something all you want, but until you have any sort of experience with it you really don't know what you are talking about. That's why, yet again, the only way you'll probably figure this out is trying to learn it on your own. It seems you are incapable of believing the person that actually builds missions own words.

Be flabbergasted all you want, but if you honestly think you are trying to have some sort of civil discussion here you truly are lost.

I had no attitude or sarcastic tone from the get-go. You chimed in with essentially a "you don't know what you're talking about or know what works" message when that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I wasn't even demanding anything along the lines of "Why isn't this-or-that in the mission? Make it so!" if you recall my previous posts, I was discussing the logistics and economics of player's actions and reactions given a circumstance in a mission.

Just to touch on what I was talking about and what you're talking about...adding more anti-aircraft to the Hawkinge area as a *possible* way to counter a "Hawkinge furball" and to motivate,not penalize, players *possibly* going out and escorting/intercepting, is **so complex that I cannot even begin to understand until I've built a mission.**

Even though I've never cracked open the mission editor for more than 15 minutes I find that extremely hard to believe.

Just know that I was truly engaging in a civil-mannered discussion and had no ill intentions in my posts. It was an open forum for my ideas to be heard, debated and processed. I had no grandiose visions of superiority in mission structure...just simply wanted some feedback, input/output with no lip, sass, sarcasm, trolling, hatred, or belittling involved.

If my discussion is a demonstration in "condesending" (spelled "condescending", btw) jack-assery then damn, you are some sensitive folk and I need to brush up on my definition of "condesending."

...how was that? Pretty accurate?

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

I had no attitude or sarcastic tone from the get-go.....

I have to stop you there Aborted, from reading this thread I would say that you were the one that started the "mud slinging" whether intentional or otherwise I don't care cut it out!

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by AbortedMan

I had no attitude or sarcastic tone from the get-go. You chimed in with essentially a "you don't know what you're talking about or know what works" message when that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I wasn't even demanding anything along the lines of "Why isn't this-or-that in the mission? Make it so!" if you recall my previous posts, I was discussing the logistics and economics of player's actions and reactions given a circumstance in a mission.

Just to touch on what I was talking about and what you're talking about...adding more anti-aircraft to the Hawkinge area as a *possible* way to counter a "Hawkinge furball" and to motivate,not penalize, players *possibly* going out and escorting/intercepting, is **so complex that I cannot even begin to understand until I've built a mission.**

Even though I've never cracked open the mission editor for more than 15 minutes I find that extremely hard to believe.

Just know that I was truly engaging in a civil-mannered discussion and had no ill intentions in my posts. It was an open forum for my ideas to be heard, debated and processed. I had no grandiose visions of superiority in mission structure...just simply wanted some feedback, input/output with no lip, sass, sarcasm, trolling, hatred, or belittling involved.

If my discussion is a demonstration in "condesending" (spelled "condescending", btw) jack-assery then damn, you are some sensitive folk and I need to brush up on my definition of "condesending."

...how was that? Pretty accurate?

And yet again, you don't understand. We've already gone to great lengths with the AAA (why in the hell am I typing this for the 1000th time I don't know) but anyhow, not only have we found out what AAA/flak is the most accurate and damaging out of all the types, we've found a grouping that works about as good as it's gonna get in the current way of the non-adjustable AAA/flak. This grouping has the exact same elements for both sides. IE - red and blue pieces acting together. Not only did we spend many many hours testing this to come up with effective AAA/Flak (as with what works in game) we also spent time trying to construct many other ways of Airfield defense. These include hiding tanks, even naval ships, all in the ground along with the AAA. The reason, yet again, that we don't have any more AAA/flak on top of all the work we've done actually making them do something is because, as previously posted many times before, these additional objects/groupings are at the limit of pushing people's FPS. What we have right now is on the edge of hurting people's performance. What you also fail to realize is there has been close to 3000 different versions of some of the same missions. All of these changes constantly being made to work around issues within the game and issues brought up by different patches. I love the comments by people stating we've been playing the same mission for over a year. It just goes to show exactly how much of our work, people take for granted.

Again, it's people like you that think you can simply "place more" and that will cure the problem. That's why every single assumption you have about anything in this game will more than likely be wrong. That's why, yet again, it is very complex in the 1st place to get AAA to do something/be effective. Something you just tried to have an insult at. When I say you don't have the 1st clue of what you are talking about with regarding the elements of online mission building, I mean it. That's why your mock is laughable. That's why you would never be able to build an online mission. Because it literally took a few 1000 hours to work around every single issue to make the appearance of an objective based mission. This includes something what most people think is simple, spawning, AAA, triggers, AI timings etc.

I'm sure those that actually started playing the sim when it 1st came out can remember airfields that used to be littered with wreckage, 50% of the spawn points causing planes to blow up, etc. All this stuff has been a constant work in progress. With comments like yours I honestly don't know why we try to do anything.