ATAG Dedicated Server is up!

[David198502]

a few days ago, i think there was a new mission on atag...we spotted a big formation(bigger than normally seen on atag) of german bombers north of manston at +5000meters.i have not seen this before on atag.
we headed towards them and saw a group of spits, it was "our" guys from ACG who attacked the bombers.so we engaged and had a really good fight at 5000meters.
i really like those "high" altitude fights.there it seems to be way more even, and suddenly skill is demanded in a 109.

btw, has anybody now after one and a half years after the release, thought about a mission with bombers heading towards london???
i mean, i have a really weak machine, but have no problem whatsoever to fly on rooftop level above london.i would really like to escort bombers to different locations then the usual ones....the "atag zone" gets really boring now.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by David198502

a few days ago, i think there was a new mission on atag...we spotted a big formation(bigger than normally seen on atag) of german bombers north of manston at +5000meters.i have not seen this before on atag.
we headed towards them and saw a group of spits, it was "our" guys from ACG who attacked the bombers.so we engaged and had a really good fight at 5000meters.
i really like those "high" altitude fights.there it seems to be way more even, and suddenly skill is demanded in a 109.

btw, has anybody now after one and a half years after the release, thought about a mission with bombers heading towards london???
i mean, i have a really weak machine, but have no problem whatsoever to fly on rooftop level above london.i would really like to escort bombers to different locations then the usual ones....the "atag zone" gets really boring now.

German bombers running the gauntlet with multiple waves of RAF fighters trrying to stop them would be quite cool.

So If you intercepted from your base at Manston and had to bail, would you be able to take off from Eastchurch and be able to get enough height to have a second go at them? Croyden for the third go? Hmmm! could we get the height?

[ATAG_Doc]

I can't remember when I was hit by AA in a 109. I always loiter over the island because that's where the action is all the time.

[FFCW_Urizen]

Spitfire´s able to make 160mph/3000fpm at certain altitudes, combine that with a course heading the same way as the bombers and there you go, lunchtime, yummy, tastee 88s .

[ATAG_Colander]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

I can't remember when I was hit by AA in a 109. I always loiter over the island because that's where the action is all the time.

I got hit 2 out of 2 last night.
First at around 1500 m @ 500kph, from untouched to bam! left wing gone.
Second at around 2000 m @350 kph, from untouched to bam! PK.

Both times bofors.

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

I disagree. The battle of hawkinge as you put it, is because most reds, not all, spawn at the front line bases. That makes easy pickings for a cannon equipped 109 hovering above. The reason this accumulates and turns into the hawkinge show is because more reds spawn in at hawkinge to try to get the low flying 109 that was already there because of the decision of the red pilot to spawn at hawkinge in the 1st place. People's bad decisions shouldn't be blamed on mission design. Every single red pilot could take off and get to 20K without ever a thought of a 109 in the vicinity during the entire climb if they really wanted to. There's more than enough airfields spread out all over England to do just that.

The same can be applied for the 109 fields. I generally take off quite a bit inland so by the time I reach the coast of France I'm already at 4-5km at altitude. Actually most of the 109's I fly with on coms generally take off inland as well.

I do agree that the FMs are not the greatest, but at altitude, real altitude, the spit performs much better than it does on the deck, where as the 109 starts performing a lot worse. The higher the engagement the more even (not saying it's even) the better for a spitfire.

Altitude also takes flak/AAA completely out of the picture. So my suggestion is to simply not spawn anywhere near the front lines. When everyone on red figures this out, there won't be anyone at hawkinge for the blues to shoot at.

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 .

[Warhound]

All i'm going to say about it is that you can do everything you just suggested as missionmaker, and those players you mentioned will still do exactly what they are doing now.
That is play low level airquake, occasionally intercept a bomber they run into and in general not care about the mission at all. Once the plane(s) they prefer are depleted they will complain a bit and then disconnect.

Now you can argue those players aren't wanted anyway..but seeing as they make up half or more of the players online at times, I'd prefer to have them present.
Just consider them as new pilots (and thus easy targets) and try to convert a few into missionfocused pilots.
Help with their questions, encourage them to hop on teamspeak and wing up. With luck a few will eventually join TS, see the light and turn into great wingmen and even fligthleaders.

Afterall I think most of us started as random players just wanting to fly and shoot at something.
And even many IL-2 vets rarely did anything but play on servers/coops with 3rd person and icons enabled..so it's a big transition for many to play on full switch servers.

[ATAG_Doc]

Everything you mentioned is being implemented. How is that for an answer? feel better now?

[AbortedMan]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

Everything you mentioned is being implemented. How is that for an answer? feel better now?

Not complaining or mad about it in my post, just discussing, disseminating, and educating.

One day I hope we can live in an internet that is devoid of sarcastic and ill-mannered undertones and/or the assumptions of such undertones as a default.

[ATAG_Doc]

+1

Just saying m8 its coming. Seems everyone hates the blue people. Lol