Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
concise
Aug 31, 2004

Ain't much to do
'round here.



BurntCornMuffin posted:

That mission was so much fun for redfor. We actually ran it twice: the first time around we rushed the Blue AWACS and a ship blue needed to complete the mission before they managed to take off. The second time we let them take off and spent the time weaving in and around the mountains at Khasab plugging anyone who tried to get close with a heater. We eventually drew the CAP out of position and strafed their helicopters down. Between that and the mountains foiling any BVR advantage the blues had, we managed to force a protracted fight that continued for several hours before the blues managed to get organized enough to actually do a coordinated push, at which point most of the players had to log off. I would love to see more PVP missions, despite the issues observed that night, if only because human opponents are much more interesting than AIs (such as that braindead formation of F-5s that left itself get clowned).

Lol. You guys had hot starts for the first revision of the map and you were getting enemy position info from the F10 map the whole time that game. That mission was a waste of an afternoon.

PVP maps suck rear end unless itís air quake because scenarios are incredibly difficult to balance so that both sides have fun.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

my kinda ape
Sep 15, 2008

Everything's gonna be A-OK


Oven Wrangler

Lol turning off enemy positions on the F10 map would be the first thing I'd do when trying to make a pvp scenario.

Xakura
Jan 10, 2019




concise posted:

Lol. You guys had hot starts for the first revision of the map and you were getting enemy position info from the F10 map the whole time that game. That mission was a waste of an afternoon.

PVP maps suck rear end unless itís air quake because scenarios are incredibly difficult to balance so that both sides have fun.

Dark Off
Aug 14, 2015






well it was interesting enough that i made pvp mission for next week.
Basically RB05 /RB75B of viggen vs Grom of mig-21
mi-8 and huey dealing with ground troops on opposite sides
early era mig-15, mig-19, sabres vs a10c with aim9 (need some suggestions for balance for this, maybe f16's with mavericks vs a10c )

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005
When I hear people talk about "the rich" I mentally replace it with "the Jews." This shows that everybody else has a problem with anti-Semitism.

concise posted:

Lol. You guys had hot starts for the first revision of the map and you were getting enemy position info from the F10 map the whole time that game. That mission was a waste of an afternoon.

PVP maps suck rear end unless it’s air quake because scenarios are incredibly difficult to balance so that both sides have fun.

I think pvp could be fun if it's not about winning and losing but how well you did with the scenario you were given. Trying to balance "fair" maps that are also fun I think is a fools errand though.

The other way I think they work is when you have an opfor that's just flying to make the mission more interesting. The mission in question suffered from a lot of design mistakes that I think were the result of inexperience designing missions with opfor and could be a lot of fun if tweaked. It didn't help that the opfor should consider themselves at least partially roleplayers and not intentionally exploit design constraints to break the mission.

Also part of the problem with that mission is problems endemic to missions with helicopters and not really the fault of it being pvp.

Ice Fist
Jun 20, 2012

^^ Please send feedback to beefstache911@hotmail.com, this is not a joke that 'stache is the real deal. Serious assessments only. ^^


Another big problem with that mission was giving the opfor infinite spawns. They used that for maximum advantage. They suicided into the CAP really far away from the objective, drawing them away. Then they respawned at another airfield, took off, and killed all the choppers.

BurntCornMuffin
Jan 9, 2009



Jarmak posted:

I think pvp could be fun if it's not about winning and losing but how well you did with the scenario you were given. Trying to balance "fair" maps that are also fun I think is a fools errand though.

The other way I think they work is when you have an opfor that's just flying to make the mission more interesting. The mission in question suffered from a lot of design mistakes that I think were the result of inexperience designing missions with opfor and could be a lot of fun if tweaked. It didn't help that the opfor should consider themselves at least partially roleplayers and not intentionally exploit design constraints to break the mission.

That was the intent: we were sure we were going to do little more than put on a show while being rolled. The only plan we had was to intercept the AWACS, then hang out in the mountains and probably get slaughtered until we ran out nearby spawns.

We did not intentionally spawn exploit, we spawned at the objective after the failed AWACS run to hang out and just happened to find the uncovered choppers soon after. As for the boat sinking and breaking the mission completely, that was from a blue landing too hard.

I think biggest failings of the that mission was the conceit that we would fly like AIs and let ourselves get shot down, rather than fly like pilots who know they are hopelessly outmatched and are trying to survive while mounting some semblance of resistance.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Limited OPFOR can be fun. 1 flight of harassers with no respawn or 1 respawn only and then itís blue vs a comparatively weak red AI.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005
When I hear people talk about "the rich" I mentally replace it with "the Jews." This shows that everybody else has a problem with anti-Semitism.

BurntCornMuffin posted:

That was the intent: we were sure we were going to do little more than put on a show while being rolled. The only plan we had was to intercept the AWACS, then hang out in the mountains and probably get slaughtered until we ran out nearby spawns.

We did not intentionally spawn exploit, we spawned at the objective after the failed AWACS run to hang out and just happened to find the uncovered choppers soon after. As for the boat sinking and breaking the mission completely, that was from a blue landing too hard.

I think biggest failings of the that mission was the conceit that we would fly like AIs and let ourselves get shot down, rather than fly like pilots who know they are hopelessly outmatched and are trying to survive while mounting some semblance of resistance.

Fair, I was taking other claims in the thread at face value because I was a little sore about the using the hot start to rush the AWACs.

BurntCornMuffin
Jan 9, 2009



Yeah, we were a little shocked we made it to the AWACS the first time around. We thought somebody would have taken off by the time we arrived.

We spawned cold, further away, and waited five minutes the second time around.

Dark Off
Aug 14, 2015






BurntCornMuffin posted:

That was the intent: we were sure we were going to do little more than put on a show while being rolled. The only plan we had was to intercept the AWACS, then hang out in the mountains and probably get slaughtered until we ran out nearby spawns.

We did not intentionally spawn exploit, we spawned at the objective after the failed AWACS run to hang out and just happened to find the uncovered choppers soon after. As for the boat sinking and breaking the mission completely, that was from a blue landing too hard.

I think biggest failings of the that mission was the conceit that we would fly like AIs and let ourselves get shot down, rather than fly like pilots who know they are hopelessly outmatched and are trying to survive while mounting some semblance of resistance.

i think sinking the tanker first time around was bit of bad idea. as it sunk second time around as well because of rotor blades of helicopters doing million damage to the tanker,
wasting amazing amounts of time for helicopters that flew over empty ocean for 10 minutes after being told to wait on ship for 45 minutes. the mission planning for helo's overall was total fiasco.

that being said. f5 vs f14 fight did look fun. Thanks to all terrain features, that f5's abused splendidly
The assumption that ka-50 could easily lock vikhr on f5 was wrong which sucked for blacksharks, maybe once blackshark have iglas it would be different story.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005
When I hear people talk about "the rich" I mentally replace it with "the Jews." This shows that everybody else has a problem with anti-Semitism.

Dark Off posted:

i think sinking the tanker first time around was bit of bad idea. as it sunk second time around as well because of rotor blades of helicopters doing million damage to the tanker,
wasting amazing amounts of time for helicopters that flew over empty ocean for 10 minutes after being told to wait on ship for 45 minutes. the mission planning for helo's overall was total fiasco.

that being said. f5 vs f14 fight did look fun. Thanks to all terrain features, that f5's abused splendidly
The assumption that ka-50 could easily lock vikhr on f5 was wrong which sucked for blacksharks, maybe once blackshark have iglas it would be different story.

I really liked the mission concept, but I think it might have been a bit overly ambitious for a first run of the idea of using an opfor squad.

Saul Kain
Dec 5, 2018

Lately it occurs to me,

what a long, strange trip it's been.




Every mission that features opfor will also feature the most competent goons stunting on people with mig-28s. Please have more missions with opfor.

Snapshot
Oct 21, 2004

damnit Matt get in the boat

Iím reworking that mission, hopefully to unbreak it. I suck at testing things apparently.

1. Iím not allowing positioning of extra items; the degraded information for both sides thing was fun, but it caused a conservative planning reaction.
2. F10 map should be off (it was in test, so I dunno what happened there.)
3 Iím putting in skynet, dialing back the ir man pads, and putting systems that yíall have dealt with. AAA will still be present, and more likely radar guided.
4. Opfor will be cold at the farthest base, with ~12 a/c. They did what I wanted, just too well.
5. Iím adding in some ai cap for the carrier, tanker and the awacs, enough to keep a rush from toasting things until goons establish themselves. Iíll probably start some tomcats hot also, if we can figure out how have them work on the sc.
6. Iíll tune so the likelihood of cap saturation will decrease, but still be there. Yíall tripped the UAE no fly zone from what I heard.
7. Iíll set up the heli carriers where they were in the test, and dial back their engagement range, Iíll also set up the pick-up point using invulnerable seacans onshore.
8. Iíll deliberately gently caress with every mission object I place during test, to make sure itís working as intended.

Anything else?

Tippis
Mar 21, 2008

It's yet another day in the wasteland.



It randomly breaks every other patch, but one thing you can do to reduce the leroy-jenkins:ing because of respawns is to simply set the number of available aircraft to exactly the number (or maybe a few extras) of the respective teams, and then use warehouses to replenish those used-up aircraft every now and then. If the opfor can be culled with sufficient speed, they will be gone a while and you don't have to rely on just travel time to keep them away from the friendly forces.

Snapshot
Oct 21, 2004

damnit Matt get in the boat

Tippis posted:

It randomly breaks every other patch, but one thing you can do to reduce the leroy-jenkins:ing because of respawns is to simply set the number of available aircraft to exactly the number (or maybe a few extras) of the respective teams, and then use warehouses to replenish those used-up aircraft every now and then. If the opfor can be culled with sufficient speed, they will be gone a while and you don't have to rely on just travel time to keep them away from the friendly forces.

Good call. Iíll bug you about that later. Itíll allow me to put them at khasab and be overrun.

BurntCornMuffin
Jan 9, 2009



Snapshot posted:

Iím reworking that mission, hopefully to unbreak it. I suck at testing things apparently.

1. Iím not allowing positioning of extra items; the degraded information for both sides thing was fun, but it caused a conservative planning reaction.
2. F10 map should be off (it was in test, so I dunno what happened there.)
3 Iím putting in skynet, dialing back the ir man pads, and putting systems that yíall have dealt with. AAA will still be present, and more likely radar guided.
4. Opfor will be cold at the farthest base, with ~12 a/c. They did what I wanted, just too well.
5. Iím adding in some ai cap for the carrier, tanker and the awacs, enough to keep a rush from toasting things until goons establish themselves. Iíll probably start some tomcats hot also, if we can figure out how have them work on the sc.
6. Iíll tune so the likelihood of cap saturation will decrease, but still be there. Yíall tripped the UAE no fly zone from what I heard.
7. Iíll set up the heli carriers where they were in the test, and dial back their engagement range, Iíll also set up the pick-up point using invulnerable seacans onshore.
8. Iíll deliberately gently caress with every mission object I place during test, to make sure itís working as intended.

Anything else?

On the redfor end, a bit more communication from our AI units. I would have liked a "we're under attack" or "we've arrived" notification from the reinforcement group. Maybe put in a JTAC slot on the red team for CA havers and a red LotATC guy for AWACS/GCI capability that blues can degrade.

Anarcho-Commissar
May 22, 2002

"The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all."
- Pyotr Kropotkin




Speaking of missions!

We could still use GCI and/or a mission commander for tomorrow. Also there are F14 slots and an A10C slot available.

PenisMonkey
Apr 30, 2004

Be gentally.

Snapshot posted:

Anything else?

Donít make the KA-50s wait 40 minutes to take off.

Snapshot
Oct 21, 2004

damnit Matt get in the boat

PenisMonkey posted:

Donít make the KA-50s wait 40 minutes to take off.

Wasnít my call. I just made the mission, the goon commander planned it. I figured you guys would be sprinting in to clear the way for the cargo birds.

concise
Aug 31, 2004

Ain't much to do
'round here.



Snapshot posted:

Anything else?

Force labels off, restrict F10 to ownship, give redfor a GCI slot

BurntCornMuffin
Jan 9, 2009



concise posted:

Force labels off

Labels off is a massive gently caress you to VR havers and non 4k users alike, we always dot label for this reason.

HerpicleOmnicron5
May 31, 2013

How did this smug dummkopf ever make general?




BurntCornMuffin posted:

Labels off is a massive gently caress you to VR havers and non 4k users alike, we always dot label for this reason.

Dot labels is a fair compromise. DCS has a lot of shortcomings in terms of spotting, that you kinda need a workaround for.

MrYenko
Jun 17, 2012

#2 isn't ALWAYS bad...


BurntCornMuffin posted:

Labels off is a massive gently caress you to VR havers and non 4k users alike, we always dot label for this reason.

Last time I played in 4K (~8mos ago) spotting was actually WORSE in 4K than it is in 1080 due to the (dumb) way their LOD works.

The dynamic spotting feature they built and then ripped out because nerds are terrible was really, really good.

Vahakyla
May 3, 2013

My battleboo just said "yeah, us. Ma'am. We'll be going to war. Not you."


my kinda ape posted:

Lol turning off enemy positions on the F10 map would be the first thing I'd do when trying to make a pvp scenario.

It's a bit more than just black and white, since VR users need some sort of labels, and some of the planes have no datalink of any kind, and no maps, and they do not have a reliable AI to ask "where should I go next". Which means that there has to be some options for finding the poo poo you need to fight. The PvP map discussed was rough around the edges, but it had the idea in there.

Making missions in DCS is hard as loving poo poo, anyone who has made a goon mission can attest that the ways it can go wrong is so thoroughly complicated, that things break or don't work as intended that you'd never even think about.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005
When I hear people talk about "the rich" I mentally replace it with "the Jews." This shows that everybody else has a problem with anti-Semitism.

BurntCornMuffin posted:

Labels off is a massive gently caress you to VR havers and non 4k users alike, we always dot label for this reason.

Honestly I started flying no labels after they added the spyglass zoom and I didn't even notice the change.

Even spotting ground targets at night is something you can do now that we have the extra zoom.

Anarcho-Commissar
May 22, 2002

"The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all."
- Pyotr Kropotkin




Jarmak posted:

Honestly I started flying no labels after they added the spyglass zoom and I didn't even notice the change.

Even spotting ground targets at night is something you can do now that we have the extra zoom.

Maybe if oyu know where to look in the first place, but I've not found that to be the case in general.

Ice Fist
Jun 20, 2012

^^ Please send feedback to beefstache911@hotmail.com, this is not a joke that 'stache is the real deal. Serious assessments only. ^^


Vahakyla posted:

Making missions in DCS is hard as loving poo poo, anyone who has made a goon mission can attest that the ways it can go wrong is so thoroughly complicated, that things break or don't work as intended that you'd never even think about.

This. It's absolutely filled with things that are broken, half-implemented or straight confusing.

Also regarding this labels/F10 argument. The mission editor's method of deciding whether that is enabled or not is one of those super confusing mechanics. Tippis did a write up and a bug post on the ED forums about it but - to explain it poorly - there are settings that override other settings and it can be a huge pain in the rear end to get right. A mission tested in SP can act differently when the mission is put on a MP server.

Bottom line: Mission making is hard. The goons who put up with it are fantastic and should be cut some slack if it all falls apart because of :ED: reasons.

Snapshot
Oct 21, 2004

damnit Matt get in the boat

Ice Fist posted:

A mission tested in SP can act differently when the mission is put on a MP server.

Even when tested in MP on the goon server, things still go to hell. Then add in other people without a complete view doing the planning, guessing at intentions, and reacting on the fly to the surprises that the mission makers have added in or had not script properly.

Iím impressed that weíve only had two gong shows since the restart of the dcs missions. (The lag in the first mission that killed more goons than red air in the next few weeks was the other)

Ice Fist
Jun 20, 2012

^^ Please send feedback to beefstache911@hotmail.com, this is not a joke that 'stache is the real deal. Serious assessments only. ^^


Snapshot posted:

Iím impressed that weíve only had two gong shows since the restart of the dcs missions. (The lag in the first mission that killed more goons than red air in the next few weeks was the other)

We had one with infinite ammo. Which was hilarious.

Saul Kain
Dec 5, 2018

Lately it occurs to me,

what a long, strange trip it's been.




Ice Fist posted:

We had one with infinite ammo. Which was hilarious.

And fuel. It was ace combat with harms.

concise
Aug 31, 2004

Ain't much to do
'round here.



BurntCornMuffin posted:

Labels off is a massive gently caress you to VR havers and non 4k users alike, we always dot label for this reason.

Then make them grey only for PVP missions.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005
When I hear people talk about "the rich" I mentally replace it with "the Jews." This shows that everybody else has a problem with anti-Semitism.

Saul Kain posted:

And fuel. It was ace combat with harms.

The best part of this was trying to put a fully loaded F18 back on the deck.

GreatGreen
Jul 3, 2007

THIS IS HOW YOU REMIND ME OF WHAT I REALLY AM
*stumbles on reload and dies to a Nightstalker Super during Quick Play*


If you jettison everything including your racks, those infinite missiles and bombs don't have anything to respawn back onto so you can keep that weight off.

Jarmak
Jan 24, 2005
When I hear people talk about "the rich" I mentally replace it with "the Jews." This shows that everybody else has a problem with anti-Semitism.

GreatGreen posted:

If you jettison everything including your racks, those infinite missiles and bombs don't have anything to respawn back onto so you can keep that weight off.

I was talking about the fuel.

GreatGreen
Jul 3, 2007

THIS IS HOW YOU REMIND ME OF WHAT I REALLY AM
*stumbles on reload and dies to a Nightstalker Super during Quick Play*


Jarmak posted:

I was talking about the fuel.

lol yeah nevermind then.

mashed_penguin
Jul 27, 2004



I think a fun PvP mission could be designed but I thik any kind of redfor against defenceless player flown helicopters is never going to be fun for the dudes in the helis.

I'm sure if we were to rerun the last one again with proper fog of war and labels and less certainty being provided about things like the locations of the carrier's and the heli supply point it could be made more competitive but I don't really think it would become much more fun for the heli folks.

The prospect of a long flight and then being killed by someone you can't fight back against isn't a recipe for a good time.

If I was running it again I'd add a dedicated escort support flight to stay glued to the helis orbiting around them the entire time spaced out around the circle for radar coverage in addition to cap and sead. Blufor made a bunch of mistakes last time and redfor had enough information to exploit them big time.

GreatGreen
Jul 3, 2007

THIS IS HOW YOU REMIND ME OF WHAT I REALLY AM
*stumbles on reload and dies to a Nightstalker Super during Quick Play*


So, landing an F-16 is a real motherfucker huh. They really don't want to stop at all.
Like I feel like it would be more effective to lean my head out the window and politely ask the wheels to slow down than to use the actual wheel brakes.

GreatGreen fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 20, 2020

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012





It has a braking parachute

(irl anyway, no idea if it's implemented in DCS yet)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BMan
Oct 31, 2015

KNIIIIIIFE
EEEEEYYYYE
ATTAAAACK




Are you doing the thing where you keep the nose up to generate drag?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply