A couple of thoughts

[FiLtH]

1.  Could the perk multiplier be higher for mission successes? If you were part of a mission, your score would be higher than a non mission sortie.

  2. Could the rtb color for landed successes be a different color than the gold it is now, for when those in a mission land?

[NUKE]

Pretty good ideas. Maybe even have a perk scale based on how many people are in the mission.

[Schatzi]

Nice idea. Might make missions more popular.

Wishlist?

[hitech]

The problem with it is, it would make real missions less popular. People would start creating missions just to get perk points. But would not realy fly the mission.

So what we would end up with, is lots of missions showing, but very few being real missions. And hence people would end up not using the mission system for anything but getting perks.


HiTech

[1K3]

Wait for ToD guys, ToD will be mission heaven for all:)

[DipStick]

Originally posted by hitech
The problem with it is, it would make real missions less popular. People would start creating missions just to get perk points. But would not realy fly the mission.

So what we would end up with, is lots of missions showing, but very few being real missions. And hence people would end up not using the mission system for anything but getting perks.


HiTech

No doubt.

[Stegahorse]

BUT---if the mission required , say 5 or more, to join the mission AND atleast 1/3 more of those who sign up land successfully to get the perk points for all who signed in the mission at the present pro-rata rate.


AND
 No perk points for lonewof missions but scores and rank would continue as they are.
This would force a choice on the players. To be team players able to fly any plane or be high on the rank list and  forced to fly non-perked planes. I think the players would balance their game experience to their own egos.

This might also necessitate a choice of mission as well.  such as Defend base for 30 minutes time periods. Attack missions and Capture missions.
The result of each would determine the PP awarded. And we love our PPs.

I can see where the development of this Idea may require more resources.
It could be something. It might change the current MA attitude for the better.
We do love out PPs!!

[Stegahorse]

AND
Defend mission would be at 100% level
Attack would be at 75% since there is no real goal specified(just kills or object destruction)
Capture would be 125% since there is a goal and a necessary result.

No one can be ejected from a mission or excluded from joining.
Those who are in the mission would have to be more concered about who lands and insure that enough do land.

Yeah, it could cause a lot more aggravation than it is worth.

It would be an innovation worth trying.

[Morpheus]

All I see here is a new way and reason to score potato and horde.

A horde is still a horde, no matter if you get perks for the horde landing or not.

[Stegahorse]

You would have to land kills/objects to get points.
Enough would have to land points.
It would force a choice versus the devil-may-care attitude.
You could see a result for your efforts.

The hordes would be limited by mission size. One would want the best in the mission to insure sucess. Squads would have an advantage as they would have a better idea when the mission is actually posted so they would be first in.

Might even be squad only missions. Then squads could have their own bragging rights.

The possibilties go on.


This could be a good thing.

[Stegahorse]

First to post capture mission and achieve the capture would be the one awarded points. This would require a gooney or LVT that if shot down would end the mission. This requirement would spread out the horde as multiple cap missions would be fruitless. The mission that has the gooney that caps the base ould be awarded the points if all other contingencies are met.
Attack missions could be considered support to the capture mission.

This really could have some depth to it.

[FiLtH]

Could it be made so the missions require you to reach waypoints thru out the mission to get a success. That way a guy couldnt just whip one out there and fly anywhere he wanted. Also a minimum number of planes would have to be in the mission to allow the launch. Say minimum mission size 10 players.

  Another idea would be to allow squad missions that give a higher perk %. These missions would be for squads only.

[Tilt]

I thinks HT comment about abuse is apt and most other stuff would require a lot of conditional COAD..................


I suppose if the number of perks added was  based upon the  number of folk actually in the mission at the players launch time?

ie no perk benefit for less than 10 participants but (eg) 0.1 perk awarded for each participant over 10 (x the side multiplier)

Then  the numbers signed up makes it a pretty serious mission and not one or two idiots colluding to farm perks via gaming the mission system.


example

mission which launches with 9 folk = no additional perks added.

Mission which launches with 20 folk = (20-10)*.1 = 1 perky for each participant if the side muliplier is 1.

Adding rather than using a multiplier is nice because it rewards "foot soldiers"

The player would have to be in the mission for a minimum period of time before perks were awarded (300 seconds?). (This to stop folk farming missions by just exiting the mission upon launch)

FE already has this data so the server needs to know or do nothing.

COAD should be a one liner?


edit.. there is aproblem with the above............. a mission could launch with 10 folk and non of them will get perks (launch has happened) then one guy arrives late and joins to follow. On his FE he will launch in a mission with 11 folk and so (after 300secs?) earns .1.

I cant see a simple way round this.

[DarkHawk]

One way around this is that at launch time when all player go the number is set if any come later that nuamber at launch does not change and has no effect ona the perk point count  The count be be based on all who launched with in the 30 seconds of the launch time  plus or minus.

DarkHawk