A few new Mission Theater ideas

[Sabre]

Ideas for 1.11 mission theater…

Separate “lives” for different classes of rides:   For instance, everyone would have the following types of “lives”: Fight pilot, bomber pilot, attack pilot (Dauntless, Val, IL-2, Mossie, A20), transport pilot, aerial gunner, tanker (i.e. tank or other armored vehicle), surface warfare naval officer (naval gunner and PT boat skipper), and submariner (when we get submarines ).  The idea is, if you’re killed flying a bomber, you loose your bomber life but not your fighter life.  So, you won’t loose that 30-kill streak you were building flying fighters just because you volunteered to fly a bomber to fill up the slots and were subsequently shot down.  This will hopefully make it easier to fill mission slots in other roles, since you’re not risking all just.

Dynamic campaign vs. scripted branching campaign vs. scripted missions: My preference is obviously for a fully dynamic campaign ala Falcon 4.0 or EAW.  However, that’s a lot of work and might involve a lot of A/I controlled forces.  The next best alternative is to create a mission-tree with branching.  That means if side A launches mission V-a, side B launches mission W-b.  This is a matched mission pair, with opposing waypoints and objectives set up to guarantee contact between human adversaries.  Victory conditions would be evaluated, and depending on the result you would branch to mission X-a and X-b, or Y-a and Y-b.  You would also have an outcome with each branch, resulting in changes in the strategic situation.  And so on until the mission tree led to a declaration of victory by one side or the other.  The server software would still have to be modified to allow the automatic updating of field ownership and (perhaps) zone ownership on the fly as the result of where in the mission tree you were.

Example: If side A is Allied and side B is Axis, using 8th AF vs. Luftwaffe set up – Mission 1-a (Allied) is a bomber strike with escort on a refinery.  Mission 1-b (Axis) is a Scramble-to-intercept mission to oppose the Allied bomber strike.  Both missions have waypoints that insure the two sides are in close proximity near the target.  If the bomber strike goes well (losses less then 10%, with 30% bombs on target), fuel availability for the axis is reduced at Axis fields; the next mission might be another bomber strike.  If the bombers get pummeled, or they miss with most of their bombs, the Axis have full fuel next turn, and perhaps get a JABO strike as their next mission (i.e. get to go on the offensive).  Of course, it gets much more complicated if you allow multiple missions at once.  In that case, you might have multiple missions (or just add flights to a single mission) supporting an overall objective.  The various flights in a mission would be filled in some order of priority, such that if you didn’t have enough players on line to fill three bomber flights plus two escort flights, plus a SEAD flight, you would the in this order: Bomber flight A – escort flight A – bomber flight B – escort flight B – SEAD flight A – bomber flight C.  How ever many were filled at the launch time would go, but all would have the same overall objective for the mission, i.e. bombs on target and safe return.

More as I come up with them…feel free to add your own.

[popeye]

I knew I should have paid more attention in algebra class....

[Sabre]

It's okay...take your time.

[BenDover]

lets have POW camps as well

[Pongo]

The different lives for different types is questionable Sabre, it encourages the "dont care" score that some use in the MA now.
They do things under thier attack score that they would never do under their fighter score.  Because they only really care about fighter score....
Alot of these same guys bemone others that dont "fight to live"
So to keep people from being suicidal with one of their personas you would at least have to combine the Attack and Fighter score, so it couldnt be gamed.

[SKurj]

i'm not gonna care about rank no matter how its done +)


SKurj

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Pongo
The different lives for different types is questionable Sabre, it encourages the "dont care" score that some use in the MA now.
They do things under thier attack score that they would never do under their fighter score.  Because they only really care about fighter score....
Alot of these same guys bemone others that dont "fight to live"
So to keep people from being suicidal with one of their personas you would at least have to combine the Attack and Fighter score, so it couldnt be gamed.

Why do you care if someone else is suicidal or is playing to live?
Why should the game encourage folks from being suicidal?  There is a natural deterant already, the time invested in the sortie.  
An arena full of players who all despately want only to live would suck.  What's more boring than a bunch of fraidy cats all running from each other?

The mission type itself could dictate if its attack or fighter.
One good thing about this idea is that it may get some folks to try things that they wouldn't otherwise, I.E. participate in bomber raids, etc.

eskimo

[LLv34_Camouflage]

Originally posted by Pongo

They do things under thier attack score that they would never do under their fighter score.  Because they only really care about fighter score....

What if the missions would automatically assign you to a certain mission type, so that you couldn't "game" it?

I strongly feel that the different mission types must have separate lives. Otherwise many people might not fly bombers at all, for example.

Camo

[Wotan]

if it ends up an arena where you arent awarded for landing your sortie then theres no reason to even have it.

I hope that the arena is split into 2 sides.

Allies / Axis and you get 1 persona in each per "mission type".

If not no one will take hi risk jabo, bomber or gv missions.

I hope you only get "credit" when you land your sortie.

I hope that you only get "credit" for successfully completing the mission objectives.

I hope the missions generated are "dynamic" and not just a series of individaul missions that arent linked to the previous missions.

I hope that it will encourage squads or atleast have some sort of structure in the mission. i. e. a mission "commander/leader"

I hope the arena will focus on "immersion"

I hope all these folks who claim to be "all for it" actually fly there. The ct was real well recieved when it was suggested but most of those who loved the idea never fly there.

If none of this is possible then just create a radom mission genrator for the main. Bandwidth is already a problem in the SEA and ct.

Theres needs to be some sort of "lobby" or "briefing room" where squads and folks can meet and go over the mission objectives before they get in the air.

I hope the missions are simple in that they give "objectives" and allow the squad co or "mission commander" to set plane types routes etc.

However, bomber missions only have the appropriate bombers available. Attack missions only have attack planes available etc.....

heres my example

Bomber Mission: Level Bomb ammo factory in XXX sector

companion mission

Fighter Mission: Escort Bombers to target in XXX sector

launch field and loadout and plane type and route to target would be up to the "mission commander".

For the bomber mission to be successful 75% of the structures would need to be destroyed by the bombers and only those who land the sorty get credit for successfully completing it.

For the escort mission to be successfull 85% of the bombers would need to get to target and home and only those who land The sorty get "credit".

Counter mission would be

Fighter Mission: Cap factory complex in XXX sector.

For this mission to be successsfull the factory must recieve minimal damage or the attacking bomber force most lose 30% of its bombers.

This way even if the attacking bombers hit their target the defenders can still have a chance to "complete" a mission.

the defenders should get credit if they inflict 30% losses even if the bombers  drop and do heavy damage provided they land the sortie.




long winded but ya get the picture.

[CavemanJ]

Originally posted by Pongo
The different lives for different types is questionable Sabre, it encourages the "dont care" score that some use in the MA now.
They do things under thier attack score that they would never do under their fighter score.  Because they only really care about fighter score....
Alot of these same guys bemone others that dont "fight to live"
So to keep people from being suicidal with one of their personas you would at least have to combine the Attack and Fighter score, so it couldnt be gamed.

If they stick with the kites he listed for attack that's not an issue Pongo.

[Kweassa]

Why do you care if someone else is suicidal or is playing to live?

 But eskimo, while that is true in the MA, wouldn't it be a little different in the new-to-come theater? It does seem to be a bit more serious intent trying to depict WWII environment. While there could be the all-so-famous excuse(which, is probably logicallt right..) of "MA is NOT WWII", shouldn't things be a little different(or, shouldn't players have some different basic agenda) in the new 'mission arena'?

 ...

 I have another question.

 How do we pull "rank"? How do you stop one idiot from negating orders or doing something dumb and messing up the entire mission? There would be penalties in score, but then, what if a "I don't care about scores, I wanna have my kind of fun" character jumps into a mission with you and starts wrecking havoc?

 Also, fighter battles as I've read wasn't all simple "get in with alt, BnZ".. since fighter pilots had specific orders to carry out. They'd have assigned altitudes, engagement conditions, and couldn't just leave all their wingmen behind and run away yourself. Four Bf109G-6s escorting 6 Bf110s meet 8 high Spits - you can't just turn and run. How do we ensure the orders must be carried out??

 What would the penalty be for not carrying out the orders, or disobeying a higher-ranking officer in command of the flight?

[BenDover]

hang at dawn with a ban from the arena?



To bad we can't have KS off in it, there's always a jack bellybutton about who wants to shoot freindlies

[SKurj]

Originally posted by Kweassa
What would the penalty be for not carrying out the orders, or disobeying a higher-ranking officer in command of the flight?

Zero Zilch nada in this arena.  Perhaps the guy that ran earns a negative score for his mission partners, but.. so what if he ran...  perhaps the LW wins and the mission is a success and the runner gets a bonus.
Perhaps the mission fails and he's the only survivor... and 1 guy can't take the blame...

its gonna be next to impossible to penalize a player.(how do u code it?)

With Wotan's gotta land to score suggestion... that may well lead to a guy turnin tail for home before the buffs he is escorting have reached the target... mebbe he has 2 kills already and wants to landem so he can become herr general.


i had enuff of the "where the hell are u goin?" from il2...  aren't some of u guys married? do ya want that in your games too +Q


SKurj

[eskimo2]

Kweassa,

One of the few things that we know about this arena is that players will be flying "missions" only.  This means that there will be a wait time, probably of at least a few minutes.  Also, one would guess, it may take more time before players have the opportunity to get themselves killed.  
For the suicidal mentality, dying is less of a deal the shorter the sortie...  I.E. launch from a CV that's 5 miles from an enemy base, and making a Kamikaze run on a fighter hanger is no big deal.  But, if you only get the chance to kill yourself every 30 minutes or so, your going to think a bit before taking big risks.  I would guess that most players will be at least a bit more serious.

But for many players, the only thing worse than dumb-assing yourself to death, would be to fly around for 45 minutes without mixing it up.  Most people play this game to simulate dogfighting and air combat, not just "flying".  I think that most players will fly pretty much as they do in the MA, perhaps a bit more conservative.  I know I will (fly the same).  

It seams that 98% of all players claim that score means nothing and they never look at their scores.  It's terribly uncool to give a damn about your score.  So it would figure that score/rank should have little influence on how players play.
On the other hand, it seams that most people care about what the score system considers viable and they get very upset when they don't get credit for something that they think they should... Perhaps the score/rank system has a greater influence on gameplay styles than folks are willing to admit.

As far as players pulling "rank", bad idea.  Basically complaints would soar, everyone would get pissy, folks would squeak about how off the rank system is putting some "moron" in charge.  Attitudes and egos would be involved in more fights than aircraft.  Most people want to tell others what to do, and hate to do what others tell them to do even more so.

eskimo

[hitech]

Eskimo, The arena will be complete oposit from what you are asking it for.

It will NOT be a just mix it up arena.

The mission out come will be whats scored. It will go along the lines of % mission object accomplished - planes lost.
So on fighter sweep, it would be (buffs destroyed) - (fighers destroyed )


You will only be able to take off in a mission.

Mission objectivs including Time over target and launch times will be assigned by the system. This will allow us to balance offense and defense so that if your doing a fighter sweep, you will be assured somthing will happen durring the mission.

Missions will always start at even times like 9:00 9:30 extera. This will allow people to know ahead of time, even with out checking the arena when the next group of missions will start.

As to people just ignoring the mission, the fix for this problem will be a method of ejecting people from a mission, either by the greatest ranking player in the mission, or by vote.

The basic goal of the new arena is to focus more on roll playing, not just ACM.

Wotan: pretty much states what im invisioning.