Author Topic: Mission Theater issue: mission duration (Read 431 times)

popeye · « **on:** January 21, 2003, 01:05:19 PM »

I'm sure HTC has given this a lot of thought, but some player feedback might be useful. I wonder what length of time a Mission Theater player is willing to devote to:

A. Waiting for a mission to start.

B. Flying the actual mission.

hitech · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2003, 01:27:48 PM »

popyee: Mission starts will always be at .5 or 1 hour intervals so that you will always know before comming in the arena when they start i.e. 1:00 2:00 3:00 excetera. There will be multiple missions running at the same time, planing on 2 - 5 to choose from at each start interval.

Mission length is somthing I would be intersted in knowing how long a session you can play. A good starting point is if anyone plays one of the online rpg's like everquest, whats the min time you can play and get somthing accomplished?

HiTech

Dux · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2003, 01:34:15 PM »

I should think it's dependent on the mission itself... a scramble-defense mission would certainly not be as long as a deep-strike mission, and so on.

Which brings up a question... if a long-range bomber mission is generated, is there a corresponding intercept mission generated as well?

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2003, 01:50:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Mission length is somthing I would be intersted in knowing how long a session you can play. A good starting point is if anyone plays one of the online rpg's like everquest, whats the min time you can play and get somthing accomplished?

The reason I stopped playing Everquest was that as you got into the advanced levels, you could not do anything on your own. You always needed a group. Unless you had planned on meeting a bunch of folks at a certain time online, many times you would spend 30-60 minutes just getting a group together. Then you might spend 20 minutes running somewhere. Then you spend 30 minutes waiting for a certain creature to appear. Before you know it, you have blown 2 hours and haven't done a damn thing.

I like the idea of missions starting at a regular interval. I assume that there will be some sort of estimate of "mission completion time"? Even if a particular mission took 1 or 2 hours, as long as I knew it ahead of time, I don't see it being a problem.

HFMudd · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2003, 02:51:41 PM »

Couple things, I really don't think missions starting every 30 min is often enough. If I crash on take off I am not going to wait around 30 min for the next mission. I'm going to go play something else. Granted that might be the MA, but it might be another game altogether.

As to mission length, I'm sorry, but even at age 40 I don't have the patience to spend 60 min flying to a target in B-17 and then 60 min flying back. I certainly do have the patience though to climb for 10 minutes to intercept the poor claude who just spent 60 min getting there. I suspect that will be a common preference.

Both the above concerns can be addressed somewhat by allowing gunners to join in flight. That way, if I crash on take off I can at least join another mission as gunner while I wait. (Which makes me think that the optimal time to attack a bomber formation is at the mission start times. I bet 80% of the gunners will be leaving. ;-)

I think serious thought should be given to air launching of bombers and making those bombers be drones that a player can join at any time. Get rid of AI gunners altogether and treat the bomber group just like an airfield with mannable guns all around and some sort of broadcast notification that an enemy is approaching.

And by all that is holy, do NOT base the time people are willing to spend on onling "RPGs" I've played 'em and I've played online combat sims. I spend far more time and money on the combat sims that I do with the RPGs because, by and large, the RPGs quickly turn into a pointless level grind. One persons voice, but I really think the audiences and expectations are different.

J_A_B · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2003, 03:18:43 PM »

Your mission length will depend on what you do with people who lose their connection.

Remember, in RPG's like EQ if you lose your connection, you can get back online right where you dumped. OTOH, as AH currently is if you get dumped that's it for your flight--you need to take off again. That would make longer missions undesirable. However, if you make some provision for this, like allowing mission participants who dump yo re-log in flight, then you can have longer missions.

I would not recommend anything shorter than about 40 minutes as immersion would be difficult to achieve. Likewise, any more than 2 hours or so will cause the game to become very very boring as you'll be spending hours just flying around doing nothing.

J_A_B

Charon · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2003, 03:43:00 PM »

IMO, something near but under one hour would be effective per mission. Enough time to fly an involved sortie, get some action, fly home, and have a beer or latrine break before the next mission is scheduled to start on the hour. If you get shot down at the 1/2 way mark on a 40-50 minute mission (about the time you could expect contact), you still have time to catch the 30-minute mission.

Charon

Furious · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2003, 04:04:49 PM »

will consectutive missions overlap in time and be flown in the same airspace?

Wotan · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2003, 05:27:29 PM »

Depends on the fuel mod and map scale but missions longer then 40 minutes to an hour should be the average, Missions over 1 1/2 should rare. But it depends on thw action level. Flying for 2 hours but having intense fights is one thing. Flying for 40 min with no contact or hopes of contact is different.

I think missions running at 15 min would be best as it allows for more going on at 1 time.

The next question would be about maps for particular setups.

Do you envision using maps we already have or creating new ones?

If new maps then they should be 512 x 512.

Xjazz · « **Reply #9 on:** January 22, 2003, 01:54:56 AM »

Because P51D wins the WW2 so, P51D will fly 8hours or so escort missions.

What?

beet1e · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2003, 04:13:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by HFMudd
As to mission length, I'm sorry, but even at age 40 I don't have the patience to spend 60 min flying to a target in B-17 and then 60 min flying back. I certainly do have the patience though to climb for 10 minutes to intercept the poor claude who just spent 60 min getting there. I suspect that will be a common preference.

I absolutely agree with HFMudd, and I'm even older.

One of the reasons I have never been much for Scenarios is because of boredom. Yes I know that bombers went off on all night sorties, but I don't want to do that here. One of the last scenarios I flew in WB involved 1¾ hours of flying a B25 to drop two bombs on an oil refinery. (OK, I did shoot down 2x262 on the way there)

Still, looks like HTC has put a lot of thought into this, and if there are 5 missions taking place we would only have to wait 12 minutes. (?) That's no worse than waiting for a Mission in the MA.

popeye · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2003, 08:55:14 AM »

"if there are 5 missions taking place we would only have to wait 12 minutes"

beet1e,

The way I read HT's statement, "Mission starts will always be at .5 or 1 hour intervals", ALL missions start on the hour or half-hour -- not 12 minutes apart.

Let's say you crash/die/disco 1 minute into a mission. The next mission doesn't start for 29 minutes. Of course, there might be a "grace period" for restarts and/or late starts. So, even if there is a five minute late start period, you could find yourself waiting 25 minutes for the next mission start.

Maybe there could be an FFA "Waiting Room" to pass the time.

beet1e · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2003, 10:41:55 AM »

Popeye, fair enough... But I'm thinking that maybe it might be HTC's intention to have more than one mission running at the same time, and for the participants of one mission to stumble upon and become embroiled with the participants of another Mission!

I don't think people would want to wait a half hour for a mission to start.

Quote

Maybe there could be an FFA "Waiting Room" to pass the time.

We already have that. It's called the Main Arena.

:p

Swoop · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2003, 11:01:27 AM »

HT, how bout just having different missions available.

Ground Support from front line base: Mission length approx 20 mins.
Fighter sweep: approx 40 mins
B17 Escort: shreckin ages.

etc, etc.

F4UDOA · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2003, 01:04:56 PM »

I don't know if missions that have a built in time to target of greater than 15Minutes will be accepted very well. That will lead to a bunch of AFK's and blow missions I think. The same can be simulated by increasing the fuel burn time forcing the action in a reduced time period.

Just a thought.