Mission "Leader"

[Wotan]

Is it possible to incoporate the rank system into the mission structure. I can foresee instances where during a mission an individual or individuals may be disruptive.

Giving the highest ranking person in the mission the ability to eject the disruptve people(s) would be a good idea. Or at the very least add a vote system where by those in a mission could vote to eject a person who is disruptive.

Also will there be a limit to the number of individuals in a mission?

If so will we be able to reserve missions slots for squad members.

One of the things that interest me more then anything is squad flying. I would hate for it to be a rush to fill slots and squads end up not flying together.

[Swoop]

Hmmm.  This would have the effect of allowing a disruptive high ranked player to boot everyone from a mission and ruin it.  You remember how high ranked players have already been accused of changing sides and stealing CVs?  

Another solution to the problem you describe would be allowing a squad CO to reserve an entire mission for his squad.  There'll be more than 1 mission running at once, right HT?

[Wotan]

if he was unreasonable then folks in the mission can "quit" and rtb. The idea is to actually fly for rank. The mission leader will have to consider this. If he is s a d1ck no one will fly with him. If he boots everyone what are the odds he will complete the mission? Then hes stuck with completing it on his own.

When I say eject all it would do is make that individual ejected not elligible to earn the mission points and maybe deny him squad comms.

[Raubvogel]

Personally I don't really want someone who pays the same $15 as I do having control over how I play the game.  Allow some type of moderator or sysop to deal with disruptive players.

[WldThing]

Originally posted by Raubvogel
Personally I don't really want someone who pays the same $15 as I do having control over how I play the game.  Allow some type of moderator or sysop to deal with disruptive players.

I agree.  I only follow and take orders from one person... And that is my CO

[LLv34_Camouflage]

I wonder if HTC will implement "enhanced" support for squads, for example in the form of custom missions, war mission logs, kill boards and so on.

Camo

[Kweassa]

Personally, I agree with Wotan.

 True, we're not exactly enlisting to the military here. We're merely enjoying a game. However, as long as the goal of TOD is to "act out" the missions with a historical twist, there should be some sort of basic structure of influence a high ranking player can observe over low ranking ones.

 ...........
 
 As long as in a mission, when the Flight Leader suggests, requests, or even orders someone to do something, a wingman should observe it.

 Let's say, for instance, a very able pilot just entered the TOD recently. He joins a mission which an average pilot, who has a higher rank just because he came in earlier, is leading. The able pilot sees what the leader is doing wrong. He suggests something, but the flight leader denies it.

 So, what happens then?

 Exclaim, "Sorry, you're doing it wrong. I'm not gonna follow you and risk my neck and points for you" , and just run off from the mission, leaving his team behind?

 .........

 Or, for instance, a mission is in the brink of disaster, enemy fighters everywhere. Team mates screaming "help!" all over the radio. What do you do? What's to stop someone from just abandoning everyone and abandoning the mission to keep his own score and life up?

 ....

 One of the aspects of War, is that you can't always follow the orders you like. If you're assigned under an as*hole, still you must observe the orders. Also, you can't choose the situation you are in. When someone is ordered to carry out a mission which is dangerous, he's still gotta try and do it.

 If there isn't anyway of punishment, or way to influence or discipline people to observe things the leader orders, nothing will stop the TOD theater breaking up into a small, local version of MA furball.

[Mathman]

The real issue is that what happens if someone doesn't like me for some wrong (real or imagined) I did to them.  They can then boot me for that despite my flying the mission the way I am "supposed" to.  There are some people that hold grudges for very long times over nothing.

Also, I can forsee a problem with some people who develop a snobbish attitude about the whole MA vs TOD thing.  There are some who will have the attitude that one is better than the other and those that do the other are less worthy of swimming in the other pool.  Take me for example.  I much prefer the PTO to ETO.  So, while the TOD is setup for ETO stuff, I may spend more time in the MA.  Thus, I may be labeled an MA dweeb and booted from missions that I may actually want to fly, regardless of whether I have said anything bad about TOD or whatnot.

The thing is, this is a system that can be abused.  Do I think it is a good idea?  In some ways, yes.  We should have the ability to boot a disruptive player from a mission.  The problem is that if it can be abused, it will be.  Remember, this is the internet we are talking about.

[Wotan]

Mathan that may happen, but if a mission leader is unreasonable, or just boots people out of his mission then the odds of others staying in the mission, or supporting the mission leader during the mission diminishes.

The little general wont get much help from others if they know hes being a d1ick. This matters in that in this arena rank, flying to live and accomplishing missions are whats important.

Heres a quote from the press lease

These characters will be expressed through custom avatars and will receive promotions and medals, or demotions and even court-martials based upon their performance at completing assigned missions.

I am not sure what this means but I would hope the mission would structured so that they end up being more then a gaggle of guys stumbling in to a fight.

There will always be an us v them attitude when comes to the AHC and AHToD. Theres that already in the ct. But folks treat each other decently enough. I am just the opposite, I dont care antything at all about Pac set ups. ETO, Ostfront and Med would be the onlt set ups I fly.

I am more concerned with "squad missions" and dealing with those who would be disrupt to the objectives of a squad.

Again by eject I just mean that the disruptive individual is just excluded from the mission points and mission comms. Not killing him.

[Tilt]

Raises some questions

I have not seen any provision for squads suggested.....?

I would doubt that a group would be empowered to deny an individual access to a mission on the basis he/she was not one of them?

I assume missions will be "posted" with a count down clock so there would be a choice of many missions at any one time?

Mission objectives would be to reach certain zones of co ordinate (by a certain time) and then carry out a function (bomb, CAP etc).  Disruptive players who do not even follow the flight plan would be "court marshalled"?

What about ipoorly attended missions? would it still launch if one player out of 10 needed had signed up? would the other 9 be supplied by AI?

Would the mission simply flash away as ready to launch until a minimum requirement was met?

Any one here ever played MPBT? (Mission Player Battle Tech)

Would a mission be delayed waiting for its opposing mission to launch?

Would we see our opponents in the mission waiting rooms?

Would we see other mission radio chatter?

Would we be able to talk on an arena channel?

Would we be able to see other missions in the arena at the same time as ours?

How might kill shooter be implemented (or not as the case may be)?

How big could the biggest missions be? (mass bombing raids)

How small could the smallest mission be? (recon)

Would aces be allowed free hunt missions ?

Could we register prefered mission types such that the mission generator gave a mix of missions biased toward the current preferances of a side?

Would missions be based on historical re play or game play?

eg How much will the strat model effect the role play?

[maxtor]

Just from old Air Warrior experience with auto generated missions I don't think you will see a problem.  The game gives you your mission, if you don't follow it then your offensive mission will not succed or while on defense you will risk not seeing any action.  

It worked there without the need for any additional powers - I have to think this will work out similarly.

[Wotan]

what if theres one or two guys that do nothing in mission, they stay on the edges of the fight waiting you and your squad to finish so they can earn the points.

There needs to be some structure, either by vote or by rank.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Wotan
what if theres one or two guys that do nothing in mission, they stay on the edges of the fight waiting you and your squad to finish so they can earn the points.

There needs to be some structure, either by vote or by rank.

back to AW which had off line missions.............. if you stood back and let the AI guys cop it you did not gain many points...........

I think you lose points for messing up or not participating and only gain them through proactive stuff..................

Thats one reason I reckon on AI stuff filling in the holes.........  such that you were not on your lonesome agin vastly superior numbers.
 
It might be heavy on your FE tho. I doubt the server would handle the AI.......... more like your FE would be given  a drone to steer as well as your own.........which you jump into when you are killed (sound familiar)  AW had pretty cool AI's 6 years ago I am sure AH could do it now.

[Wotan]

I think ai will be more a target then say a group of fighter flying along with you.

I believe ht mentioned ai bombers and gvs and gave no indication of ai fighters in missions with you.

Its far easier to do ai bombers and gvs then producing fighter ai with any real skill.

I am not to concerned over ai fighters, as I doudt there will be any.

But hitting a box of 16 b17s with high mustangs providing escort  and look back and see a guy or 2 hanging out waiting for everyone else to do the work will bug me.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Swoop

Another solution to the problem you describe would be allowing a squad CO to reserve an entire mission for his squad.  There'll be more than 1 mission running at once, right HT?

I suggested this very thing when they first discussed auto-scenarios for AW2 and I was happy when they included that feature.  But people exploited it by reserving the limited supply of 'hot' rides (like some 262s), then dropping out at the last minute and switching sides.  This would prevent the other side from having full flights for those planes.

I'm sure HT could find a work around for this, but they must always remember that 'players are rats'.