Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Wotan on January 28, 2003, 04:48:13 PM
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
if he was unreasonable then folks in the mission can "quit" and rtb.
This is not reasonable. Someone who "quits" and rtb without orders is deserting, no? I would think this would bring unpleasant repercussions.
But I agree someone must be in charge. That's the way it was irl. The game will have provision for attaining rank. I must assume those with rank will have some control over those with lower rank, as it was/is irl. I will also assume HT has thought this one out (or is thinking it out).
Splash1
-
Leader? I might have missed it but I thought all the missions came from AH. You are a virtual "pilot" earning his wings, promotions, etc... You will basically take orders as far as I can figure. You are scored based on your performance and the degree of success of the mission. No where does it say you will "lead" or "be lead" by another player other than AI. ????
-
....
that might also mean a wise-cracking smart prettythang would refuse to follow the mission lay outs the planner had in mind, and ruin a nice mission, inviting the enemy to have a nice good turkey shoot.
Following orders is a very important part of RPG concept designed to simulate combat conditions. Hey, there's a dic*head leading your squad, but what can you do about it?
While we aren't in the military, and no single player should have the power to force others into submission, still there should be some sort of incentive/penalty system that urges the players to willingly follow the orders of a squadron leader, no matter how stupid you think it is..
.... and with it, there should also be some sort of basic evaluation system to judge people fit for a squad leader.. so that unable, idiotic leaders will fall behind in rank or lose favor of other people, and will be ruled out/demoted/penalized over time.
..
The last thing anyone would want, if he should ever become a squad leader, is having a wing man who thinks he has control over something which he does not, wrecking havoc to the mission - refusing to cooperate, needless provocations, endless 'suggestions', 'little generals', idiotic behavior and etc etc.
-
I imagine the most likely senario is a list of applicant pilots for the CO to choose from. If a guy is blitzed or he's being a jerk, the CO can pass him over but if it's just a matter of talent, sooner or later the CO will need to concider giving the guy a ride.
If it's a personality thing or the COs just having a bad day, the player can get an assignment with another CO or the AI command.
-
BNM the only thing you are missing is the fact you didnt read the thread. It isnt about describing a feature but a request.
The missions need some structure.......HT has meantioned "court martials" all though without much details.
The purpose of completing missions is to advance in rank. Like Kweassa said part of the "rpg" element is to simiulate the "experience". There were "squad leaders" in real life.
The idea that the "squad leader" would go on a ramdon boot cycle just to screw up your mission is stupid because he cant expect to gain rank acting like that.
In events theres a chain of command. AH2:ToD as described so far will be a structured enviroment. Whether "eject" authority is given directly to the highest ranking guy in the mission or theres a "vote system" to boot out those who jeopardize or disrupt the mission, or to eject those who may avoid contact with the enemy and allow the rest of the folks in the mission to do all the work, would be a good thing.
-
Alot of the leadership in AH from my experience has not only decent tactical ability but, most of all they have the ability to surround themselves with people that see things the same way that they do. Keeping that in mind I beleive those that we have come to respect as leaders in the MA will become to AH2 as what they were in AH.
I do not believe the ability to boot someone from a mission will be productive at all and will only add to any negative views of AH2.
The best way to deal with hell raisers in the missions is to let them be. Since they most likely will be single individuals and the missions will have numerous people to try and accomplish the mission, one person acting like a fool will not matter and that fool will be only hurting themselves.
-
I aggree with Jebo.
The worst thing that could happen to the TOD is for the system to assign real game authority to people based on thier performance. The only way that could work is through nomination from the comunity.
The highest ranking people in this game are some of the most unstable. Period.
We would quickly end up with the totally realistic situation where the Flying Officers job is to count the kills of his flight leader.
I would imagine it possible to have Tour Administrators like there are training team members and CT admins..but not individual pilots that 'earn' the capability to seriosly impact other players games...
-
Maybe a system similar to the on-line auctions could be used.
Every player will have the ability to rate every other player. A player's rating ability will depend on how favorable that player's rating is.
Example:
Player A is rated as 100 on a scale of 1 to 100 (100 being the highest)
Player B is rated as 30
Player C is new.
Player D is rated as 90
Player B is having a bad day, and decides to rate Player A negative, just because he can.
(using fuzzy math)
Player B's rating of 30 is divided by Player A's rating of 100 to get 0.3. Player A's rating now becomes 99.7
Player C decides to rate Player A, and because he is not yet rated, his rating has NO effect on Player A at all.
Player A meets Player D in a mission and likes him, so he rates him positive. Player D is then increased to a rating of 91.
If Player A decides to now rate player B negative, the same formula is used (this time 30 / 99.7 = 0.3) and BOTH player's ratings are reduced. So player A is now at 99.4 and player B at 29.7. (Basically, giving a negative rating to a player with a lower rating than you will reduce both ratings. This may reduce "gangbanging" a player's rating)
---
Basically, I am trying to define a system where players will rate each other either positive or negative. A positive rating will have a greater effect than a single negative rating. However, continuous negative ratings from other players will eventually show who the "bad apple" players are.
In every mission, the player ratings will be visible, so if a badly ranked player is trying to lead one, other players can elect not to join it before it takes off.
-
Let the troops choose their leader? History teaches that it doesn't work. Early years of America's War Between the States provide a good example.
Command should not be a popularity contest.
I'm watching with interest to see how command/control will be handled in AH2. But avoiding speculation on same.
Splash1
-
No to "leader"
and unlimited # of participants per mission will solve the squad reservation issues
SKurj
-
no one can make join mission where theres a guy you dont like, no one can make you follow a guy you dont like.
If the mission leader is being a d1ck you can rtb. The mission leader only got his rank by earning. If missions are set where they require a team effort then the mission leader isnt going to risk his rank by playing Patton.
Theres is a check in place to counter mission leaders who are d1cks.
The concern I have is 6 guys from my squad are in a mission with 1 nutbag who is looking to ruin our fun. Why should he ruin our fun?
If i am in a mission with the same nutbag as mission leader I'll withdraw and wait for the next one.
I am not talking about someone bossing folks around, no one will fly with a guy like that.
I am only thinking about the rare chance of some freak acting up and disrupting the rest of the guys in a mission.
A vote system like
"kick Batz"
y = yes
n = n
would work. If anyone in the mission could call it up.
But I dont like the idea for voting for "leaders".
an unlimited number of participants in the missions would lead to the same type of number in balance we see in the main.
Axis missions 8 guys
Allied mission 25
Those with numbers have an easier time earning rank. There needs to be a balance and hopefully mission numbers will be capped.
-
Never happen...
-
Simulating rank without simulating structure is pointless. The trouble is, it does not appear there is a really good way to impliment the structure.
I would have liked to see the avatars be squad based. Basically, you are a part of the squad and fly with it. I don't even really care that you should be able to pick the squad... just that it should be a squad.
It seems that the arena is going to be set up to autogenerate missions for whomever is there. That means there is little allowable rigidity as far as squadrons and rank goes.
I'll be very curious to see how HTC attacks this problem.
MiniD
-
Seems to me the structure will likely be "player implemented".
By that I mean that those of us who decide to follow rank and "chain of command" will do so without much prompting. The problem may be figuring out just who is the ranking player in the mission.....perhaps they could have thier id highlighted or something or have a CO, XO, etc added to the id for the mission.....something anyway.
Now I think the CO / XO/ Commander, should not really be given any "powers", but we would likely follow his "orders/suggestions" because it will help us to achieve the rank / mission completion and survival we will be looking for. Basically he would be an organizer, not a dictator.
Now those who have no wish to follow the CO will not last long anyway. I think that eventually it will be seen that the only way to progress in the game will be to follow before you can lead.
I kinda like the player ratings idea Midnight.
-
Originally posted by WldThing
I agree. I only follow and take orders from one person... And that is my CO ;)
That causes the quaking we have right now.
Not generally u but these behaviour.
What is so wrong with following the rules and commands of a person creating a mission. Often 1 person have better overview the 20 other heads.
-
Originally posted by Midnight
Maybe a system similar to the on-line auctions could be used.
Every player will have the ability to rate every other player. A player's rating ability will depend on how favorable that player's rating is.
Example:
Player A is rated as 100 on a scale of 1 to 100 (100 being the highest)
Player B is rated as 30
Player C is new.
Player D is rated as 90
Player B is having a bad day, and decides to rate Player A negative, just because he can.
(using fuzzy math)
Player B's rating of 30 is divided by Player A's rating of 100 to get 0.3. Player A's rating now becomes 99.7
Player C decides to rate Player A, and because he is not yet rated, his rating has NO effect on Player A at all.
Player A meets Player D in a mission and likes him, so he rates him positive. Player D is then increased to a rating of 91.
If Player A decides to now rate player B negative, the same formula is used (this time 30 / 99.7 = 0.3) and BOTH player's ratings are reduced. So player A is now at 99.4 and player B at 29.7. (Basically, giving a negative rating to a player with a lower rating than you will reduce both ratings. This may reduce "gangbanging" a player's rating)
---
Basically, I am trying to define a system where players will rate each other either positive or negative. A positive rating will have a greater effect than a single negative rating. However, continuous negative ratings from other players will eventually show who the "bad apple" players are.
In every mission, the player ratings will be visible, so if a badly ranked player is trying to lead one, other players can elect not to join it before it takes off.
We are all mature persons arent we ?
I think people who act like u described above will be all in the MA not in the new MT.
Because in here u cant come in click the next dweeb ride and HO everything u see.
U have to build up the abbility to fly and u loose what ever when u are not succesfull.
I dont think we will see the typical MA behaviour.
So i like Wotans idea.
-
"...The highest ranking people in this game are some of the most unstable. Period. ".
Bingo.
bowser
-
Maaaan. Got a bad feelin'....
.... involving Voss finally achieving his dream of becoming the virtual dictator of Ace's High (II). After all ... personality, leadership skills and community spirit can now be supplanted by points. Oh ... wait .... not yet. ;)
-
But if the Furher is being a potato peeler and you leave you lose points for not participating. or the mission failing.
Pyro is better at this stuff then us. If there is a way to chose to be the misison coordinator or leader. And then get awarded your points only by the surviving members of the mission. - and any non servivors are counted against you..then that would maby be cool...as a totaly sperarate rank thing.
Have Ace rank.
and Leader rank.
Totally seperate ranks.
-
I never said loose points. I only suggested that the person booted not recieve any mission points.
The example I gave is the guy hiding out of sight hoping to get the benefit of a successful mission with out doing any of the work.
I also said that by "ejecting" a guy from a mission that doesnt mean "kill" him. It just means he gets no points.
He can rtb and go jump in another mission.
-
So you think that people that dont like the look of a mission and leave it wont lose points in this new game?
-
Theres been a mention of "court martials" so I assume theres penalty for what ever constituted the "court martial"
However the only mention made about lost points has been toward deaths.
Dead people loose points. If I fly mission and its unsuccessfull but I survive there should be no penalty.
If I need to leave a mission earlier due rl there should be no penalty as long as I rtd.
So rtb = no penalty.
Unless you have read other wise?
A guy booted from a mission could just rtb. If he then becomes a real d1ck HTC can handle it.
-
There is a fine line to how regimented this can be and work commercially.
-
Will be an interesting mission dynamic. If you can just leave and land and abandon your countrymen. And get the points if they succeed. But lose none if they all die.
-
It would be as if you were never in the mission.
However there maybe guys who "hang back" and let everyone else take the risk hoping to gain the points without doing anything. Thats why we need a way to eject folks either by the highest ranking guy in the mission or vote.
If a guy leaves early and rtbs then when he lands and exits he gets nothing. If some tard flies off on his own or rtbs and sits on the runway waiting for the rest to complete the mission we should be able to "eject" him, making him inelligible for those points.
You only loose points for getting shot down. If not you will have folks only joining missions they know they can win. It would be a gangbang against AI. Mission Failure should not cause you to loose points. This should only happen if you get shot down. (or loose the airframe in any way).
-
Originally posted by Batz
A vote system like
"kick Batz"
y = yes
n = n
would work. If anyone in the mission could call it up.
From my limited time playing MPBT beta folk who messed up or were even not very good were often left in mission rooms sitting by them selves wondering why no one else joined the mission......
They were soon named and shamed in the BB's......
I do not like the ability to vote some one out of a mission........
You cannot trust the mob to use such powers properly.............
I still believe that AI will be needed to augment missions when the sides are missbalanced.............. AW fighter AI skills were perfectly adequate as fighter mission drones and even leaders. I am sure AH could at least equal that!
Its seems very reasonable that folk who leave the mission route could be court marshalled.......
Leaders could get std commands to use which register with the server
eg /.FAF is flight attack enemy Fighters or /.FAB for bombers etc etc (KUDOS AW)
Folk who recieve these and do not go within combat range get court marshalled. Presumably for cowardice;)
-
You could always leave friendly fire "on" :p .
-
Folk who recieve these and do not go within combat range get court marshalled. Presumably for cowardice
Who brings up the charges? If we are with out radar or gps and different icons this increases the odds that the mission may not come into contact with the enemy. What happens everyone gets court martialled? That shouldnt happen. The only people to make such a judgement are the guys in the mission.
The vote would only be used to eject someone from a mission already up. There should be no ability to prevent folks from joining any mission. They could only be ejected while in flight.
Again dont count on AI fighters, HT has only mentioned ai bombers and gvs.
-
If any player(s) have a game sanctioned ability to punish another you can count on it being abused and misused. I don't see why its needed anyway.
Mission leader status should go to the highest ranking player, but he should have no more actual authority than anyone else. So what if someone goes lone wolfing, he'll either miss the action entirely or engage the enemy by himself and die. If the flight mutinies then the leader can lone wolf, rtb, or just go along with it. The fact is you can't make anyone follow orders they don't like. They'll just fly with someone they agree with or go play AHC. Besides, there's not much problem with this in the scenarios we run already. AH2 should be attracting these mission oriented types anyway.
The only fair way to allocate points is for the server to do it. There's too much going on in a mission (at least there ought to be) for players to fairly determine who did what and how much. For air-to-air points could be based not only on kills but proximity to enemy planes and time, and compare that to the average for the flight. So if one guy never gets closer than 1k for 2 seconds while his flight in the thick of it he gets diddly for points. And this way even target drones like Pongo can get points.
I figure court martials can be used in place of kill shooter once a player has a significant number of points. At that stage it could be an even greater penalty than death.
A harmless rating system like Midnight said would probably be OK too.
-
Unlikley I would get points even with that generous system.
Back to the thread though.
Should the highest scoring pilot in a mission be able to eject anyone below him on the mission from the arena.
My vote is no.
What do the rest of you vote.
-
Players ejecting players? Neh. Award mission points with modifiers.
Say the mission succeeds. Everyone gets a base set of points depending on whatever "difficulty level" the mission was. In other words, the further flown, the harder the target, the higher the resistance, the more "base points". On top of that, players get their kill points, target points and rtb modifier (like now). Mission fails - no mission points.
As far as dead wood on missions go. There's bound to be a way the server can tell that someone isn't actively participating in a mission. Perhaps when they make it to within visual sight of the target the server gives a green flag. Ok ... now they're officially a "participant" in the mission. If they choose not to stick their necks out after going that far, well, what can ya do? Some people have no shame. Cluck at `em on the mission vox channel. ;)
-
A thought......and I am sure this argument is moot, but here it is.
On the mission set up there could be a flight (#1?) which is the "command" flight....limit of 2 (CO & XO) with the ability to bump out anyone of lower rank......if you wish (you could decide to let the lower ranked player have command this go).
Plus each flight could have a flight leader who would always appear at the top of the pilot list (highlited maybe?)
Now the CO / XO could help co-ordinate the mission and the FL's can help/ encourage/ direct the pilots in thier flight to the benefit of all ( heh...well it was a thought :D )
Likely this has all been figured out already, but I couldn't help blurting out my unsolicited opinion. And of course this will only work if the mission has multiple flights......anyone know what the format will be?
And no, I dont think the CO should be able to boot players.....part of the immersion is the fact that historically many pilots / commanders / sub-ordinates didn't see eye to eye or even like each other. Trust might have been there though, and might not be on a game where we have had no, or little, formal training.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Who brings up the charges? If we are with out radar or gps and different icons this increases the odds that the mission may not come into contact with the enemy. What happens everyone gets court martialled? That shouldnt happen. The only people to make such a judgement are the guys in the mission.
The vote would only be used to eject someone from a mission already up. There should be no ability to prevent folks from joining any mission. They could only be ejected while in flight.
Again dont count on AI fighters, HT has only mentioned ai bombers and gvs.
Well in the instance I put forward (and its only one of many)
The server would bring the charges for either a) not following the mission route or b) not engaging the enemy after having recieved a server routed order to do so from the ML.
If the mission plan/route was followed and no engage order given then no one is court marshalled (which is really the loss of an indecent amount of points and rank) except perhaps the mission leader.
If the route was followed, and enemy was sighted but not ordered to engaged then the ML may be penalised. (both mission routes would be set to converge)
(IN AW you would get a server notice when enemy came within icon range..............eg Server: "190's high")
Differring missions may set differing criteria for the mission leader.
CAP...........follow route and engage enemy.
ESCORT.......... follow bombers and engage enemy
ATTACK.......... follow route hit ground target
and others
the ML has a range of commands which could be dot commands or brought up via the clip board
/.fl launch
/.fee engage enemy
/.frr return to route
/.feb escort bombers
/.frtb rtb
There could be others........... the ML is awarded points for individual stuff but also on how well he issues the orders (this could be a time and distance thing............eg an escort mission ordered to leave its bombers to engage enemy could penalise the ML if they flew too far from the bombers before a /.feb was issued)
The core aspect of the above is that ML's are enabled either thru AI or via promotion into every mission and their orders set additional mission parameters.
The AI ML enables folk to learn the stuff that they may one day use as they get the points and rank to be one them selves.
AI drones would be required to always ensure folk get missions.
I noted in MPBT that the two most annoyiong things were.
1) the time lost hanging around trying to get into missions that were equally balanced.......whilst other small groups logged in and out of various mission rooms......... 30 secs before a mission is due to roll the opposing mission room empties and the mission is cancelled............
2) imbalance.............if a mission flight has upto eg 10 then there may well be an instance when only 1 or 2 actually go to the mission room...........then you get a escort of 2 v a CAP of 10 this is no fun for the 2......... and no fun for the 10 if the 2 leave their mission room prior to mission launch.
AI fills in the gaps to over come both the above.
I think I am just agin the vote out thing at a fundemental level............and hence do not consider its methodology able to make it acceptable...........you cannot/should not IMO give the power of mission ejection to the mob. It will be abused and cannot be monitored properly.
-
the vote would be
Highest ranking guy in mission
.eject tard
msg pops up to the rest in the mission
Eject tard?
yes = y
no = n
If that means that once in a while I may get ejected by a guy who doesnt like me, so what. Its still better then putting up with a "real" tard for 40 min.
The vote could need 2/3 majority.
Abuse? not likely given the nature of the missions. A mission leader who thinks he is Patton and goes off ejecting everyone who doesnt click their heels at him isnt going to get any help. With out help he wont advance in rank. This is what "checks" his behavior. No one will fly with him.
All the rest is just getting 2 complicated. All we need are a mission "objectives" and some sort of "waypoints" (either on the map or a .vector command; ie .vnext, .venemy, .vhome....).
AI fighters and a bunch of hoopty box game commands while "neat" arent necessary. GVs and Bombers will be augmented by AI. Thats enough. If no one flies in AH2:ToD then having an arena where theres a few guys killing ai then it will be a failure. Besides there are better box games out there that wont cost you a monthly fee.
Anyway we will see...........