Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

New Wings Servers


  • Please log in to reply
1486 replies to this topic

#121 J2_Jakob

J2_Jakob
  • Posts: 442
  • LocationPrague, Czech Republic

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:50

I bought the Channel map some time ago just to realize, that my HW can't run it on playable level. :( Don't know if the reason is the amount of water, but I'm only getting around 10FPS on this map. Must wait with Channel until I buy new HW. Hopefully this year.
  • 0

#122 ChiefRedCloud

ChiefRedCloud
  • Posts: 2850
  • LocationWaleska, Georgia, USA

Posted 28 May 2014 - 12:07

Jacob if I remember correctly the Channel map does have some issues. But with that said, it is a beautiful map if you can run it.
  • 0

G5fCmYF.png

NEW WINGS VIRTUAL FLIGHT TRAINING

"Hardcore Through Passion"


#123 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 29 May 2014 - 19:47

Have the Wargrounds stats been turned off?
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#124 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 29 May 2014 - 20:32

Have the Wargrounds stats been turned off?

Not as far as I know.


Regards,
4



Update> Hmmm… I'm not seeing any missions from the past 24 hrs – I'll have to look
into this when I get home – It could be that QuQi is working on something involving stats.
  • 0

#125 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 29 May 2014 - 22:24

Update #2

Looks like the parser application needed to be re-started.

Everything should be up to date now – thanks for bringing it to our attention, BSR.


Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#126 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 01 June 2014 - 05:30

Special Announcement!!!

Coming to a New Wings server near you, IT'S …

<cue Monty Python theme music>

New Wings -Fast and Furious- PvP Server!

By request, we've created a new, fast paced, icons, guages, and views enabled PvP server.

This server replaces our Novice Battlegrounds server and fills in the gap between
Basic Training and Wargrounds.

You can view the details here.


Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#127 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 17 June 2014 - 19:52

Attack on Felixstowe mission is consistently emptying your server.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#128 Gump

Gump
  • Posts: 169

Posted 17 June 2014 - 21:18

Attack on Felixstowe mission is consistently emptying your server.

i've noticed this too.
.
i wonder if we can discuss why this is so, and maybe find a way to make it work? it's so different than other maps - i think that variety would be good if it worked.
  • 0

#129 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 17 June 2014 - 22:28

Attack on Felixstowe mission is consistently emptying your server.

i've noticed this too.
.
i wonder if we can discuss why this is so, and maybe find a way to make it work? it's so different than other maps - i think that variety would be good if it worked.

Sadly, both Channel Map missions get the lowest amount of flight hours on the Wargrounds
server currently.

Certainly, a couple factors are that A> Many people still don't have it, and B> That map
puts much more strain on people's PC's and causes lower framerates for many.

With regard to Point A, we've gifted several Channel Maps over the past couple months,
hoping it would get more folks flying.

I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done about point B.

I can definitely say we'd love to have at least one Channel Map mission in our Wargrounds
rotation, but unfortunately, the two things we're getting zero of right now is helpful
feedback, or mission suggestions.

People simply don't fly the map. The only feedback I see in the chat logs proceeding
those maps are along the lines of "I hate that map - gn"…


So, if folks DO have some helpful suggestions or mission ideas, by all means, PLEASE
post them, either here or in our New Wings forum.



Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#130 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 17 June 2014 - 22:48

The Channel mission is ok, but everyone does not own the map, so there are often fewer people. The Felixstowe mission completely empties the server. I don't have any suggestions to improve it because I think the entire concept is terrible.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#131 Gump

Gump
  • Posts: 169

Posted 17 June 2014 - 23:01

well, fewer people need a smaller map. the large sea and slow planes is not conducive to few players. maybe add some more popular planes?
  • 0

#132 O_Rod

O_Rod
  • Posts: 1136
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 18 June 2014 - 10:37

I notice there are a lot of missions in Wargrounds, am I right in assuming they are all 3 hours duration?
It may be worth considering reducing the times in mission to 2:30 or even 2:45, this would stagger them against a 24 hour clock thereby ensuring the missions do not run consistently at the same time. I know when I manage to get on I am generally faced with the same 3 missions.
Just an idea guys.
On the whole you blokes do a wonderful job.
  • 0

Vitae elit Brevior


#133 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 18 June 2014 - 20:35

I notice there are a lot of missions in Wargrounds, am I right in assuming they are all 3 hours duration?
It may be worth considering reducing the times in mission to 2:30 or even 2:45, this would stagger them against a 24 hour clock thereby ensuring the missions do not run consistently at the same time. I know when I manage to get on I am generally faced with the same 3 missions.
Just an idea guys.
On the whole you blokes do a wonderful job.
Thanks O_Rod.

The WG missions (iirc) are all 2 hours apiece and there's 9 of them (the two Channel Map
missions alternate), so they definitely do not appear at the same time on any given day.

Consequently, each mission gets some time in primetime for both Europe and USA at varying
times throughout the week as the rotation progresses.

When I study the Flight Times for each mission they're all pretty close (in terms of avg flight
hours per mission appearance) over the course of a month, except for the two missions
involving the Channel Map.

There's a pretty large dropoff there.

While there are some valid reasons for that, I'd like to think that enough folks have
the map that a "popular" mission scenario for it would elevate the flight times on it to
be closer to our other missions.

To that end, I'd really like to get some suggestions and ideas about what kind of mission
scenario folks would *like* to have for that map. Clearly the two missions we do have
are not popular enough to appeal to the dozens of folks that DO have that map.

We'd certainly like to change that for at least one mission in our rotation.


Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#134 O_Rod

O_Rod
  • Posts: 1136
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 18 June 2014 - 20:51

Thanks for the detailed idea of how they run Fourspeed, I guess I just seem to end up in the same scenario's all the time, no matter, it's all good for me, I can be shot down just as successfully in Bruay as Verdun:)
I do have a question about the Reims map. There are no Entente turn fighters? I'm sure this is done with some research and historical accuracy? I love my SE5a but sometimes I like to get in and mix it up with the enemy, but in the SPAD and SE5a I can only boom and zoom.
I'm not complaining, just wondering. The result is always the same anyway, 'O_Rod shot down'
I have perfected the long glide :lol:

Anyway, I am in awe of the talented mission makers at NW, I dabbled once and gave up as a lost cause. You blokes rock :S!:
  • 0

Vitae elit Brevior


#135 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 18 June 2014 - 21:45

In my opinion, the Felixstowe mission has some drawbacks in relation to other missions.

A) It sounds like a co-op mission, which is a sort of reenactment. Not really suited for a good to go server, in my opinion. Even Syndicate does not have such co-op objectives, so it seems. I don't recall ever playing a co-op mission at Syndicate in normal hours. When I first played the Felixstowe mission, I wondered how far the recon mission was, which is the key factor of the mission, and how could I participate. Then I just flew around a bit, found no action and left the mission.

B) It has air start on land (for the Pup, if am not mistaken). This is a major spoil for me. I just don't use air starts and it seems to be the pattern with the community. It ruins the atmosphere. The Ghota missions at Syndicate have air starts, but I think it is only for the Ghotas and it make more sense.

C) It has the Pup and the Albatros as main planes, if I recall correctly. I know it is for the sake of history, but this is perhaps the worst FM match we have in the game. The Pup is faster, when it should be visibly slower than the Albatros, and performs like a mini Camel. The Albatros have only the fire power in his favor. To fly an Albatros you need to be willing to act as shark bait for the sake of history that is not even correct, since the FM is oddly off by a mile. I gave up on such missions and I think many people too. For example, the Pup was withdrawn from the Reims mission once and it came back only because the Pfalz wasn't removed. I think they should have removed the Pup, the Pfalz (that was instated to balance the Pup) and the DVII, which are both later planes. It would make more sense.

But I like the Channel map. In the beginning I thought it was too big, but I grew fond of it. The numbers are OK too. I see a drop in the numbers, but many times I saw a good number there. Now, during summer time, I don't know how it is doing, but I noticed that the Felixstowe mission simply empties the server.

About the map, people complain most about how it is heavy on the system and that it is a bit too big, but over the last year people were kind of populating the mission on a regular basis. Just not on the same level of the others.

My suggestion is to create a mission like the others, when you can just jump in, see the targets, the objectives and get to work, even as a lone wolf. Not many times I see one of the sides committed to reach the objectives. Sometimes people just want to take off and play it by ear. Maybe co-op missions should be vintage ones, in specific dates or events.

The other thing is, always (often* - edited) when we hear people saying "that was epic!", it is related to bombing / recon runs. A number of bombers with escorts meeting the opposition. The Bruay mission is popular because of that, I think. Maybe orient it for bombing, recon runs? Like the "Bombing Ghotas"?

Another suggestion regards the Sopwith Triplane, perhaps the most neglected plane on the servers. It has a fair FM, a good overall plane, but always pitted against Dr1s and Pfalzes. I think the Tripe was common on the channel, no? The RNAS? I am not saying to create a mission oriented towards the Tripe, since it would became another co-op, but a set of planes with the Albatroses, Halbs, Tripes, Nieuports and such, with no Pups, Pfalzes and uber planes. More or less what the Reims mission should looks like. It would be fun to pitch these planes together and I consider it very balanced.

Either way, I think such a mission would be fun, being it on the Channel or not.

Well, my two cents.
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#136 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 18 June 2014 - 22:53

@O_Rod: All of the current Wargrounds missions were made before I joined the NW crew,
so I don't have any insight into the considerations that led to their creation.

Additionally, I don't fly there as much as I probably should (I tend to focus more on Basic
Training, TNFI, and lately, trying to get the new Fast and Furious server up to speed), so
I'm not as familiar with those missions as I'd like … yet).

That said, I am definitely open to considering constructive feedback on any of the missions and
if there are specific changes that seem sensible, doable and are well thought out, particularly
in terms of balance, I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to incorporate them.

Those are exactly the kinds of commentary we're looking for when trying to provide missions
that our small MP community would actually enjoy and fly.

As for Reims, we have two Reims missions, so I'm not sure which (or both) your idea was
meant for, but I can certainly look into it a bit and discuss it with the -NW- guys who
fly WG regularly. As long as balance is considered, adding planes is usually a good thing
as it allows more choices for players (the downside is it can sometimes ding performance).


@SeaW0lf: Thanks for your commentary - I wish we had more of this kind of dialogue.

You raise too many points to answer them all individually, but I think many of them are quite
valid for the Felixstowe map. I know, when -NW-FritzFlipitz originally created it, it was intended
for a different venue than Wargrounds, and I think we're finding that some of those ideas, while
great for a multi-mission campaign scenario (like a Bloody April or FEOW), aren't working so well
in the WG format - that's very unfortunate, because I know how much time and effort he put
into that mission… :cry:

I like some of the suggestions you've posted for other scenarios, and I'll definitely keep some
of those ideas in the cooking pot as we try to figure out what to do with the Channel Map.

Thanks for posting this - it's helpful and appreciated.

As for numbers on the Summer Channel Map, they're about 1/2 of what the next, least played,
mission is, so it's a distinct and sizeable gap, unfortunately. The Felixstowe map isn't getting
played at all, so, for the short term, the -NW- debate is whether to just pull them both out of
the rotation entirely, until we can put something better in, or just leave them be. That's still
being mulled over at the moment…



Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#137 Gump

Gump
  • Posts: 169

Posted 18 June 2014 - 23:02

i would like to say that the felixstowe mission is the only one with such a quantity of shipping targets. way more than any other map. i think this could work in its favor.
.
this shifts the mission to be shipping centric, which requires bombers. bombers need protection/escorts, usually, and ships are not easy targets to hit with bombers since the are narrow and moving/dynamic. the few times (1 or 2) i've seen any action, other than AI, in this map it occurred on shore - at the port or airfield. this is what people are accustomed to in the other maps (land targets). and these land targets are close and easy to find.
…again, i've found the planes in this map (entente)(pup and fe2) to be EXTREMELY slow - especially at sea. i don't know why seawolf calls the pup fast? the fe2 is agonizingly slow and the pup, besides being slow, has a peashooter that won't do anything to a ship - though it will 'scare' the subs into submerging. the mission "to escort the convoy to harbor" can be accomplished in a pup by just flying around keeping the subs from surfacing (no bomber necessary). but it's boring if there are no enemies (albatros's) to harass the pup. now, if there IS an albatros, and either one gets shot down, it takes a while to get back especially for the pup. and this sounds like the popular dogfight mission with another objective, but the time-to-merge is a deterrent.
.
i don't know what the german objectives are, but i suspect the main one being to bomb felixstowe? others may be to destroy the entente convoy? and protect the german naval fleet? maybe destroy an airfield? anyways, that would make the main objective for the entente to protect felixstowe (here i go off on an assumption). but the first message the entente pilot sees is "our convoy south of felixstowe is under attack and needs assistance" oslt. now, if you are unfamiliar with the map, you immedialety find a group of friendly ships off the coast south of felixstowe - with nothing around them. you fly a little further out to sea and still nothing else in sight. you think "what! they aren't under attack at all" after spending a few minutes circling around a peering off in every conceivable direction with zoom in, zoom out. then you go and try to find other action… heh. sometimes there is action at felixstowe (AI?), but even that is hard to spot!
…. mesaage about the convoy under attack is confusing because it says "south of felixstowe", when the convoy is practically more east of felixstowe - the attacking subs tend to be even more directly east. AND THEY ARE WAY OUT AT SEA! in other words, it's gonna take a while to get there, find your target and effect any objective. you are going to be committed to that - forget any mission back at the coast. so prtecting felixstowe from gothas is gonna fall on other shoulders.
.
so what, really, are the fe2 bombers for? german light cruisers with aa? better corss your fingers. albatros at-sea launch? is that an objective? they can destroy the subs (i've done that), but i think the subs may respawn later? anyways, they may save the pups from having to spend all day forcing the subs under. but they take all day to get there! (sarcasm) getting shot down after spending that much time to arrive at destination is tiresome, and really makes you reconsider going at it again. i have been too afraind to go after a pair of german light cruisers with a single fe2, so i don't know how that would turn out, but they are closer to shore (not as long a trip).
.
i know it has been questioned, in the past, about where to land a german plane. i'm assuming this has been resolved by now. i suppose those concerned with stats don't want suicide missions. (sissies).
.
anyways, nothing conlcusive from me. i usually try to adapt, and there just aint enough action to see how this map would work if it was alive.
  • 0

#138 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 18 June 2014 - 23:23

Thanks for posting this - it's helpful and appreciated.

Anytime :S!:

i don't know why seawolf calls the pup fast?

In relation to the Albatros DIII/DVa, which should be significantly faster, which makes one wonder that the Albatros needs a good speed bump and the Pup needs to be toned down.
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#139 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 18 June 2014 - 23:27

that's very unfortunate, because I know how much time and effort he put
into that mission… :cry:

Oh, boy, I can imagine. All the people from all servers in ROF deserves a medal for the work they put into it :S!:
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#140 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 18 June 2014 - 23:45

Thanks for posting this - it's helpful and appreciated.

Anytime :S!:

i don't know why seawolf calls the pup fast?

In relation to the Albatros DIII/DVa, which should be significantly faster, which makes one wonder that the Albatros needs a good speed bump and the Pup needs to be toned down.
Just one source,and there is many more that will confirm the pup was faster than the D III.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww1-aircraft-ranked-by-speed.asp
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#141 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:03

Thanks for posting this - it's helpful and appreciated.

Anytime :S!:

i don't know why seawolf calls the pup fast?

In relation to the Albatros DIII/DVa, which should be significantly faster, which makes one wonder that the Albatros needs a good speed bump and the Pup needs to be toned down.
Just one source,and there is many more that will confirm the pup was faster than the D III.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww1-aircraft-ranked-by-speed.asp

Honestly, HillBilly, nowadays I consider these websites alike Wikipedia - a Wonderland for all kinds of inaccuracy. You just have to have some good sense to separate the wheat from the chaff.

A good balance in between anecdotal data from historic sources is at hand, especially from the German side, which seems to have little documentation due to the bombings in WWII.

Gould Lee is not the only one, but he alone would need to be on heavy doses of Valium to say the things he wrote out of his imagination. From a technical standpoint, he describes the planes and the encounters almost from the viewpoint of a test pilot for the layman. Alike him I only know the book of McCudden, who seems to have been the "car tuning" guy of the WWI.

I bet all my money on these guys anytime, without blinking. Or do you think McCudden tuned his engine to meet an imaginary recon plane that was faster and flew higher than any Entente plane? That kind of refute makes no sense; the same with Gould Lee and the others.

Like I said, a bit of good sense would do a lot of good to the game. But this is just me; don't take me to the letter.

Cheers,
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#142 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 19 June 2014 - 01:10

I am reading Cecil Lewis and he also mentions that every pilot would tune his own machine to his liking. People should pay more attention to what these pilots said and not only consider them inappropriate to evaluate his own machine and foe. You can give some leeway due to perception inaccuracy, but some aspects of the game are clear. Again, just good sense.

Again, this is just me. I just hope they release a ROF2 until 2020 with the clear fixes the game needs and some improvements. I would buy it in a blink.
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#143 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 22 June 2014 - 19:44

FYI - Some adjustments were made:

Fast and Furious

Dawn of Destruction: Changed Spad VII to the 150 hp version instead of the 180 hp version.
Added the Sopwith Triplane.

Fragger's Fields: Changed Spad VII to the 150 hp version instead of the 180 hp version.
Added the Albatros DII.


Tuesday Night Fly-In

Fixed the Central ammunition factory that was trying to pawn itself off as French.


Wargrounds

After looking at the participation numbers and having some internal discussion, it's been decided
to remove the two missions involving the Channel Map (Summer Channel, and Attack on Felixstowe)
due to lack of player interest.

Rest assured, we're not *done* with the Channel Map, but for now, until we can come up with
a more popular mission for it, we'll just stick to the Western Front missions.


Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#144 Gump

Gump
  • Posts: 169

Posted 23 June 2014 - 18:25

i was wondering…. sometimes i look to play on various servers and there isn't any activity there, so i steer away…. the channel map missions were one i tried to do by myself (far as i could tell), but the missions don't come alive without enough players, so i started to think….. THEN…
..
i just noticed syndicate has the new "active front" missions and incorporate the idea to some extent… why not have AI fill the gap for lack of players? i know folks play these MP servers to play other humans (not AI) but sometimes the other humans aren't there (or very few of them) when a player has the time/desire to play the map. AI might not be the goal, but it sure beats empty sky.
…. also, it's kinda neat to be able to 'hide' among AI.
.
if the channel map(s) (or any aother map/mission) was active with AI, allowing for real people to take those planes/positions when joining the server, it would mean the mission would ALWAYS be on! and you might not be able to single out the real players vs AI - especially helpful for newer pilots needing to escape von richtofens, and causes you to consider all planes as potentially lethal/human.
.
in other words, it's an AI mission if no-one's logged on, a "single player" mission when only a single player is there, and various degrees of "multiplayer" when more people log on.
.
.
i would even enjoy this in the quick dogfight (fast & furious) missions. 2 or 3 players in those missions (other similar servers, too ie AF) makes for a boring time. and it happens. once that critical mass of players isn't there, the rest of the players leave and the air is empty - too hard to stay and do anything even if you want to.
  • 0

#145 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 23 June 2014 - 18:32

Many of us feel that Wargrounds missions already have too many AI in them.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#146 Gump

Gump
  • Posts: 169

Posted 23 June 2014 - 18:41

Many of us feel that Wargrounds missions already have too many AI in them.
.
yeah, but only when im there :lol:
.
anyways, BSR, you always say things that i find myself being pulled into … ok, you got me again…
.
why? would the AI in wargrounds be bothersome? when i've played, there didn't seem to be hardly any…

anyways, wargrounds USUALLY has a decent crowd playing. but there are times when it doesn't - like the channel maps and/or certain times. and maybe this suggestion wouldn't work everywhere?
  • 0

#147 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 23 June 2014 - 18:43

i was wondering…. sometimes i look to play on various servers and there isn't any activity there, so i steer away…. the channel map missions were one i tried to do by myself (far as i could tell), but the missions don't come alive without enough players, so i started to think….. THEN…
..
i just noticed syndicate has the new "active front" missions and incorporate the idea to some extent… why not have AI fill the gap for lack of players? i know folks play these MP servers to play other humans (not AI) but sometimes the other humans aren't there (or very few of them) when a player has the time/desire to play the map. AI might not be the goal, but it sure beats empty sky.
…. also, it's kinda neat to be able to 'hide' among AI.
.
if the channel map(s) (or any aother map/mission) was active with AI, allowing for real people to take those planes/positions when joining the server, it would mean the mission would ALWAYS be on! and you might not be able to single out the real players vs AI - especially helpful for newer pilots needing to escape von richtofens, and causes you to consider all planes as potentially lethal/human.
.
in other words, it's an AI mission if no-one's logged on, a "single player" mission when only a single player is there, and various degrees of "multiplayer" when more people log on.
.
.
i would even enjoy this in the quick dogfight (fast & furious) missions. 2 or 3 players in those missions (other similar servers, too ie AF) makes for a boring time. and it happens. once that critical mass of players isn't there, the rest of the players leave and the air is empty - too hard to stay and do anything even if you want to.

If you *design* missions that way (most aren't), some of that could be do-able. I'm kinda looking
forward to seeing Vander's missions for that reason.

On FnF missions, there *is* a (minimal) AI presence to give the loner pilot something to do
if nobody else is there. They're not in the thick of things, but they're not too far away.

That said, you've mentioned the key points covering why it isn't done typically.

1> It's a fair bit more involved in the mission design stage, especially if you're trying
to key it to whether players are in or not – given how much a pita the Mission Editor
is for even simple things, that's a big drawback. Additionally, it's a bit of a balancing
act from a performance standpoint as well – too much going on in any area can lag things
significantly.

2> A number of players *really* don't like the AI, :-) particularly in MP servers, and doubly
so where stats are involved. The ones that truly don't mind the AI are often playing Pat Wilson's
excellent campaign generator and don't bother with MP at all…


In theory, I'm not adverse to those ideas at all, but in practice, how achievable they are,
and at what level of effort it would take, remain open questions (for me, at least).

It's definitely a good thought though and worth considering.

Oh, and I meant to add, you can't really hide among the AI effectively, except in expert
servers where views and icons are off - otherwise, Ctrl-F2 will spot you in short order. :o


Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#148 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 23 June 2014 - 18:46

It's bothersome because the entire point of flying MP is flying against human pilots. I'd be very much in favor of getting rid of the AI in Wargrounds completely. If there are no other humans you can fly the recon mission or bomb some targets until people arrive.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#149 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2410
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 24 June 2014 - 05:42

2> A number of players *really* don't like the AI, :-) particularly in MP servers, and doubly so where stats are involved…

Perhaps my only gripe with the AI at Wargrounds is that they circle the target for a very long time, basically sitting ducks. It is not very realistic and I think it affects the balloon warnings. For me, I just go after the AI to stop triggering the warnings and muffling a BZ plane that might be overhead. Then it becomes a nuisance.

If they came, dropped their bombs to damage targets and went away like any normal pilot would do, I would not mind at all. They would have a purpose and to shoot them down would also have a purpose.

I just don't see much point in AI scouts, since they pretty much do nothing. When there is AI mixed with real enemies, they just get in the way. And they make you waste ammo. Maybe scouts for bombers or recons, I am not sure. I just don't see much reason for them in MP other than target practice for newbie's.

Other than that, I don't mind. I like the bombers. The more the merrier :D

Cheers :S!:
  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#150 Surfimp

Surfimp
  • Posts: 1035
  • LocationSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Posted 26 June 2014 - 17:10

Hi all, been flying with many/most of you over the past few weeks as I've gotten back into RoF. The New Wings servers are my absolute go-tos, as I live in California and usually get a pretty reasonable ping.

I've put a pretty good amount of time into all the servers, with New Fliers And Friends Server II being my go-to as it's usually got the most traffic when I'm available to fly (evenings Pacific time).

I'd characterize myself as a low-intermediate level flyer, so take my feedback for what it's worth. I do appreciate all that you do and have enjoyed my interactions with all of you. Thanks!!

Fast & Furious:
  • Love the diversity of maps on this server, but feel like the missions could be a little longer… it feels like just when everyone is getting into the groove, the map ends. Maybe consider trying 45 minutes?
  • LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the "Freebie Fracas" map. It's nice to be able to fly a SPAD XIII without having to face a sky full of Dr.1s and D.VIIFs Every.Single.Time.
  • Please consider turning off auto-mixture and auto-radiator defaults on this server. They aren't defaulted to "on" for the New Flyers & Friends servers, not sure why they would be here. It's a small hassle to have to turn them off before every flight and seems out-of-place on a more advanced-level server like this.
  • Honestly extremely bummed about the nerf of the SPAD VII to limit it to the 150hp version on those two maps. Hope you reconsider that, it's hard enough to learn to fly a SPAD well, nerfing it further just seems to tilt the tables against me and other SPAD pilots even more. We don't all want to fly turn-and-burn style, and the 180hp still has huge disadvantages if not flown properly & perfectly against the high level of competition on this server.

Tuesday Night Fly-In:
  • Spent the least time on this one. It's fun but I think it would be better if I was participating on Teamspeak and/or part of a squadron that was flying it together, like to practice formation flying or whatever. As I'm not on Teamspeak nor part of a squadron, it's sort of an aimless experience for me; I'd rather just practice my gunnery on the AI targets in New Fliers & Friends, for example.

New Fliers & Friends:
  • I've spent by far the most time on this map and almost always really enjoy it. There's usually at least 6-8 players on when I'm playing (evening PST) and it's great "AirQuake"-style fun.
  • I love that all planes are available. This means I mostly end up flying my beloved SPAD VII 180hp and SPAD XIII against the Dr.1, Pfalz and DVIIF, but if I feel like it I can fly anything I want, and that's a good time. I often get on my with 9 year old son as tailgunner and we have a great time flying the F2B, Roland, HP, Gotha, etc.
  • It would be nice if there were a few more maps in this rotation. I love flying over Verdun as much as the next person but it gets a little "been there, done that" after a while.

Wargrounds:
  • This server mostly sucks for me, probably because I'm: A) not familiar with the maps or objectives; B) not using Teamspeak and flying with a squadron; C) not as accustomed to spotting planes with icons off. When I try to fly at "realistic" altitudes I end up getting stalked by groundhuggers, when I fly lower I inevitably get bounced by those above, who appear to be flying in coordinated groups (most likely via TS). Overall the experience really hasn't been very much fun at all. I'm in the catch 22 of not having enough experience to have fun and not wanting to spend the time getting the experience because it isn't fun doing so.

Anyways just trying to provide some (hopefully) constructive feedback. I do appreciate the existence of these servers and the vast majority of pilots who fly on them. Thanks!

Steve the SPAD driver aka 'surfimp'
  • 0

Founding Member, SPADaholics Anonymous


#151 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3874
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 26 June 2014 - 17:39

Surf, Auto mix and rad can be turned off via shift+r & shift+m.

Also NFF isn't part of NW :S!:
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

tahhfk.jpg


#152 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 26 June 2014 - 18:16

Hi all, been flying with many/most of you over the past few weeks as I've gotten back into RoF. The New Wings servers are my absolute go-tos, as I live in California and usually get a pretty reasonable ping.

I've put a pretty good amount of time into all the servers, with New Fliers And Friends Server II being my go-to as it's usually got the most traffic when I'm available to fly (evenings Pacific time).

I'd characterize myself as a low-intermediate level flyer, so take my feedback for what it's worth. I do appreciate all that you do and have enjoyed my interactions with all of you. Thanks!!

Fast & Furious:
  • Love the diversity of maps on this server, but feel like the missions could be a little longer… it feels like just when everyone is getting into the groove, the map ends. Maybe consider trying 45 minutes?

  • LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the "Freebie Fracas" map. It's nice to be able to fly a SPAD XIII without having to face a sky full of Dr.1s and D.VIIFs Every.Single.Time.

  • Please consider turning off auto-mixture and auto-radiator defaults on this server. They aren't defaulted to "on" for the New Flyers & Friends servers, not sure why they would be here. It's a small hassle to have to turn them off before every flight and seems out-of-place on a more advanced-level server like this.

  • Honestly extremely bummed about the nerf of the SPAD VII to limit it to the 150hp version on those two maps. Hope you reconsider that, it's hard enough to learn to fly a SPAD well, nerfing it further just seems to tilt the tables against me and other SPAD pilots even more. We don't all want to fly turn-and-burn style, and the 180hp still has huge disadvantages if not flown properly & perfectly against the high level of competition on this server.

Tuesday Night Fly-In:
  • Spent the least time on this one. It's fun but I think it would be better if I was participating on Teamspeak and/or part of a squadron that was flying it together, like to practice formation flying or whatever. As I'm not on Teamspeak nor part of a squadron, it's sort of an aimless experience for me; I'd rather just practice my gunnery on the AI targets in New Fliers & Friends, for example.

New Fliers & Friends:
  • I've spent by far the most time on this map and almost always really enjoy it. There's usually at least 6-8 players on when I'm playing (evening PST) and it's great "AirQuake"-style fun.

  • I love that all planes are available. This means I mostly end up flying my beloved SPAD VII 180hp and SPAD XIII against the Dr.1, Pfalz and DVIIF, but if I feel like it I can fly anything I want, and that's a good time. I often get on my with 9 year old son as tailgunner and we have a great time flying the F2B, Roland, HP, Gotha, etc.

  • It would be nice if there were a few more maps in this rotation. I love flying over Verdun as much as the next person but it gets a little "been there, done that" after a while.

Wargrounds:
  • This server mostly sucks for me, probably because I'm: A) not familiar with the maps or objectives; B) not using Teamspeak and flying with a squadron; C) not as accustomed to spotting planes with icons off. When I try to fly at "realistic" altitudes I end up getting stalked by groundhuggers, when I fly lower I inevitably get bounced by those above, who appear to be flying in coordinated groups (most likely via TS). Overall the experience really hasn't been very much fun at all. I'm in the catch 22 of not having enough experience to have fun and not wanting to spend the time getting the experience because it isn't fun doing so.

Anyways just trying to provide some (hopefully) constructive feedback. I do appreciate the existence of these servers and the vast majority of pilots who fly on them. Thanks!

Steve the SPAD driver aka 'surfimp'

Hi surfimp,

Thanks for the feedback. I need to make a couple of points of clarification.

First, New Fliers and Friends is *not* affiliated with New Wings at all. They are their
own group, doing their own thing. It's an unfortunate similarity of name choice on their
part that contributes to the confusion.

With regard to auto-mix and auto-radiator those are very easily switched off with Shift M
and Shift R respectively. I switch them off as part of my pre-flight checklist.

Because Basic Training, and Fast and Furious, are geared more to new folks, they're on by
default to allow those guys to focus initially on just flying their airplanes. I'd expect
more experienced pilots would simply switch them to manual control at engine start time -
it's only a couple key presses.

I hear you on Wargrounds - it's an intentionally challenging enviroment, and I generally
recommend folks to not be in a hurry to get in there until they feel ready. That said,
I see Day-1 guys in there all the time. You can easily recognize them because they're the
guys asking "How do I start my engine?" :D

OTOH, because it is icon-less, with fairly large maps, it is also quite possible to fly in
there in "stealth-mode" if you will, and not encounter anyone if you stay off the well
worn paths to the various target objectives. Not a bad way to learn the geography…

I'm glad you're enjoying Fast and Furious. We have heard some feedback about mission duration.
We knew going in that it was going to feel a bit weird to have them be short - the idea was
to approximate a World of Tanks approach where the missions are 15-20 minutes long (all FnF
missions are currently 30 mins). It's an item that we'll keep an eye on for a bit - the server
is still pretty new.

Finally, the Spad change wasn't a nerf - it was a correction. If you look at the original
announcement, it was supposed to be the 150hp from the get-go. My Bad. The issue occurred
because of the names used in the Mission Editor. They didn't use a consistent approach,
so I inadvertantly put the wrong one in thinking it was the 150hp.

Those maps are supposed to be early war, so the 150 is what should be in there.

Hope that clarifies things a little bit.

Once again, thanks for your feedback, it's much appreciated. As we get more commentary
and opinion on the various missions, we'll certainly look at what changes may be warranted.


Regards,
4 :S!:


PS> I *like* the Freebie Fracas mission also. It's an interesting study. On one hand,
good Spad pilots should dominate in there, but on the other hand, bad Spad pilots will
get eaten alive. Since the Albie is so easy to fly, it's really the skill of the Spad flyers
that will generally dictate the outcome.
  • 0

#153 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 26 June 2014 - 19:15

First, New Fliers and Friends is *not* affiliated with New Wings at all. They are their
own group, doing their own thing. It's an unfortunate similarity of name choice on their
part that contributes to the confusion.
Why is this unfortunate?
One of the core founders of NW left NW and founded New Fliers and Friends and this not unfortunate at all.
  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#154 Surfimp

Surfimp
  • Posts: 1035
  • LocationSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Posted 26 June 2014 - 20:47

Sorry for confusing the NFF and NW servers, did not realize it wasn't all the same thing.

It seems like F&F could reasonably be positioned as an "intermediate" level server, i.e. full realism except for icons & subtitles, which is essentially what it is once you disable automix & autoradiator.

Both are things which you *have* to do if you want to have a level playing field with the majority of pilots on the server, who are quite experienced on the balance.

And if the majority are experienced, wouldn't it logically follow that having automix & autoradiator turned off by default be the wiser choice… ? Just a suggestion.
  • 0

Founding Member, SPADaholics Anonymous


#155 ChiefRedCloud

ChiefRedCloud
  • Posts: 2850
  • LocationWaleska, Georgia, USA

Posted 26 June 2014 - 21:21

I dare say that a NEW pilot could find worth in flying any server that can help them. No matter the name of the server. As server operators, we provide the servers, any help we can and the pilot chooses where he or she will fly. I see no problems here.

Chief
  • 0

G5fCmYF.png

NEW WINGS VIRTUAL FLIGHT TRAINING

"Hardcore Through Passion"


#156 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 26 June 2014 - 21:34

Sorry for confusing the NFF and NW servers, did not realize it wasn't all the same thing.

It seems like F&F could reasonably be positioned as an "intermediate" level server, i.e. full realism except for icons & subtitles, which is essentially what it is once you disable automix & autoradiator.

Both are things which you *have* to do if you want to have a level playing field with the majority of pilots on the server, who are quite experienced on the balance.

And if the majority are experienced, wouldn't it logically follow that having automix & autoradiator turned off by default be the wiser choice… ? Just a suggestion.
We do consider FnF an intermediate server.

That said, I do peruse the Wargrounds chat logs regularly, where radiator and mixture
are manual by default.

Based on the number of times I see messages like "How do I start my engine?" and "Albie
over the mud, open your radiator", often followed by "How do I do that?", I believe that
your last point may be a little bit optimistic.

Certainly, there are many very experienced pilots, but we get a *lot* of inexperienced
and new folks at New Wings (which we like, as that is more of our mission statement).

So, personally, I'm pretty much fine with the idea that "experienced" pilots can just press
two keystrokes, to set their plane exactly how they want it to achieve your "level playing
field". Is it truly THAT inconvenient to see the RM on the screen and press Shift-R and
Shift-M to shut them off?

In this area, I'd much rather make it easier for the beginners to not have to worry about
systems management (over basic flying skill) until they're ready to… <shrug>


Regards,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#157 Surfimp

Surfimp
  • Posts: 1035
  • LocationSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Posted 26 June 2014 - 22:01

Your servers, your rules, just providing feedback as requested.

EDIT: Forgot to add, finally understand what the "RM" in the top right corner are for now. Somehow I either forgot or never knew what the heck they symbolized.

So that's two things you've taught me, FourSpeed. Thanks! :S!:
  • 0

Founding Member, SPADaholics Anonymous


#158 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1755

Posted 26 June 2014 - 22:57

Your servers, your rules, just providing feedback as requested.
Indeed you are, and it's very much appreciated. My responses were just trying to clarify
the actual workings, and what we were thinking when we did it that way - no worries at all
with anything you've posted. In fact, some of the things in your list are being watched
carefully with an eye on potential adjustment if warranted.

EDIT: Forgot to add, finally understand what the "RM" in the top right corner are for now. Somehow I either forgot or never knew what the heck they symbolized.

So that's two things you've taught me, FourSpeed. Thanks! :S!:
Cool. That brightens my day. One of the key things that got me interested in New Wings
from the very beginning of my time in RoF, is that they're so focused on sharing knowledge,
and working with folks (and especially new pilots) to help improve whatever interests
them about flying in general and RoF in specific.

It's always a pleasure to be able to help folks with the game when I can.


Cheers,
4 :S!:
  • 0

#159 Surfimp

Surfimp
  • Posts: 1035
  • LocationSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Posted 26 June 2014 - 23:56

Thanks again FourSpeed, I really do admire the commitment you demonstrate to helping newbs, it's very cool.

I am going to give Wargrounds another try, this time with Teamspeak. Haven't used it in ages (not since back when Josh_Echo was kind enough to do some 1-on-1 training with me) but it's clearly going to help me get to a firmer footing on that server. With my SPADdiction, full realism servers are where I naturally belong, just need to get over this first hump so to speak.

Cannon fodder for everyone! Wheeee :S!:
  • 0

Founding Member, SPADaholics Anonymous


#160 ciki

ciki
  • Posts: 407

Posted 27 June 2014 - 00:06

Chief, I'm trying to find a server for a month now. Didn't find any except for a dutch server nobody is flying at. Sorry, to bother, but I'd really like to fly some multiplayer. Could you help me, please :)
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users