Coop - Come Fly With Me

Please leave your feedback about this event here.

Sorry I couldn’t be there last night guys, but I hope you all fun. There’s some specific things I’d love to get some feedback from you guys on.

  • How did you like the one life - shorter mission idea?
  • Did you feel any difference that there was no GM?
  • Was the amount of enemies fine?

I would really appreciate the help :slight_smile:

I really enjoyed all three parts of yesterday’s Op and they all felt differently.

First one was really nice and stealthy. My Squad Bravo did an excellent job at attacking after Alpha was pretty much eliminated. We did not even receive a single wound in that attack!
The second part of the missions was hard. The enemies had a good and well-fortified position. We had trouble of getting in there. This time Bravo failed and Alpha saved the day. MAT help a lot by taking down the incoming reinforcements.
The third part was a blast for me and the rest of MAT. We were the ones who started of the fight by taking down the BTR. Afterwards we fired our whole arsenal of explosives in there. [user avatar=“” name=“Skippy”]14911388[/user] with his AT-Launcher and me with 40mm grenades while [user avatar=“” name=“Seb”]7849506[/user] took down the enemies with his amazing aim. After we were out of explosives we charged into the enemy fortifications. All of us probably need artificial legs from now on because the AI seem to really like to shoot us in the legs.

Yes, especially in the second part, some AI were just sitting in their stationary weapons and looking the complete opposite way of where the fight was happening. Also, the reinforcements did not take a good path and thus got killed in the open. I’d strongly argue against using no zeus.

A bit more and more spread out would have been nice but it was fine. I’d just liked to see some AI patrol the perimeter, so we wouldn’t feel so safe when approaching.

[justify]I wasn’t able to attend the mission but I spoke to several members a few hours after the op and they mentioned that it didn’t feel like a "proper" one-life mission, because the mission ended more or less at our usual reinsertion time, thus it kinda felt the same like a normal coop mission when it comes to respawns.

Maybe a one-life mission should be at least 90 minutes long to pronounce the difference in respawn rules applied.[/justify]

I enjoyed the mission/missions. There wasn’t much for reaper to do in part2, but that’s fine, I just tooled around at base trying to pick up the resupply crate. Note for mission makers: if you put a supply crate down, make sure it’s sufficiently far from obstacles to be picked up by whatever vehicles are available. In this case a little bird would have managed fine, but we only had Chinooks. I’m probably going to load the mission and try again at some point, I think it was possible, just harder than it needed to be.

I’m afraid people just lost interest by the third mission as there were only 13 of us. Shame as the third one was really fun.

[user avatar=“” name=“Clarke”]11341464[/user] How was one life system implemented in the past? How long were the individual missions? Don’t you think that a lot of people would just leave if they have to wait for an hour for the mission to end? In the standard ops Zeus can occupy them with some side ops, but how would you keep people interested here? Spectating can be really fun, but it would lose its pull after an event or two, don’t you think?

I enjoyed both missions I’ve attended. I’ve seen it influenced playing style and we were a lot more serious. Mission length of one life per objective was excellent. It would not be possible to time it to 90 minutes because it’s depending on players.

Thing to change: enable AI in the lobby. People who had connection issues died and could not reconnect.

I have mixed feelings about this event. But here is my wall of text

For the questions:

I wouldn’t really call these missions one life missions as all 3 of them lasted for about an hour.
Yes, if you died you were out for the current mission, however since the missions were short it was basically: oh well, I died, gotta wait for next mission which was basically reinsert for a normal mission as the only point where you died was near the end of the mission.
After the first mission this was pretty clear and I think, this made people less careful/not as serious with attacking or playing in general, since if you die, next mission is in 15 mins anyway.
If you want to make a proper 1 life mission you need to have multiple goals in 1 mission. Where if you die it is game over. This way people might play more serious.

For me not really but that because I honestly don’t know what exactly GMs do in a normal game except throw enemies at you!

From what I can tell from casualties is that there were enough enemies to wipe out half the people playing. (first mission only 1 in alpha survived, second mission half of alpha and half of bravo died, third mission, only 3 people died out of 13).
I think the ‘problem’ with the enemies was that once you knew roughly their location it was done. Maybe extra patrols around the area would be a good idea to keep players sharp :slight_smile:

For personal experience/feedback
The first mission went good. I was part of Bravo. The original idea was to have Alpha and Bravo attack the objective at the same time, where Bravo would be the element to be called upon if enemies tried to escape. This is why both squads had roughly the same size.
In the execution of the plan it was however, just Alpha attacking while Bravo was still moving to get closer to the objective and once in position only shot a few rounds from a distance. Only when it came through that all of Alpha except [user avatar=“” name=“Arba”]17914993[/user] died, Bravo started to move in (to clear out 1? last enemy?).
In hindsight of the way the plan was executed, I think Alpha should have had a full squad and Bravo the remaining players as fireteam. This way the attack would have had a higher chance of success and a lower casualty rate. However, this would also mean that Bravo in the end would not have seen any real action either.

The second mission I’m not happy about. Again I was part of Bravo so cant tell much for Alpha. The plan was for Alpha and Bravo to approach and attack the objective from different angles, Alpha from North/North-East and Bravo from the South-ish. Once close to attacking the objective Bravo was spotted in open field. 2 players stayed behind giving cover for the rest of Bravo to cross to the tree line of the objective using smokes. We lost one of Bravo in this charge. Once in the tree line we slowly pushed up-hill where I watched the remaining 3 players of Bravo die/go down from the front and from the left flank (sorry again [user avatar=“” name=“Racoon”]3891983[/user] for you bleeding out, but your body was in my opinion too dangerous to get to). I retreated to Alphas location while the other 2 of Bravo played smart from a distance before moving in. In the end Alpha managed to clear the objective, also with quite some casualties.

I don’t really know what we could have done better tactical attacking this objective. It was uphill, quite well fortified base and had quite some trees/plants obscuring the view. Maybe Bravos way of approach was not great as it was open fields and were spotted quickly but there wasn’t much else.
1 thing however…

I think a big part of Bravo failure here is by not taking my call-out serious.
Once we got the good to go, to get closer to the objective I spotted enemies quite a distance away from us, West of the objective, calling it over the radio. Something along the lines of: "Enemies in front, in the field." Where people would reply with: "I don’t see them." To which I responded with: "They are far away in the fields, moving into the red colored trees (there were not many red colored trees). At least a fireteam". And using the pointing system to point them out (which is not always the best way ofc).
Again people replied with: "I don’t see them" and then multiple people even replied with something along the lines of: "I still dont see them! You must be drunk!" and then my call-out was basically ignored because apparently I must drunk and seeing things (I think this was also not relayed to Alpha). This is something I really disliked. And I think, those enemies I called out, where the enemies that flanked Bravo from the left/west in the tree line killing all of Bravo who were up front (possible even a few of Alpha). Karma? Honestly, I hope so.
ALWAYS treat a call-outs as serious.

The third mission I was only alive a short time. Quite a few people had left and we were left with just Alpha and MAT. The plan was simple, MAT on overwatch while Alpha got close to the objective where 1 FT would charge the last part through the open field with smoke cover + the other FT covering.
Once MAT made the shot on the BTR (I think it was a BTR), the fireteam I was in got the go on the charge…. And my fireteam and I died.
What we could have done better… Wait for smoke cover to actually cover the field!

I disagree with Shails. If you make this proper "one life per multiple objectives" mission, we might as well not play it because we will not make it.

Thanks for the feedback guys! I hope there’s more to come :slight_smile:

I agree that if we really want players to be careful when playing you’d have to make one-life missions longer than these. I just don’t think that is possible if you want people to attend.

What I think is the point of these missions is that for once we can actually fail a mission. This should hopefully push people into a more cautious playstyle but also give a better feel of accomplishment when a mission is completed/won. That’s hard to measure though :stuck_out_tongue:

Also I think it’s easier to get these missions around your head. They’re good for having new people try leading as well and I think they’re more realistic as well since we don’t fight 150 AI’s.

Of course that’s gonna be some people’s bread and butter and others will like the big ops more.

(Also I’m happy to hear that the 3rd mission was the one people liked the most as I probably used 1/10 of the time on that one compared to the other two :stuck_out_tongue: )

[justify]I personally was not close enough to you to be able to see you point them via ACE out. Since there were imo many red trees (pretty much all around us: Image), a bearing and aproximated distance would have been nice. "Enemies in the field" is really not a good callout when there are fields as far as you can see. I can’t remember anybody not taking contact report not serious especially in a one life mission! In the end nobody died from those enemies and we took care of them. All of Bravos casualties occured on and from the hill which was my fault. [/justify]

I personally was not close enough to you to be able to see you point them via ACE out. Since there were imo many red trees (pretty much all around us: Image), a bearing and aproximated distance would have been nice. "Enemies in the field" is really not a good callout when there are fields as far as you can see. I can’t remember anybody not taking contact report not serious especially in a one life mission![/quote]

"Contacts in the field!" (over the radio) was iirc my first report about the contact directly after I spotted them. Which was basically to make the team aware… Then after I tried to explain better where exactly they were. I literally had people stand right next to me/on my spot when I pointed them out (I cant recall exactly who were with me then). In my opinion I tried to explain as best as I could where the enemies were and I know I said it was at least a fire team size (I dont remember if I gave a bearing or distance (I did say far out) but I did say in my opinion points of reference to get an idea where). I know I’m not the best when it comes to call-outs but I definitely was (felt like) not taken serious as the reply was as i said before: "I cant see them, you must be drunk."
But did you relay the contact information to the rest of the team (or to Alpha)? Did you do anything with my contact report? As far as I know you didn’t relay this information which also means you ignored my call-out.

Naturally i did relay. Platoon was informed and even saw the contact himself and tried to tell me where about they are.

[justify]One life missions were never officially implemented in our community. When I ran them it was either a mini-op or part of a campaign where one mission out of six would be a one-life mission. The play time was usually between 90 and 120 minutes, including our 15-20 minutes planning and heading out phase.

I think it’s all about player expectations and meeting them. Quite a few community play mostly only with one-life rule setups, most prominently ShackTac, United Operations (under their old leadership) and Team One Tactical - as long as people know what they are to expect, there is a lot of fun to be had in these kinds of missions even if one bites the bullet early on. However, due to our lower turn out numbers and our long-standing history of playing with respawns, I don’t think we’ll be increasing the number of one-life missions drastically any time soon. But I’m definitely a big fan of adding them to the mix a bit more often in the future to spice things up.[/justify]

Just my 2 cents personal opinions :slight_smile:

One life missions:

  • problém if you get shot early

  • problém to accomplish if most of team is dead early, and waiting till end will not be fun

  • i can imagine having short one life missions, more like some kind of trainings with one life (trainings should be serious as you are picking up habits on them)

  • this time it was a lot of fun to see ppl playing from the camera perspective

Not Zeused missions:

  • depends how complicated they are
  • missing Zeus consequences depends on style of the mission (defense, vs attack, recon)
  • Zeus can smartly use the EI groups and manoeuvre them smartly like in reality
  • Zeus can react on number of players playing while non-zeused missions probably not (?)
  • Zeus can make surprises for players and interesting situation

(Personally: Im fun of full time zeused missions and I prefer lenghty missions too over the short once)

First mission:

  • problém with not spotted EI close the hut which eliminated us
    (I just had feeling couple of times during missions, that if ppl do not know what to do under fire, so they rush and bc that, die. It s nothing wrong when new information comes (new EIs on right side), to react on the new situation, and instead of rushing, retreat, or react on the EI wing by other maneuver (if is time to make the dicision).
    Have to say that the hut was probably only one not covered place during the assault and nobody check it by brief glimpse.
    (- non related to mission but when reporting contacts it s greate to say the aproximate distance in meters as it ussually saves a lot of time for others. Im always happy for the meters in contact report.)
  • I did like the stealth attitude till the attack

Second mission:

  • I did like the attacked objective, it was pretty cool place :slight_smile:
  • closing to the objective looked dangerous and I was pinned down by intensive fire

Third mission:

  • I did not do there too much as team got bullets during attack and I stayed behind field wall at start point and send some supressive fire only

I haz video, consume it. Totally forgot about its contents.