Jump to content

KB-Kriechbaum

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About KB-Kriechbaum

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

204 profile views
  1. How do you know how many people are "the last few"? How do you know how many people would join servers, would there be an easy option to have the support of a group? Throuout the discussion your argument is like walking in the forrest and saying: "There is no need to build rails here, because i cannot see any trains in this forrest. Walking works just fine for me!" 😄 The random unorganized flying is way more unrealistic than a few noobs in your wing. Noobs existed in real air combat, too. But they didn't respawn after death with their knowledge gained from the last sortie. People learn, people adapt. They do so faster, when you promote the means to do so. If the 3rd party option would work so well, you would see way bigger formations flying missions vs. random furballs with few people collecting a lot of kills, 3 people that actually attack ground targets and 30 people with no contribution to the objective of the map. That is how the reality of multiplayer looks like at the moment.
  2. Don't get me wrong, everybody gets it, you personally and a handful of your friends don't need it. Fair enough. Thank you for your opinion. I don't want to convince you and your friends. I am merely discussing an idea with people and so far there is quite some people who like the idea. 😊 Thank you for your input. 😘
  3. Borrowed from @Feathered_IV This is how I envision built in game comms, and feathered summed it up so well. -> You assume that the people playing IL2 are the same kind of people that play Call Of Duty? Otherwise this doesn't make sense. Other games have proven his envisionment to be false. Also, how are ingame-comms creating such a chaos, but 3rd. party comms are totally enabling everybody to work together flawlessly 😄 What a great analysis of the concept. I think some nay-sayers underestimate the effect of how structure can motivate people to "play by the same rules". In Squad, since we used this as an successful example, people are either supporting their squadleader or they get replaced by players who will. Guess what, people learn very fast that they get kicked out of squads if they behave like a dick. You can then run around the map alone behaving like a dick till you get kicked out of the game. The outcome of this the absence of idiot-behaviour. So in case such a problem would occur, this will solve it. After some time, people know what is expected and the pool of capable players is growing. Same would happen here, and probably even faster. And everybody who has his year long buddies, will just form closed flight with his buddies without any new people and nothing will change. The effect that i think is most needed are coherent groups of airplanes flying sorties to destroy assigned targets. Basically creating an atmosphere you get from campaign, just with real people.
  4. A lot of contra arguments here are: 1. "The majority of the community lacks competence to utilize such a system, (yet, it is assumed that it somehow does not as long as 3rd Party-VOIP is used)." -> I believe in the people playing IL2, they manage harder difficulties that are already in the game! 2. "The majority of the community lacks discipline to communicate within a flight and will not be able to adapt or learn (except when 3rd-party-VOIP is used)." -> I believe in the people playing IL2! 3. "When you create the system in a useless way, like having everybody in the same channel (wtf?), it will be useless." -> being in a four plane flight with voip wont be overkill + PPT reduces useless chatter + use 3rd. party too, if you want. -> implementation of option to mute voip for all but leader. -> having three channels (wingman / flight channel, leader channel) like in squad reduces chatter. 4. "I use 3rd party VOIP for X-years, it works for me and my friends, that is why all the other people do not need a new system and it cannot bring benefits." -> keep using it then. -> other people might enjoy more game given structure. It works in Squad and Post Scriptum, 3rd Party voip is the exception there. And it works extremely well, the community has been and is growing VERY fast and it "educates newcomers" with ingame structures faster to adapt the ways the game is played. You have a lot of very full servers and sometimes it is hard to join in because people play more from start to finish than not. If you do not know it, its worth to have a look at it. And I can say, that the Il2-Community is way more mature and I generally encounter decent people there. I believe the Il2-Community would embrace a flight-based voip faster than other communities of say games that do not require a ton of patience, skill and so on. If you have friends to fly with, you just keep flying with them, no problem, nothing changes for you. After all, this is just an idea. You can see the clear benfits for immersion and dynamics in Squad and Post Scriptum. You have military units moving together which gives virtual combat a huge plus in realism. I dont see why this would not work in Il2. Its order vs. anarchy (except a few externally organized people).
  5. @hrafnkolbrandr Exactly right! Teamspeak and Discord is there for a very long time, yet it doesn't seem to bring the experience this thread is about. Thats all. The chances to meet NOBODY or three people there are way higher than to meet say 10 people on both sides actually working together. The 10% of the people who are organized because they have the time to do so and get into all the forums, and chats and all, yes, they don't need anything new and thats fine. However, these ~10% wont make the game look organized. It will stay 10% organized, 90% random planes flying randomly about. Good enough, you say. Ok. I guess i kinda enjoy the feeling of taking off as a team, scrambling, flying in large formations. You know, i just think that maybe making that the norm rather than the exception would bring something more to the experience, but thats just me. Since this is a SIM: 1. Teamspeak is far from being realistic, especially when you get shot down. 2. Single planes flying missions alone because there is nobody there is not very realistic 3. Totally disorganized take off and landings are not very realistic. 4. ... etc... .. . That could be fixed by implementing organizational features into the game. I think the air marshall is already going into the right direction, i am sure the response of the community will be very positive. Again, i know in theory you could do all this with teamspeak etc., but it isn't really happening, is it? Every screw in the plane must be spot on, but this rather huge gap in actual operational realism seems to have very low prority.
  6. Well, yes. Offworld industries started a while ago as a group of hobby game developers and now they have their system implemented for quite some time and it works and people love it and you cannot get such dynamics in any other game. That is quite something to disregard. Maybe an altered version of it could it be bought for Il2, who knows. After all everything costs money, some things bring money back. Some bring more than others. If you would evade features just because they cost money we could all play space invaders. 😄
  7. Actually, being alone is punishment alone, you are right about that. 😄
  8. You need to read the thread Your argument is: "if you put inconvenient stuff into the game, it will be inconvenient" - it doesn't need to be that way. I proposed flight based coms, that is maybe 6 guys talking via PPT. Asking for radio silence is also an option. Etc. There is a bunch of options that would make that work.
  9. As i said, works great for people that are already organized outside of the game in the first place. 36 across six channels with wing leader and group comms - If that would be the rule rather than the exception we would see a lot more coherent formations roaming the map and this thread would not exist. - some always have the "yesterday it was impossible - tomorrow it will be impossible" mindset. As said before, the implementation of exhaustion got the same "no ressources-argument" before and now its here and its awesome. The thing is, when you cannot focus ressources on something huge in terms of gameplay impact like such a system but rather create some additional planes, which also eats up huge amounts of ressources, maybe you should ask yourself what is pushing the game to the next level. A few new planes or changing the picture of 84 flies randomly circling around the light into 84 warbirds flying actual missions with synchronized attack maneuvers. (Again, i know there is people who meet up and fly, but not everybody can organize into such groups. It would be a huge benefit to just start the game and having the opportunity to be part of a team effort). We have the planes, we have the maps and graphics, we just need the instruments to get the orchestra playing music instead of creating some random noises.
  10. Well, i would like to emphasize the desire for organization and the "squadron"-Idea with a leader. As a starter, just having groups of people flying at the same time with the same target would help. Having them talk (small group, not endless chatter of 30 people) would enhance the thing. Actually the same "no ressources for that"-argument was also used against the "exhaustion" - System now implemented. It makes the game a 100x better than another fancy plane.
  11. Hello Virtual Pilots, After the extremely huge game changer that was the G-Force-related exhaustion implementation I would like to propose resp. discuss another possibly huge step for the game, especially regarding the growing community: "Organization & Communication" Everybody knows the scenario. The map starts, 84 planes head to the skies, with the vast majority flying off in a rather random pattern to random missions. Chaos as usual. Spotting an organized formation of 4 – 6 planes is a rare occasion. There is a variety of different discords, teamspeak servers etc. but it is all rather random and doesn’t bring the people together effectively for a certain map currently running. How about forming a number of flights / squadrons to choose from? Formation leader has PPT(push to talk)-COM with other leaders. Formation members have PPT-COM. Something like the game “SQUAD” has. (When you get shot down or jump out of your aircraft, comms are down. Would be pretty cool.) So when you join a squadron / flight, you get access to better planes, compared to when you want to stay on your own, you get access to weaker/older planes and only basic weapons and say half the fuel. So there is an incentive to join a squadron / flight and be part of a team. The option to create a squadron and lock it for friends to fly together should be implemented, so that people that know each other can fly together, while people that are joining the server on their own could join an “open” squadron to fly with new people. The leader choses the mission objective a the sortie and other players can then decide whether they want to be a part of that flight and sortie or not. “What are the benefits?” Implemented organization makes the experience more realistic, brings people together more effectively and helps newcomers to get some directions and advice on how to play the game as opposed to the current hardcore barbwired entry threshold that you will only overcome after taking hundreds of merciless online-beatings. Example: You join a game. You see a flight of 5 planes in the lobby ready to depart from airfield A. One free slot, so you join the flight. You are now part of a flight of 6 planes that has 3 experienced players, 2 newcomers and 1 very experienced player (leader). While you have to be a bit patient with the new guys(or maybe that’s you 😉 ), you also experience a pretty realistic situation that would also occur in the real world when replacements fill up your lines. Your leader tells you over comms what your target is, you get ready to take off… etc. Because… …what we have now is a technically very realistic game with a very unrealistic patterns of using an airforce to achieve a tactical goal. Its basically “fly towards the enemy and bomb something” or “fly towards the enemy and look for planes to shoot down”. I know there are a lot of organized teams, but they are the exception when looking at the average population of a server. The general idea is to put groups of players into a flight so that people fly, communicate, patrol, attack and hopefully return back to base more together and less as a lone warrior. I think such a system would also further elevate the SIM above other air combat sims. Just an idea, what are your thoughts?
  12. What could do the trick : They could produce more and bigger cities by removing half or more of the 3d-buildings and replace them with less complex ruins (two textures forming two faces of the building still standing) or just the "footprint" of the buildings as textures of the ground. After all, most of the cities were pretty flat by that time with only tougher buildings still standing. Something like this: That way, you can stretch out the amount of buildings you want as a more complex 3d-Model for a given area while still maintaining the effect of having a rather urbanized landscape. Stalingrad looks very good, so something like this will totally enhance the look of the rhineland map. I am sure they will further develop this very large map over time.
  13. It would help you quite a bit more than not having any knowledge from air combat. Especially the russians early in the war and later in the war the german pilots went into combat with totally insufficient training. A sim like this one will definately help you. Most players have more hours in the sim than the vast majority of pilots back then. And a lot of these hours were spent in simulated combat, too. That you will have to be physically fit and have some big balls to actually fly a real plane even remotely in the way you are in the sim, well that goes without question.
  14. I think the map is fine for now. Like many other features of the game, it's still subject to changes, it's it not?
  15. About that Naval Engagement. I could not find the real objectives anywhere. Or does the german side lose per default in case there is suriving red targets? Would be nice to have the objectives, that actually win you the map, in the mission description. otherwise, people will just randomly destroy targets and always lose I mean, ... its a bit odd.
×
×
  • Create New...