Offline mode

[Jade_Monkey]

Will there be an option to play Single player campaign without being online to get into the game?

This is usually not an issue for me but today Comcast "had some issues" and I was left without internet all day. I wanted to play some QMB but i couldnt get into the game

Will there be an option in the future to access the SP portion in situations where there is no internet connection?

 

Thanks!

[ARM505]

Yeah, same thing here the other morning (I am down in the ass end of the planet, but anyway) - for some reason it took twenty minutes to get into the game, then another I only tried successfully two hours later. I can only assume they'll do the right thing and allow some kind of offline play a la Rise of Flight, which then syncs when you're connected again.

[BlackSix]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=12860

 

Here's how internet connection requirement works. 
 
1) To download the game and update it you'll need to be connected;
 
2) To register a personal account right after you buy the game you need to be connected;
 
2) To activate your copy you need to be connected;
 
3) Every time you launch you'll be offered to choose between Online and Offline modes - choose Online to play Online;
 
4) To play Historical campaign and obtain all bonus content we're preparing you need to be connected. The network bandwidth requirements are really low and the amount of sent/received data is minimal. This is how we ensure that the provided experience in Campaign is absolutely original and everyone's progress is fair;
 
5) The Quick Mission Builder and Custom Single Player Missions are 100% available in offline mode without restrictions of any kind;
 
6) Multiplayer mode obviously requires a connection. 
 
It's up to you to choose between Online and Offline modes, however the Historical campaign is only available Online, it is the key component of the initial game and it brings you over 70% of the overall new IL-2 Sturmovik experience.

[Jade_Monkey]

Awesome! Thanks for the quick reply!

[Vaxxtx]

Is there a reason you have to be online in order to play the campaign? This still makes no sense to me.

[Mikey]

Is there a reason you have to be online in order to play the campaign? This still makes no sense to me.

 there could possibly be scoreboard for players of different parts of campaign kinda like rof with pilot record in career mode.

[Rama]

Is there a reason you have to be online in order to play the campaign? This still makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you, but a lot to the developpers. you have to be online because the mission generator will be on the server. It allows the developper to change, maintain, upgrade the mission generator without having to create new game versions that will then have to be downloaded by the players. With RoF, the online campaign got a lot of upgrades and debugging that way, transparent to the users.

[Vaxxtx]

It makes no sense to you, but a lot to the developpers. you have to be online because the mission generator will be on the server. It allows the developper to change, maintain, upgrade the mission generator without having to create new game versions that will then have to be downloaded by the players. With RoF, the online campaign got a lot of upgrades and debugging that way, transparent to the users.

I would take an update server, and having to dl the changes (small or big) over having to be online all the time. I would also take that instead of having no ability to play the campaign (single player), if my internet goes out.

 

I didnt see the point of it in RoF either. All the upgrades etc, did it ever make it out beta?

 

It just seems like a Ubisoft move. Another level of DRM. "Here is your software that you purchased, but let me know everytime you play it. "

 

Thats how I feel.

[LizLemon]

I would bet that the main reason you have to be online for the SP campaign is because of the unlocks for field mods and the like.

 

If you could do it offline it'd be very easy to edit the SP campaign offline to unlock all the modifications.

 

IMHO another example of why unlocks for SP are a bad idea.

[Rama]

I didnt see the point of it in RoF either. All the upgrades etc, did it ever make it out beta?

Yes. And in the early period, there where upgrades and corrections every day or more. Now it's still used by LukeFF for some corrections and upgrades (adding new squadrons, etc...).

Those who flown it at that time remember it. And the dev also used it to deliver players blocked by faulty scenarios (because of some mission generator bugs).

These campaigns are quite complex to build, and it's a never ending work to upgrade them and to update them in case of new planes, maps, informations incomming, etc..

 

I would take an update server, and having to dl the changes (small or big) over having to be online all the time.

Maybe you would, but the choice will not be proposedn except if a third-party developp an alternative solo campaign (like for RoF).

[Vaxxtx]

Yes. And in the early period, there where upgrades and corrections every day or more. Now it's still used by LukeFF for some corrections and upgrades (adding new squadrons, etc...).

Those who flown it at that time remember it. And the dev also used it to deliver players blocked by faulty scenarios (because of some mission generator bugs).

These campaigns are quite complex to build, and it's a never ending work to upgrade them and to update them in case of new planes, maps, informations incomming, etc..

 

Maybe you would, but the choice will not be proposedn except if a third-party developp an alternative solo campaign (like for RoF).

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the "campaign" a bunch of static missions that never change? According to http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/02/flight-sim-preview-il-2-sturmovik-battle-of-stalingrad/ you don't get to pick a squadron and stay with it. There is no moving front. There is no dynamism. And you "unlock" the next phase/set of missions after completing 4 missions. Where is the complexity of making single missions and putting them in an order?

 

I still don't see the point of being online for that. New planes, new maps, information, etc like you said can also be delivered like any other game that is not forcing the player to be "online to play". Someone in the comments hit the nail on the head of that article when they said "I’m not logging in online to play SP. Not gonna pay purchasing money to rent a game." I can totally see where they are coming from.

[AceRevo]

I would bet that the main reason you have to be online for the SP campaign is because of the unlocks for field mods and the like.

 

If you could do it offline it'd be very easy to edit the SP campaign offline to unlock all the modifications.

 

IMHO another example of why unlocks for SP are a bad idea.

Its not a bad idea now as we have to be connected. There is plenty of ways to play in this game beeing offline if youre stuck on a mountain or whatever, and I really like how they made this. Looking forward to the single-player campaign!

 

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the "campaign" a bunch of static missions that never change? According to http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/02/flight-sim-preview-il-2-sturmovik-battle-of-stalingrad/ you don't get to pick a squadron and stay with it. There is no moving front. There is no dynamism. And you "unlock" the next phase/set of missions after completing 4 missions. Where is the complexity of making single missions and putting them in an order?

 

I still don't see the point of being online for that. New planes, new maps, information, etc like you said can also be delivered like any other game that is not forcing the player to be "online to play". Someone in the comments hit the nail on the head of that article when they said "I’m not logging in online to play SP. Not gonna pay purchasing money to rent a game." I can totally see where they are coming from.

 

Like stated above, you unlock things by playing the single-player campaign. If it wasnt for the beeing connected rule, you could simple manipulate the files to get it all unlocked without even playing the game. Thats why we have to be connected and its not by much.. Its basically for stats and a secure way to ensure that we can all show off our unlocked items with proud. 

 

Theres plenty of way to play offline and unless youre trapped on mount everest or on the north pole, getting yourself connected isnt really that hard. Unless youre a stoneage man

 

 

 

EDIT: Did you know google planning on making baloons in the stratosphere or whatever its called, to bring internet to the whole world? With a simple antenna you can get connected by free on the north pole too  

Edited September 3, 2014 by AceRevo

[Vaxxtx]

Its not a bad idea now as we have to be connected. There is plenty of ways to play in this game beeing offline if youre stuck on a mountain or whatever, and I really like how they made this. Looking forward to the single-player campaign!

 

 

 

 

Like stated above, you unlock things by playing the single-player campaign. If it wasnt for the beeing connected rule, you could simple manipulate the files to get it all unlocked without even playing the game. Thats why we have to be connected and its not by much.. Its basically for stats and a secure way to ensure that we can all show off our unlocked items with proud. 

 

Theres plenty of way to play offline and unless youre trapped on mount everest or on the north pole, getting yourself connected isnt really that hard. Unless youre a stoneage man

 

 

 

EDIT: Did you know google planning on making baloons in the stratosphere or whatever its called, to bring internet to the whole world? With a simple antenna you can get connected by free on the north pole too

If I wanted "unlocks" and "badges" I would be playing my Xbox or War Thunder . I was more wanting WWII combat sim.

 

Do people really care about showing off "stats" of their SP campaign? I still don't see the upside to "always connected" to play I game I purchase. Maybe I just find it too constrictive and too shady.

[AceRevo]

Of course.. without propper multiplayer and/or mission builder, a game will quickly die if theres no kind of progression system within it. And, also as stated above, you DONT have to be connected to play the game you have purchased tho getting access to the SP you will have to be connected.. What more is it to understand? Now, the question remain how the mission builder will be, if it will be good and perhaps in a easy way, what need of SP is there when you can build your own battle of stalingrad missions.. except unlocking and progression, which you seem to care little about.. 

 

Let me just hand you my facepalm this isnt like how microsoft wanted it with xbox, I support the devs on this one..! 

[Vaxxtx]

Of course.. without propper multiplayer and/or mission builder, a game will quickly die if theres no kind of progression system within it. And, also as stated above, you DONT have to be connected to play the game you have purchased tho getting access to the SP you will have to be connected.. What more is it to understand? Now, the question remain how the mission builder will be, if it will be good and perhaps in a easy way, what need of SP is there when you can build your own battle of stalingrad missions.. except unlocking and progression, which you seem to care little about.. 

 

Let me just hand you my facepalm this isnt like how microsoft wanted it with xbox, I support the devs on this one..! 

I really am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. I think we are having a communication disconnect.

 

Progression and unlocks seem very arcade, Xbox-like, and WT like. Having to be online to play the main SINGLE player portion in order to "show off" stats and "unlock" things is very arcade and Xbox kiddie style to me. For online, I totally get it, and totally support it. Unlocking Missions in a combat sim is very odd to me. It reminds me of Wings of Prey.

 

I am hoping, that the full mission builder is robust enough, in order to make the campaign obsolete to be honest. 

 

So bottom line, I don't like the always online. The reasons people gave in support of it, I don't agree with. Will the devs change it all just for me? Probably not, But then again I am not the only one that thinks this way, so maybe my feedback with any others might perk some ears. Or should I only type things that agree with everything no matter what? Or do suggestions, critiques, and feedback still apply here?

[AceRevo]

I really am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. I think we are having a communication disconnect.

 

Progression and unlocks seem very arcade, Xbox-like, and WT like. Having to be online to play the main SINGLE player portion in order to "show off" stats and "unlock" things is very arcade and Xbox kiddie style to me. For online, I totally get it, and totally support it. Unlocking Missions in a combat sim is very odd to me. It reminds me of Wings of Prey.

 

I am hoping, that the full mission builder is robust enough, in order to make the campaign obsolete to be honest. 

 

So bottom line, I don't like the always online. The reasons people gave in support of it, I don't agree with. Will the devs change it all just for me? Probably not, But then again I am not the only one that thinks this way, so maybe my feedback with any others might perk some ears. Or should I only type things that agree with everything no matter what? Or do suggestions, critiques, and feedback still apply here?

As English is not my native language, communication disconnect may happen  

 

The thing Im thinking about is that, going the whole way in the sp campaign will reward you with things, I think its a nice feature to show off that you went all the way without short cuts. It also shows some kind of interest from that person into the game and the whole story behind battle of stalingrad that is in the game and some eager to learn a thing or two. Comes in handy when joining a squad or even accepting new members as a squadron leader. With this whole beeing online thing to play sp campagin, you are sure to know that their achivements are done without cutting corners, earned fair and square.. Same thing goes for a players kill/death ratio which is now unrealible becouse a player can Alt+F4 to disconnect so he wont get a deat on his stats but instead a disconnect (correct me if im wrong please). In WT I am a squadron leader and I dont accept anywho to the squad unless theyre good for it. There, looking at stats can tell you something but its not reliable. Looking at how a player progress though, is anothe story. There you can see how eager a player is to get all upgrades for a plane etc etc.. 

 

without beeing connected and able to play sp campaign you are able to gain those ''unique'' unlocks which now wont be that much unique anymore.. This is just my thought and I respect your thoughts on the matter. I am not trying to make you change your mind but you are very much welcome to  

 

Im sure theres plenty of guys who doesnt like it and think this ''allways connected'' thing may sound a bit scary becouse internet can never be 100% reliable. Who knows, maybe one day we will lose it all... But lifes like a roll of dices, you dont know what to get but you hope for the best  

 

Im just saying Im not very found of ''cheaters'' and this will prevent it to some degrees. You'll know the person have earned it all the right way  

[39bn_pavig]

If you've played RoF you'll see there is either the (online) dynamically generated career mode, or the offline linear campaigns available. Having spent a while in career mode in RoF I can see how it makes sense for these missions to be generated online. Squad losses during missions and resupply change the availability of various planes and pilots within a career, and thus what missions can be flown at any particular time. At the same time some historical data feeds into the enviromnent of each career adding to complexity. With these combined, every airfield, plane and rank choice represents a different starting point for the dynamic career, combining to create literally thousands of combinations.

 

So this may not be the dynamic campain from falcon 4 which took a decade to get to work, but is dynamic enough to warrant the use of online databases and development for mission generation. 

 

The reason from a developer perspective that generating campaigns online rather than on the client makes sense is because people play campaigns over long periods. Any update to campaign generation could potentially break the in progress games of hundreds of current players, and require extensive Q&A before release. When campaign ajustments are done server side however, staging and testing can be done by running the campaign generator on parallel servers to ensure the new logic and data can be swapped in without breaking player progress. This makes it significantly cheaper and safer to develop this way, and (apart from the annoyance of being online) gives a far better customer experience than releasing potential game-breaking updates to the client on a regular basis. 

[I/JG27_Rollo]

It's funny how people rule out the possibility of a game both featuring unlocks and being a simulation.

 

Well, BoS is a WWII combat sim in every respect and it has some kind of a progression system via unlocks to give people an incentive for playing the historical campaign.

Another example: Silent Hunter III has you "unlock" stuff (flak guns, torpedos, sails (if thats's the correct word for a submarine's tower)) as you progress through the campaign. Does that make SH3 an arcade game instead of a sim?

And, unlike other games, the unlocks are not an absolute necessity for being competitive. Most of them have downsides such as sacrificing maneuverability for increased firepower. They don't just give you a flat-out better aircraft.

 

tl:dr: unlocks may seem arcade to some people but BoS definitely is a combat sim

 

About being online for the campaign: the reasons have been explained in other posts above but I'll add: unless someone lives somewhere far in the outback with a pay-by-the-minute dial-up connection, we're online 24/7 anyway so where's the problem?

[AceRevo]

If you've played RoF you'll see there is either the (online) dynamically generated career mode, or the offline linear campaigns available. Having spent a while in career mode in RoF I can see how it makes sense for these missions to be generated online. Squad losses during missions and resupply change the availability of various planes and pilots within a career, and thus what missions can be flown at any particular time. At the same time some historical data feeds into the enviromnent of each career adding to complexity. With these combined, every airfield, plane and rank choice represents a different starting point for the dynamic career, combining to create literally thousands of combinations.

 

So this may not be the dynamic campain from falcon 4 which took a decade to get to work, but is dynamic enough to warrant the use of online databases and development for mission generation. 

 

The reason from a developer perspective that generating campaigns online rather than on the client makes sense is because people play campaigns over long periods. Any update to campaign generation could potentially break the in progress games of hundreds of current players, and require extensive Q&A before release. When campaign ajustments are done server side however, staging and testing can be done by running the campaign generator on parallel servers to ensure the new logic and data can be swapped in without breaking player progress. This makes it significantly cheaper and safer to develop this way, and (apart from the annoyance of being online) gives a far better customer experience than releasing potential game-breaking updates to the client on a regular basis. 

Thanks for the read, I learned something new Owe you a +1 

[Rama]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the "campaign" a bunch of static missions that never change?

You're wrong. RoF SP campaign is a dynamic campaign where each mission is generated at mission start. And BoS SP campaign will also be.

 

pavig post explains it better than I

[Vaxxtx]

If you've played RoF you'll see there is either the (online) dynamically generated career mode, or the offline linear campaigns available. Having spent a while in career mode in RoF I can see how it makes sense for these missions to be generated online. Squad losses during missions and resupply change the availability of various planes and pilots within a career, and thus what missions can be flown at any particular time. At the same time some historical data feeds into the enviromnent of each career adding to complexity. With these combined, every airfield, plane and rank choice represents a different starting point for the dynamic career, combining to create literally thousands of combinations.

 

So this may not be the dynamic campain from falcon 4 which took a decade to get to work, but is dynamic enough to warrant the use of online databases and development for mission generation. 

 

The reason from a developer perspective that generating campaigns online rather than on the client makes sense is because people play campaigns over long periods. Any update to campaign generation could potentially break the in progress games of hundreds of current players, and require extensive Q&A before release. When campaign ajustments are done server side however, staging and testing can be done by running the campaign generator on parallel servers to ensure the new logic and data can be swapped in without breaking player progress. This makes it significantly cheaper and safer to develop this way, and (apart from the annoyance of being online) gives a far better customer experience than releasing potential game-breaking updates to the client on a regular basis. 

 

Thanks. Although I still dont agree with that system, that is the best explanation of why some people dont mind it.

 

You're wrong. RoF SP campaign is a dynamic campaign where each mission is generated at mission start. And BoS SP campaign will also be.

 

pavig post explains it better than I

 

Last time I played the RoF career/campaign it was random generated mission's similar to a bunch of quick mission builders over and over. I also remember devs saying logistics and moving ground fronts, supplies, etc were not going to de done. Things changed?

 

Reading the preview of BoS it states the campaign missions are static, not dynamic, and do not change. So which one is it? Thats a big difference from what you stated.

[=LD=Penshoon]

You're wrong. RoF SP campaign is a dynamic campaign where each mission is generated at mission start. And BoS SP campaign will also be.

 

pavig post explains it better than I

This was not the impression I got from the dev. Pavig was talking about ROF career mode witch the devs have confirmed will not be featured in BOS historical campaign. 

 

From what I've read in the dev diaries the pilots progress in a mission will not be saved, no squad losses will be recorded. If you blow up a factory in one mission it will be intact in the next one as it works like "groundhog day" the day before didn't necessarily exist. (please correct me if I'm wrong  )

 

I'm guessing they have put a lot of effort into making this stat system to give a sense of progress to the player, many people need this to stay hooked to a game. If this was not protected behind always online wall then people would not be able to show off their e-peen when hackers inflate the leaderboard rankings. it also validate the partial always online DRM even though it wasn't the reason for the system.

 

I'm hoping they will release some more detailed info on how the campaign will work and look. Reading my post I realize I might be speculating a bit too much. The truth will be obvious after release. 

 

Either way I'm loving this game 

[Rama]

Things changed?

A lot. You can check.

 

Reading the preview of BoS it states the campaign missions are static, not dynamic, and do not change.

Devs always said that missions will be generated on the server for the selected campaign phase (so dynamic), and never that the campaign will be made of static missions.

So far they didn't changed their saying on this.

What they added later is that there will be no avatar history, no squadron history, because this takes too much time. They also added there will be no linear time progression.... but it doesn't negate the dynamic nature ot fhe campaign.

[Vaxxtx]

A lot. You can check.

 

Devs always said that missions will be generated on the server for the selected campaign phase (so dynamic), and never that the campaign will be made of static missions.

So far they didn't changed their saying on this.

What they added later is that there will be no avatar history, no squadron history, because this takes too much time. They also added there will be no linear time progression.... but it doesn't negate the dynamic nature ot fhe campaign.

Dynamic. Obviously this word is different to us when it comes to a game. If a factory that gets bombed in one mission is back the next, that is static, and there nothing dynamic about it. Shoot down a flight of 12 IL2's and next mission they are back without taking into account the losses they suffered, that is static, and not dynamic.

 

Having 10 missions lets say, that do not change but, once you complete 4 sucessful missions out of the 10, "unlocks" 10 more missions that do not change does not change fact the missions....that are the campaign, are static.

[Dakpilot]

Every mission is dynamic, no two are repeatable they are generated server side, I see the difference of interpretation but it will not be like a static campaign.. If you played a 10 mission set, the next time it will be completely different

 

From devs

 

Single Player Online allows us to create a unique structure which will form the basis of the game. Mission generator will be on the server as well as a template for the phase of the battle. A customer chooses a phase and some other conditions such as type of aircraft and makes a request. The pilot receives a unique generated mission. Every mission is unique and differs in detail from any other mission that is generated for any other players. Two missions identical in the details will be very rare (less than 5%). And no player knows what task he or she will be assigned until the request is made. This will ensure a fair and unbiased game for everyone involved. Of course, the most important factor is the performance of tasks in the mission because only such an outcome will bring you a real advantage. Destroyed enemy aircraft or equipment that is not the purpose of the mission, of course will be recorded in your stats, but it does not help you in advancing the story."
 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Rama]

If a factory that gets bombed in one mission is back the next, that is static

It doesn't make the mission "static". It's just a "static" parameter in an overall dynamic environment.

A dynamic generator doesn't necesserally factors the mission destructions as destructions. But it can still take them in account, as a parameter, in a dynamic way, to compute the next mission.

 

Having 10 missions lets say, that do not change

But the missions will change, since they will be randomly generated (using a set of dynamic parameters) each time you'll play and replay the campaign.

So the CG is dynamic.

[Vaxxtx]

Every mission is dynamic, no two are repeatable they are generated server side, I see the difference of interpretation but it will not be like a static campaign.. If you played a 10 mission set, the next time it will be completely different

 

From devs

 

Single Player Online allows us to create a unique structure which will form the basis of the game. Mission generator will be on the server as well as a template for the phase of the battle. A customer chooses a phase and some other conditions such as type of aircraft and makes a request. The pilot receives a unique generated mission. Every mission is unique and differs in detail from any other mission that is generated for any other players. Two missions identical in the details will be very rare (less than 5%). And no player knows what task he or she will be assigned until the request is made. This will ensure a fair and unbiased game for everyone involved. Of course, the most important factor is the performance of tasks in the mission because only such an outcome will bring you a real advantage. Destroyed enemy aircraft or equipment that is not the purpose of the mission, of course will be recorded in your stats, but it does not help you in advancing the story."

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Thanks for the info.

 

Thats a little better than I initially thought it would be. Still holding out hope that in time if modders are given the right tools, are able to make a more in depth version of a campaign. Would love to fly with a squad from start to finish, and see stats about the squads kills/losses enemy losses, etc.

 

Again good info.

[RainMan]

The term "unlocks" seems a bit strange in this regard. Instead of calling it "unlocks", items should be available based on historical developments, e.g. field modifications, etc. I guess the term "Field Modification" might work better than "unlocks" here, unless it's a completely new plane, as it might be the case with the FW-190. 

[Krause]

Actually I'm not happy at all about this but well..... nothing I can do sadly. I hope anyways that the modders will release soon more singleplayer missions.

[vsTerminus]

So I'm brand new here and over the last week or so I've been trying to form an opinion of the game. It looks like a lot of fun.

 

My biggest beef is, like some of you here, the online single player. I'm not immovable on this topic; If there is a good reason for doing online-only single player then OK, but if it's unnecessary or done for the sake of DRM, it's an automatic no-fly zone for me.

 

So far the only justifications I have seen for online single player are (And please correct me if I'm wrong or missing something):

 

- A fair and balanced campaign for all, and to ensure that players are progressing legitimately towards unlocking content

- Missions are generated server-side and then sent to the client to ensure that they are always different / unique

- Achievements

- Statistics gathering

 

Anything else?

 

My biggest concern is that none of these things justify an online-only campaign.

 

- Unless single player progression and unlocks somehow tie into the multiplayer, why do the devs care if people are cheating in a single-player campaign?

- Is my home computer not perfectly capable of procedural generation for missions, just like their servers? Why does it matter if my campaign is unique and unlike anyone else's?

- Not everyone cares about achievements. I certainly agree with only awarding achievements during online play, but that should be up to the player to decide.

- Statistics gathering should be opt-in anyways.

 

I've been searching the forums for a few hours now. Can anyone tell me if the single player is going to tie into the multiplayer in any way? If SP unlocks carry over into MP then great, I can deal with online SP. Otherwise, I don't see the justification for it here.

[Vaxxtx]

So I'm brand new here and over the last week or so I've been trying to form an opinion of the game. It looks like a lot of fun.

 

My biggest beef is, like some of you here, the online single player. I'm not immovable on this topic; If there is a good reason for doing online-only single player then OK, but if it's unnecessary or done for the sake of DRM, it's an automatic no-fly zone for me.

 

So far the only justifications I have seen for online single player are (And please correct me if I'm wrong or missing something):

 

- A fair and balanced campaign for all, and to ensure that players are progressing legitimately towards unlocking content

- Missions are generated server-side and then sent to the client to ensure that they are always different / unique

- Achievements

- Statistics gathering

 

Anything else?

 

My biggest concern is that none of these things justify an online-only campaign.

 

- Unless single player progression and unlocks somehow tie into the multiplayer, why do the devs care if people are cheating in a single-player campaign?

- Is my home computer not perfectly capable of procedural generation for missions, just like their servers? Why does it matter if my campaign is unique and unlike anyone else's?

- Not everyone cares about achievements. I certainly agree with only awarding achievements during online play, but that should be up to the player to decide.

- Statistics gathering should be opt-in anyways.

 

I've been searching the forums for a few hours now. Can anyone tell me if the single player is going to tie into the multiplayer in any way? If SP unlocks carry over into MP then great, I can deal with online SP. Otherwise, I don't see the justification for it here.

I am glad I am not the only one to think this way. I am pretty much in the same boat as you.

[Rama]

it's an automatic no-fly zone for me.

So be it....

You will then only fly the SP individual missions... at least until a third party developp a SP campaign

 

[39bn_pavig]

Here's another ex-developer perspective on why server side campaign generation makes sense. BoS is not a play balanced symetrical sim where every "unit" has a similarly powerful opposing unit. This means that whenever new planes or content is released, or the simulation model changes in the slightest, the single player campaign generator will need to be tweaked for play balance. This is also the case depending on what dlc content each player owns, and also integrate historically believable situations around the player's home airfield. 

 

In a symetrical unit campaign (like most strategy titles) play balance is achieved by nerfing certain overpowered units when asymetry of capabilities creates a potential exploit. Thus DLC can be introduced without breaking the single player campaign balance. Still you get the usual unforseen consequences (the zerg rush) in every game released like this. If instead your mission generation can be tweaked constantly to get rid of unforseen problems, then unit asymetry isn't an issue, as play balance can be dynamically curated as the community discovers edge cases where balance is lacking.

 

This gives the developers a role similar to the clan mission making and modding community, where various templates can be refined over time to create complex and interesting scenarios. This is in stark contrast to the basic randomness of the quick mission generator, which no matter how clever it eventually becomes, will always show some lack of imagination in the scenarios it provides. 

 

It is that ability to iterate mission designs and templates rapidly which is the advantage of server side mission generation. The difficulty of achieving this client side and retaining playability is evidenced by the number of "procedurally generated" kickstarter or greenlight games which hit a complexity wall midway through development and flounder under their own complexity. Cool companies like Paradox Interactive and Eugen Systems have managed to do it, but they have done so by rebuilding their engine into new games based on the same basic structure for over a decade while they continually refine their system. 

 

1C/777 aren't making a grand strategy title, but they are attempting to make a simulator which gives immersion into the kind of complex war which grand strategy titles evoke. I think they are taking the best approach by doing their campaign development server side, where the development costs and quality assurance required to get the product out is greatly mitigated by their ability to work on a live system. It will facilitate more complex and curated mission styles and greatly reduce the workload of fixing bugs and balancing issues even while integrating a great degree of randomness and replayability. 

 

Because BoS is a combat flight simulator first, and campaign based "procedurally generated" war sim second, I am glad 1C/777 have taken an approach which gives them best focus on the combat and flight sim aspects, while leaving them with great flexibility and an agile approach to campaign generation rather than a more traditional approach which risks slowing development.

 

If I hadn't spent time developing games and database systems I would be scratching my head by their approach too. In fact I was a bit annoyed by  the online mission requirement for RoF career mode until I started to figure out more about how they had built it. It may not seem to make sense, but trust me, it does.

[Rama]

Still holding out hope that in time if modders are given the right tools, are able to make a more in depth version of a campaign.

The Tools allready exists, there were developped by Pat Wilson (for the RoF PWCG SP campaign), and they probably can also be used with very little modifications for BoS.

Pat is willing to give his Tools. What is missing isn't the Tools, but the designers.

[FuriousMeow]

The campaign system can be updated on the fly server side. That is the biggest, and best, reason. You want JG67(a) that served at this field during this time but then changed to this field for two days and then went back to the older field? No patch, no update, just adjusted on the server. Oh, you don't care about getting an unpdate - you love installing patches every three hours? Sweet, but there is a ton of workload involved in creating patches themselves that expands that constant updating process to more of a laborious thankless task that costs development hours. No He-111 cargo crates, or Ju52 (I know, the 3D modeller and FM designer, and DM designer are all different but making the planes, and the cargo loadouts, and the implentation also involves everyone else to get it in the title) because some don't mind patches. So when the campaign system is being updated frequently, patches are difficult and time consuming and are a negative to productivity.

 

And what is the real complaint, aside from internet outages, for the online requirement?

 

As far as I can see, that is the only complaint - but you can continue playing the mission and it will be uploaded later. It really only impacts the online campaign system, and hopefully someone will come along and create a very good offline DCG like Pat Wilson. So many want mods, why is a 3rd party DCG the only mod many complain about not actually wanting? Il-2 had no DCG - Starshoy created it as a mod.

Edited September 3, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[39bn_pavig]

... also for narrative style (linear) campaigns, there is the BoS mission editor, which is in closed beta. It is an evolution of the RoF editor however, so you can get some idea of how powerful it will be here: http://riseofflight.com/en/community/usefulmaterials/lessons

 

 

Of course, like many aspects of the sim, such stuff is still secret until the developers decide to surprise us with a new gift, but we can already see the first products of the mission editors in new multiplayer scenarios appearing on the clan servers which launched this week, as well as the "ghosts in the snow" single player mission launched with the last release. These are community contributed missions using the dev tools, so we can look forward to offline campaigns after release provided the community gets behind creating them.

Edited September 3, 2014 by 39bn_pavig

[=LD=Penshoon]

The campaign system can be updated on the fly server side. That is the biggest, and best, reason. You want JG67(a) that served at this field during this time but then changed to this field for two days and then went back to the older field? No patch, no update, just adjusted on the server. Oh, you don't care about getting an unpdate - you love installing patches every three hours? Sweet, but there is a ton of workload involved in creating patches themselves that expands that constant updating process to more of a laborious thankless task that costs development hours. No He-111 cargo crates, or Ju52 (I know, the 3D modeller and FM designer, and DM designer are all different but making the planes, and the cargo loadouts, and the implentation also involves everyone else to get it in the title) because some don't mind patches. So when the campaign system is being updated frequently, patches are difficult and time consuming and are a negative to productivity.

 

And what is the real complaint, aside from internet outages, for the online requirement?

 

As far as I can see, that is the only complaint - but you can continue playing the mission and it will be uploaded later. It really only impacts the online campaign system, and hopefully someone will come along and create a very good offline DCG like Pat Wilson. So many want mods, why is a 3rd party DCG the only mod many complain about not actually wanting? Il-2 had no DCG - Starshoy created it as a mod.

Now I'm confused. Why does the generator have to be updated every three hours? 

[FuriousMeow]

It doesn't have to be. When new data is being uploaded, though, it can be uploaded as needed rather than creating tons of patches. One day may have a single update with a lot of data, but then there is an issue and the data has to be modified a few times, and suddenly it went from one update to ten - but no patches had to be compiled so no one ever knew.

 

Point is - campaign system can be updated on the fly, seamlessly, and without notice. Client based patches, on the other hand, not so much.

 

The offline/online thing is a bit too much of the "but I bought this, so I should own it!" fallacy. The only thing purchased was a license to use, not ownership of the code. Same with every single bit of software you have installed on your system - it's a EULA, not an ownership.

Edited September 3, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[vsTerminus]

Here's another ex-developer perspective on why server side campaign generation makes sense. BoS is not a play balanced symetrical sim where every "unit" has a similarly powerful opposing unit. This means that whenever new planes or content is released, or the simulation model changes in the slightest, the single player campaign generator will need to be tweaked for play balance. This is also the case depending on what dlc content each player owns, and also integrate historically believable situations around the player's home airfield. 

 

In a symetrical unit campaign (like most strategy titles) play balance is achieved by nerfing certain overpowered units when asymetry of capabilities creates a potential exploit. Thus DLC can be introduced without breaking the single player campaign balance. Still you get the usual unforseen consequences (the zerg rush) in every game released like this. If instead your mission generation can be tweaked constantly to get rid of unforseen problems, then unit asymetry isn't an issue, as play balance can be dynamically curated as the community discovers edge cases where balance is lacking.

This can also be done with patches at an inverval, which makes sense for a few reasons:

 

- They ought to have release cycles when they deliver new code

- Reactionary balance without proper consideration often backfires and creates more problems than it solves.

 

If the community discovers an edge case that makes the campaign too easy,

 

- It's up to individual players to take advantage of this exploit and affects nobody else

- I'd rather wait 2 weeks for a fix than have them fix it overnight only to find that it made something else even worse.

- The possibility that the devs might want to fix such an edge case from time to time is not a justification for forcing us to be always-online!

 

It will facilitate more complex and curated mission styles and greatly reduce the workload of fixing bugs and balancing issues even while integrating a great degree of randomness and replayability.

I don't see how their servers are going to generate more complex missions than my computer at home could. I've already mentioned that while yea, it would reduce the need to put out patches for balance alone, but a once-in-a-while activity is not enough to justify forcing clients to log in just to play alone.

 

 

 

If I hadn't spent time developing games and database systems I would be scratching my head by their approach too. In fact I was a bit annoyed by  the online mission requirement for RoF career mode until I started to figure out more about how they had built it. It may not seem to make sense, but trust me, it does.

I'm a professional developer as well, so I definitely see the advantages of an online campaign, but there's no need for it. Give me an offline mode where my computer generates the missions and I'll be happy. If people want to log in to get the advantages of server-side missions then great, but make it an option.

[=LD=Penshoon]

It doesn't have to be. When new data is being uploaded, though, it can be uploaded as needed rather than creating tons of patches. One day may have a single update with a lot of data, but then there is an issue and the data has to be modified a few times, and suddenly it went from one update to ten - but no patches had to be compiled so no one ever knew.

 

Point is - campaign system can be updated on the fly, seamlessly, and without notice. Client based patches, on the other hand, not so much.

 

The offline/online thing is a bit too much of the "but I bought this, so I should own it!" fallacy. The only thing purchased was a license to use, not ownership of the code. Same with every single bit of software you have installed on your system - it's a EULA, not an ownership.

That can't be the only reason for it, the inconvenience for the customers got to outweigh the convenience of not having to push this data together with the normal patches. 

 

I have a very reliable and quick network connection so it doesn't affect me as much but it will put off many other customers who value offline gaming higher. I also think the sim crowd have more of these people than other genres. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't it won't for others, right? 

 

I still think they are holding off announcing something. They have already stated that the historical campaign is 70% of the game so it's got to be something more.