How to increase quality of this "game" (we prefer more simulation) with not a lot of work?

[IRRE_Genius]

Dear Developer - 1C Team,

First of all, thank you for the work done so far. This beta has no major bugs and is pleasant to fly. 

But, some choices seem to persist for the gameplay or others reasons and a lot of us want some changes. With the advance of your work (Loft said 90% on the video, the work focuses on debugging), we think it's time to express our requests. Some of them are also a copy of what already exists in ROF.

The purpose of this post is not to add a long list of requests, it is to list the main weaknesses of the current "game" core because we want, like you, the success of this "game" but we have a different vision of how to achieve it.

Our requests:

1) No locking/unlocking system outside the campaign-AQM mode for multiplayer or single player missions. We do not want to have to fly 1/2/10 or any given time to be allowed to fly an aircraft in multiplayer or our own missions. If this choice may be understandable to extend the life of the single-player game, it is not at all for players focused on the multiplayer game.

2) A FMB ! Without mission editor, no possibilities for the differents virtual squadrons to create their own missions and campaigns. If you can't develop a simple tool for that (what we understand for economic reasons), please give access upon release to the current mission editor (based on ROF) if necessary with a public download link for those who wish and a disclaimer.

3) In game Map like the ROF Map. The current map is unusable because too small for proper navigation and impossible to set up as you want. The Rof map is very easy to use, no latency, configurable size, movable, zoomable, etc...Why not keep this advantage of ROF?

4) To separate the different HUD functions:
- Engine management / "technochat"
- HUD display (bearing, speed, etc...)
- Chat
- in-game/server informations (success of current objectives, etc...)
If you don't want hud informations but chat or server informations, it's currently impossible

5) A dedicated software server without another game key and configurable (lock/unlock payload, mods, etc...). We would like to be able to configure the informations available on the server (hud, technochat, etc...). Expert mode should not allow the hud (no hud or technochat) 

6) No graphics presets after beta period / game released. We understand this for the beta phase and debugging process but, after the game's release, it would be incomprehensible to be unable to fine-tune the graphics quality .


We want this discussion open, calm and quiet to share our views and hope that the potential support of the community in this post can influence you.

Sincerely yours

Genius

 

 

P.S.: If we have misunderstood some point perhaps you could clarify

[=LD=Hethwill]

I am sure the FMB topic referred is planned for post release so wait for release and then wait for FMB release. 

 

The HUD things being server side... don't know how I feel about it, makes little sense to me having server admin options to control a client HUD options... But then i'm sure the Server code will allow great liberty of scripting along with FMB galore.

[IRRE_Genius]

 

Wow! I must have missed the election.

Some good points but it always irks me when someone posts demands from a "we" without consulting us first.

 

"We" are not "all" 

Edited September 24, 2014 by Genius

[M4rgaux]

1) No locking/unlocking system outside the campaign-AQM mode for multiplayer or single player missions. We do not want to have to fly 1/2/10 or any given time to be allowed to fly an aircraft in multiplayer or our own missions. If this choice may be understandable to extend the life of the single-player game, it is not at all for players focused on the multiplayer game.

 

This is a game design choice, a lot of people are perfectly happy with it. Most people who complain have no reason to do so. The issue has mostly been answered by the dev team.

 

2) A FMB ! Without mission editor, no possibilities for the differents virtual squadrons to create their own missions and campaigns. If you can't develop a simple tool for that (what we understand for economic reasons), please give access upon release to the current mission editor (based on ROF) if necessary with a public download link for those who wish and a disclaimer.

 

This has already been answered by the dev team, you'll have it in time.

3) In game Map like the ROF Map. The current map is unusable because too small for proper navigation and impossible to set up as you want. The Rof map is very easy to use, no latency, configurable size, movable, zoomable, etc...Why not keep this advantage of ROF?

 

Push "O"

4) To separate the different HUD functions:

- Engine management / "technochat"

- HUD display (bearing, speed, etc...)

- Chat

- in-game/server informations (success of current objectives, etc...)

If you don't want hud informations but chat or server informations, it's currently impossible

 

Once again the dev team has already answered, it might not be implemented yet but we'll be able to turn off the technochat, want to hide the hud will keeping the rest, push "I"

 

5) A dedicated software server without another game key and configurable (lock/unlock payload, mods, etc...). We would like to be able to configure the informations available on the server (hud, technochat, etc...). Expert mode should not allow the hud (no hud or technochat) 

 

 

Unavailable for the lambda player right know but already here, else there wouldn't be no online play.

 

6) No graphics presets after beta period / game released. We understand this for the beta phase and debugging process but, after the game's release, it would be incomprehensible to be unable to fine-tune the graphics quality .

 

The dev already answered that too.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2014 by M4rgaux

[von_Tom]

1 - Live with it because a) that decision isn't going to change and b) at this stage you have no idea how it'll work in practice.

 

2-6 - They'll come in time.

 

And I'm not one of the "we" even though I'd also like 2 to 6.

 

Hood

[Sokol1]

Wow! I must have missed the election.

 

Some good points but it always irks me when someone posts demands from a "we" without consulting us first.

 

Seems a case of "bad" comunication: The "we" he refers is not you guys, but the people of CheckSIx forum.

 

http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=437&t=187091&sid=20f1681b83803296af79f4788d832396&start=50

[C6_iceheart]

 i agree with  Genius

[Lusekofte]

WOW this is a fair mix between fps and simmers. Why refuse any of the request . Those wanting unlock may choose to have it. For me it make no sense having to unlock a armament that was standard on the plane.

Simmers are into a kind of role play while playing around. Realism or as much of it you can have is a great advantage. I personally expect IL 2 to be better than the 14 year older game, in just about every bit of it.

Who are anybody here to deny a member his right to request anything, is it really what you want?

What would you think if everything you want to communicate to the dev´s first have to go thru a divided community discussion first.

I find it really odd this continuous  collaboration and split & rule strategy 

I think the dev´s goal to meet the need of the many in many ways excluded those witch wanted a simulator. They gave the impression that much more could be bonded to keys and Hotas but more and more moved over to "simplified" and totally excluded options for more, 

I think he got a point, and I think we should respect his right to say so

Edited September 24, 2014 by LuseKofte

[Beazil]

Wow! I must have missed the election.

 

Some good points but it always irks me when someone posts demands from a "we" without consulting us first.

 

Indeed.  I am capable of speaking for myself.  So I think I will.  I'm not sure I understand so many people here reacting to the implementation of an unlock system.  It's for the single player campaign.  And in the case of fighter evolution, even makes some sense (although I'm pretty sure the FW190 A3 was out long before the G2, for example).  Nowhere have I read anything from the developers that says you can't fly online with whatever you want.  But then again, I'm not combing through every comment on these forums - more perplexed by the "gut reaction" of many in this community regarding a campaign unlock system.   I also assume this to be true of the full mission builder - but since I don't yet have access to the final product, it's impossible to say.  In the campaign it makes sense that you'd have to "earn" your stripes to a degree.  Is it a perfect system?  No, but it's not that hard to understand.  You DO make some good points Genius, but again, as has been mentioned before, many of the requests you make will come in time.  Let them get the game out first.  I'm sure they want a perfect system as much as you do.  I have read nothing that says you HAVE to fly the single player campaign.  Perhaps I am wrong?

 

/edit:  and thanks again for the clarification Sokol.  I was confused by the "We".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2014 by Beazil

[IRRE_Genius]

@M4rgaux:

 

For map "o", i know it but:

zoomable = yes

size configurable = no

Moovable = no (inside the map yes, but not the map "box")

latency = yes (maybe not for all ?)

 

=> ROF map are very useful, do you try it ?

Edited September 24, 2014 by Genius

[bolt69]

I can sometime read posts of people complaining about the unlock system for the MP and in the same time considering that it is normal for SP to have this kind of unlock system. I personnaly do not fly MP just because I simply do not have time to do it. 

I am pretty sure that the MP is more fun than SP but I do not have the occasion to do MP because of real life activity. 

 

Just to say that if the unlock system is implemented, I will probably not have the time to spend hours unlocking the things to play what I want to play. That will end up that I will probably get away from this game. And believe me, I don't want that. This game have big potential and I don't want to be forced to don't play it because of some gameplay choice with unlock stuff or those kind of things.

[AbortedMan]

Why are you putting quotes around the word "game"? It's ok, this is a video game, you don't have to use that delimiter.

[Obelix]

Dear Developer - 1C Team,

 

First of all, thank you for the work done so far. This beta has no major bugs and is pleasant to fly. 

 

But, some choices seem to persist for the gameplay or others reasons and a lot of us want some changes. With the advance of your work (Loft said 90% on the video, the work focuses on debugging), we think it's time to express our requests. Some of them are also a copy of what already exists in ROF.

 

The purpose of this post is not to add a long list of requests, it is to list the main weaknesses of the current "game" core because we want, like you, the success of this "game" but we have a different vision of how to achieve it.

 

Our requests:

 

1) No locking/unlocking system outside the campaign-AQM mode for multiplayer or single player missions. We do not want to have to fly 1/2/10 or any given time to be allowed to fly an aircraft in multiplayer or our own missions. If this choice may be understandable to extend the life of the single-player game, it is not at all for players focused on the multiplayer game.

 

2) A FMB ! Without mission editor, no possibilities for the differents virtual squadrons to create their own missions and campaigns. If you can't develop a simple tool for that (what we understand for economic reasons), please give access upon release to the current mission editor (based on ROF) if necessary with a public download link for those who wish and a disclaimer.

 

3) In game Map like the ROF Map. The current map is unusable because too small for proper navigation and impossible to set up as you want. The Rof map is very easy to use, no latency, configurable size, movable, zoomable, etc...Why not keep this advantage of ROF?

 

4) To separate the different HUD functions:

- Engine management / "technochat"

- HUD display (bearing, speed, etc...)

- Chat

- in-game/server informations (success of current objectives, etc...)

If you don't want hud informations but chat or server informations, it's currently impossible

 

5) A dedicated software server without another game key and configurable (lock/unlock payload, mods, etc...). We would like to be able to configure the informations available on the server (hud, technochat, etc...). Expert mode should not allow the hud (no hud or technochat) 

 

6) No graphics presets after beta period / game released. We understand this for the beta phase and debugging process but, after the game's release, it would be incomprehensible to be unable to fine-tune the graphics quality .

 

 

We want this discussion open, calm and quiet to share our views and hope that the potential support of the community in this post can influence you.

 

Sincerely yours

 

Genius

 

 

P.S.: If we have misunderstood some point perhaps you could clarify

+1

 

Thanks Genius

[LAL_Wolf]

1. Same,  i agree with Genius .

     Thanks Genius

[Elbows]

So, am I to understand that the single-player campaign will feature unlockable stuff along the way?  I think that's a bit silly...seems more aimed at the grind-for-kills kind of Call of Duty style player.  With so few planes and equipment it could have easily been replaced by a simple inventory system (ie. your airfield/logistics change after missions etc.)

 

Interesting...but I don't plan on playing single-player.  As long as they're not locked for MP it doesn't affect me (and locking content which people paid for is always a supremely questionable practice).

 

The other stuff is all coming from what I understand. 

[senseispcc]

Where are the times when everyone was happy with "Battlehawk  1942" and his limitations, vga 256 colors, no takeoff or landing, no multi player, no real flight model, big pixels, six types of aircrafts, where are this times long gone?  

 

[PA-Sniv]

Agree!

 

Cheers,

[Canauos]

I totally agree with Genius !

Thank you for the initiative

I really hope that the game will be a success ...

[A-E-Hartmann]

Dear Developer - 1C Team,

 

First of all, thank you for the work done so far. This beta has no major bugs and is pleasant to fly. 

 

But, some choices seem to persist for the gameplay or others reasons and a lot of us want some changes. With the advance of your work (Loft said 90% on the video, the work focuses on debugging), we think it's time to express our requests. Some of them are also a copy of what already exists in ROF.

 

The purpose of this post is not to add a long list of requests, it is to list the main weaknesses of the current "game" core because we want, like you, the success of this "game" but we have a different vision of how to achieve it.

 

Our requests:

 

1) No locking/unlocking system outside the campaign-AQM mode for multiplayer or single player missions. We do not want to have to fly 1/2/10 or any given time to be allowed to fly an aircraft in multiplayer or our own missions. If this choice may be understandable to extend the life of the single-player game, it is not at all for players focused on the multiplayer game.

 

2) A FMB ! Without mission editor, no possibilities for the differents virtual squadrons to create their own missions and campaigns. If you can't develop a simple tool for that (what we understand for economic reasons), please give access upon release to the current mission editor (based on ROF) if necessary with a public download link for those who wish and a disclaimer.

 

3) In game Map like the ROF Map. The current map is unusable because too small for proper navigation and impossible to set up as you want. The Rof map is very easy to use, no latency, configurable size, movable, zoomable, etc...Why not keep this advantage of ROF?

 

4) To separate the different HUD functions:

- Engine management / "technochat"

- HUD display (bearing, speed, etc...)

- Chat

- in-game/server informations (success of current objectives, etc...)

If you don't want hud informations but chat or server informations, it's currently impossible

 

5) A dedicated software server without another game key and configurable (lock/unlock payload, mods, etc...). We would like to be able to configure the informations available on the server (hud, technochat, etc...). Expert mode should not allow the hud (no hud or technochat) 

 

6) No graphics presets after beta period / game released. We understand this for the beta phase and debugging process but, after the game's release, it would be incomprehensible to be unable to fine-tune the graphics quality .

 

 

We want this discussion open, calm and quiet to share our views and hope that the potential support of the community in this post can influence you.

 

Sincerely yours

 

Genius

 

 

P.S.: If we have misunderstood some point perhaps you could clarify

1+ Genius

[Trinkof]

+1

 

Fully agreed

[C6_Trollbug]

+1 

I agree with Genius .

[J4SCrisZeri]

about the fine tuning on graphics, it's been said that developers already said their word about it.

Anybody is so kind to give me a link so I can read the discussion?

I have totally missed it

 

Thank you so much.

[dburne]

I agree with the OP as well!!

[FlatSpinMan]

Agree with whoever you want guys but please don't quote really long posts in full.

[Katsuo]

I won't quote anyone. I just agree with Genius.

[=SqSq=Sulaco]

I like the idea of an unlock system in that it promotes experimenting with different planes and encourages putting time into aircraft you might not normally fly.

[Sparrer]

+1 Agreed

 

Would add to it :

FOG

Lobby chat

[Jaws2002]

+1 Agree with Genius.

 

I played maybe two hours in the last three weeks. If they force the unlocks on us, I'll have access to the full game I paid for in a about a year.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

I just support Genius and +1 for that!

[LAL_Fox]

+1   I agree with Genius

 

Thank you so much.

[C6-Barda]

+1 

I agree with Genius .

[312_strycekFido]

@M4rgaux:

 

For map "o", i know it but:

zoomable = yes

size configurable = no

Moovable = no (inside the map yes, but not the map "box")

latency = yes (maybe not for all ?)

 

=> ROF map are very useful, do you try it ?

 

the "O" map isn't really helpful, unless you're in a bomber with both functioning engines and engaded level stabilizer

 

we need proper inflight map like in RoF, or atleast old Il-2 1946

[C6_Trollbug]

I like the idea of an unlock system in that it promotes experimenting with different planes and encourages putting time into aircraft you might not normally fly.

Nothing personal , of course , Sulaco , but I use your post to be more precise on my thoughts   :

I'm an adult hardcore simmer . I know what kind of mission I prefer and how to use different kinds of war loads. I haven't paid this flight sim to be forced one day to fly planes I don't like .

The "unlock system" on a free game , ok,  why not . On a game paid , no . 

Edited September 25, 2014 by C6_Trollbug

[Trident_109]

the "O" map isn't really helpful, unless you're in a bomber with both functioning engines and engaded level stabilizer

 

we need proper inflight map like in RoF, or atleast old Il-2 1946

The "O MAP" would be fine if they varied the transparency like they do in RoF.  I'm amazed at the incredible stupidity of the corner map in this game. It's totally unusable and is more of a nuisance than anything else. I'd love to know how that developer's meeting went and who green lighted it. IMO it's a failure.

[Obelix]

 

1) No locking/unlocking system outside the campaign-AQM mode for multiplayer or single player missions. We do not want to have to fly 1/2/10 or any given time to be allowed to fly an aircraft in multiplayer or our own missions. If this choice may be understandable to extend the life of the single-player game, it is not at all for players focused on the multiplayer game.

 

This is a game design choice, a lot of people are perfectly happy with it. Most people who complain have no reason to do so. The issue has mostly been answered by the dev team.

 

2) A FMB ! Without mission editor, no possibilities for the differents virtual squadrons to create their own missions and campaigns. If you can't develop a simple tool for that (what we understand for economic reasons), please give access upon release to the current mission editor (based on ROF) if necessary with a public download link for those who wish and a disclaimer.

 

This has already been answered by the dev team, you'll have it in time.

3) In game Map like the ROF Map. The current map is unusable because too small for proper navigation and impossible to set up as you want. The Rof map is very easy to use, no latency, configurable size, movable, zoomable, etc...Why not keep this advantage of ROF?

 

Push "O"

4) To separate the different HUD functions:

- Engine management / "technochat"

- HUD display (bearing, speed, etc...)

- Chat

- in-game/server informations (success of current objectives, etc...)

If you don't want hud informations but chat or server informations, it's currently impossible

 

Once again the dev team has already answered, it might not be implemented yet but we'll be able to turn off the technochat, want to hide the hud will keeping the rest, push "I"

 

5) A dedicated software server without another game key and configurable (lock/unlock payload, mods, etc...). We would like to be able to configure the informations available on the server (hud, technochat, etc...). Expert mode should not allow the hud (no hud or technochat) 

 

 

Unavailable for the lambda player right know but already here, else there wouldn't be no online play.

 

6) No graphics presets after beta period / game released. We understand this for the beta phase and debugging process but, after the game's release, it would be incomprehensible to be unable to fine-tune the graphics quality .

 

The dev already answered that too.

 

 

 

With "o", you've got a full screen map, not very usefull in flight, sorry. The "rof way map" is, in my own opinion, the best way.

 

S

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

I really wish people would stop jumping down the throats of others because they were expecting a flight sim and not so much implemented game mechanics. After all this game is named after a very successful flight simulator (dated simulator) so I'm not surprised people have certain expectations. I always thought a game series is suppose to keep within its boundaries and not change its genre.

 

Me personally was hoping for a simulator and was willing to compromise a little for the sake of being in a niche market. However it seems IL2 the so called simulator series wants to be a game/simulator, game or simulator. I'm actually at a stage where I'm not completely sure what I'll be playing by release. Never the less it still has great simulator mechanics so perhaps they're in the long run running true. I just didn't want myself and anyone to be made to compromise through restriction.

 

I understand they want to grab more interest but in doing so they're also limiting the the amount of enthusiasts who play simulators with none of the unlocking mechanics because it's nonsense in a simulator environment. Frankly I think 1C is "Cutting off the nose to spite the face" a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem.

Edited September 26, 2014 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[Sparrer]

S!

The "O MAP" would be fine if they varied the transparency like they do in RoF.  I'm amazed at the incredible stupidity of the corner map in this game. It's totally unusable and is more of a nuisance than anything else. I'd love to know how that developer's meeting went and who green lighted it. IMO it's a failure.

 

I would like a enhanced minimap(M map), like the Il2 or ROF style. But, once the O map is already done, i would like to keep it also, because is a pretty good plataform for further map tool implementation......which we certainly will beg for

[Black034]

Maybe give us the ability to edit the gfx settings config files.

 

Or

 

LOW

BALANCED

HIGH

CUSTOM

 

Seems like a really weird choice to only give us presets.

[Rivet]

I really wish people would stop jumping down the throats of others because they were expecting a flight sim and not so much implemented game mechanics. After all this game is named after a very successful flight simulator (dated simulator) so I'm not surprised people have certain expectations. I always thought a game series is suppose to keep within its boundaries and not change its genre.

 

Me personally was hoping for a simulator and was willing to compromise a little for the sake of being in a niche market. However it seems IL2 the so called simulator series wants to be a game/simulator, game or simulator. I'm actually at a stage where I'm not completely sure what I'll be playing by release. Never the less it still has great simulator mechanics so perhaps they're in the long run running true. I just didn't want myself and anyone to be made to compromise through restriction.

 

I understand they want to grab more interest but in doing so they're also limiting the the amount of enthusiasts who play simulators with none of the unlocking mechanics because it's nonsense in a simulator environment. Frankly I think 1C is "Cutting off the nose to spite the face" a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem.

This^^

 

Plus, I fail to see why we can't have fully customizable graphics settings on release, like most other games. After all we are almost 15 years into the 21st century. It just doesn't make sense. I won't bang my head against the wall about unlocks etc as that has been done to death now and won't be changed.

[=]VLA[=Ravonmith]

I like the game as it is. Like unlocks very much! All kinds of rewards in multi /singleplayergames are great for me. 

 

A better map would be nice, maybe somekind old fashionedl. But till there is the "o" function .. all good. Maybe as a window not fullscrean.

 

At least .. if all bugs get fixed i only seek for  progress and success of the developmentteam. 

Edited September 26, 2014 by =]VLA[=Ravonmith