Developer Diary, Part 81

[1./JG42Nephris]

Doesnt it already now hit the empty gap between WarTunder and maybe Il2-1946 and Clodo?

 

Coming from a long Il2 1946 carreer I wasnt aware I was so wrong in what to expect in BoS.

I seriously hoped to be free in adjusting settings (not only control settings of my hotas) to play the game at my willing - after Jasons last post here, I realize I was so wrong, as i cant expect major changes after the release due his statements.

 

The feeling went from excited to surprised to frustrated and now over to resigned the past months.

Its a game no more no less, I know that.

But aswell it was a hope to keep the flight sim passion alive, and for myself I dont see that anymore.

Ashame the game itself is actually great.

Edited October 7, 2014 by 1./JG42Nephris

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

All this grinding is beginning to seem very War Thunderish. Please don't let it devolve into another WT.

Too late? At least there is no mouse fly/aim whatever WT has. 

[JG1_Vonrd]

Too late? At least there is no mouse fly/aim whatever WT has. 

Might not be that far off... 777 has Mousefly in their new Illya Mouromets spinoff from Rise of Flight.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Might not be that far off... 777 has Mousefly in their new Illya Mouromets spinoff from Rise of Flight.

Oh say its not so.

[Static]

All this grinding is beginning to seem very War Thunderish. Please don't let it devolve into another WT.

Pre- Alpha tested WT 3hrs, installed WT Tanks 3 years later. 

[39bn_pavig]

 

 

I know you're not talking about BoS' SP campaign...are you? The only thing that is about the history in the SP campaign is the cinematic before the chapter starts. The missions have literally nothing to do with any events that happened in Operation Uranus and the surrounding era other than they are over and around the Stalingrad area. The map could easily be replaced with the planet Mars and it would be the exact same game...except red.

 

Everybody seems to be imagining that the campaign is just a glorified quick mission generator. The missions are generated server side, so they can add as much complexity and historical colour as they want down the track. As this beta release is effectively the first release of a cloud-based campaign system (rather than a final client-side product which is stuck where it is at release) it is built to be revised by design. The developers need to balance playability with historical significance, and they have built a system which will allow them to continue to refine content after release. The nature of such systems is that you build them generic, functional and agile, then you build content out of the solid platform. I'm looking at the sim as built like a punlishing medium, so given the tools and intention of the developers, and in future the tools available to the community, the system they have created is generic enough to support historical missions. I think we have seen a commitment to historical accuracy already by the developers in work on the aircraft and maps, and expect that to continue as the official campaign is revised and other missions are released.

 

 

IThere's was more historical gameplay in the first 5 seconds of loading into the Eagle's Nest server (and Syndicate server) in MP by reading the briefing than there is in this entire SP campaign!! And lo and behold, the missions that were on those MP servers are actually historical in context!...and that was given to the community for free!

 

Good point. The community is doing a great job developing individual confrontations in the war, and I expect later will graduate to episodic campaigns both online and off. That sort of historical depth however can not be sustained for a dynamic campaign of the kind which was released on the weekend. That is another kind of beast, and though it will be refined in time, it is by nature non-linear and so will remain only partly historically acurate. The positive is that it will be infinitely re-playable for those who wish, and that it can scale with the skill level of the pilot to ensure that less experienced flyers don't hit a wall and get stuck part way. Strongly historical campaigns though must be largely linear, and the devs have already put in the system for producing such campaigns in the missions area. As the mission development tools will have evolved during the development of the non-linear campaign structures are now there to produce more of the content that hardcore history buffs enjoy. So lets not can the developers for not providing all the historical flavour yet when they have been busy building the tools to make it possible.

 

 

I'm not sure why 777/1C are trying to reinvent the wheel. As someone said earlier in this thread, the IL2:1946 players are out there, they're just still waiting for a good game to play. BoS has the ingredients for a great game, all they need to do is follow a simple formula. Jason stated earlier that IL2:1946 was lightning in a bottle...why aren't they trying to emulate that? It was a success in its mature form...products that are similar to the current iteration of BoS (like War Thunder) two years into their development cycle are hemorrhaging players and potential income, according to their insiders. I see this following suit.

 

Well some of the folk who were responsible for the original IL2 have gone over to the DCS engine to reproduce it there. The thing though about 1946 though was that "lightning in a bottle" was predominantly created after IL2 release by the modding community, and was then brushed up and republished. So the magic 777/1C would be hoping to recapture is not about producing the greatest game, but a great platform which will grow and be fleshed out by the community into another flight sim worthy of hobby status. People who have talked about this sim being only a shell have partly got it right. The true development into the sim we want it to be will begin after release, as it was with IL2, Arma, etc.

 

 

Pavig

The developers are talking to members of the closed mod making community about how to deal with unlockables and load out issues for MP missions.

And what's this about? Do you have a source? This is just hot air and not even worth mentioning unless you provide something of substance. 

 

 

Probably Jason or Zak from memory, in response to a thread where folk running servers were concerned about how to manage mission loadouts... but if you're going to call me a windbag you can go look it up yourself. 

[BM357_TinMan]

This would actually be kind of funny if it wasn't so sad.  These developers have got it in their heads that you WILL play the S/P campaign that they've worked so hard on, and you WILL use their little system of unlocking mods that they are evidently so proud of that they don't care that they are annoying the people that are going to be their client base for the future.  These are your hard core people.  The people that come to these forums, the people that ponied up money because they were so excited to play.  So excited that they were willing to overlook the drab winter Stalingrad map in the hopes that it would be successful and more would follow.

 

Frankly, it is way stupid to force unlocks outside of the single player campaign.  These unlocks should not apply to M/P or QMB, or, when it is finally released, any mission built using the mission builder.  This philosophy is stupid.

 

I have, because of this, been looking into DCS and am saddened by the fact that their WWII Europe project has, apparently, fallen apart.  It looks like ED is going to try to push forward and wish them success because, quite frankly, the developers here are treating their most interested users very poorly with this issue.

p.s., let me re-iterate, I actually intended to play the s/p campaign (this is actually what I enjoy most) and have not even attempted m/p yet (i'm just not that good, i'm mostly cannon fodder for human players), but the total lack of respect for the customer base here in lieu of the developers heavy handed wishes is kind of leaving a nasty taste in my mouth. 

[rlk281]

Thirty-one pages, oh my!

 

Just wanna chip in my appreciation to 777 for how hard your job must be, for so little positive feedback, and that I'd totally flash you my boobs if I were a girl; you so deserve it!

[Static]

This would actually be kind of funny if it wasn't so sad.  These developers have got it in their heads that you WILL play the S/P campaign that they've worked so hard on, and you WILL use their little system of unlocking mods that they are evidently so proud of that they don't care that they are annoying the people that are going to be their client base for the future.  These are your hard core people.  The people that come to these forums, the people that ponied up money because they were so excited to play.  So excited that they were willing to overlook the drab winter Stalingrad map in the hopes that it would be successful and more would follow.

 

Frankly, it is way stupid to force unlocks outside of the single player campaign.  These unlocks should not apply to M/P or QMB, or, when it is finally released, any mission built using the mission builder.  This philosophy is stupid.

 

I have, because of this, been looking into DCS and am saddened by the fact that their WWII Europe project has, apparently, fallen apart.  It looks like ED is going to try to push forward and wish them success because, quite frankly, the developers here are treating their most interested users very poorly with this issue.

 

p.s., let me re-iterate, I actually intended to play the s/p campaign (this is actually what I enjoy most) and have not even attempted m/p yet (i'm just not that good, i'm mostly cannon fodder for human players), but the total lack of respect for the customer base here in lieu of the developers heavy handed wishes is kind of leaving a nasty taste in my mouth. 

 

The Devs do not make the core decisions, remember a high % is set aside for marketing decisions. The developers do have some say so on the technical level but they basically do what they are told, no offense to developers, that is how the corporate world works in a consumer based society. Sad is the reality we all live, there is no scene of lets make the world a better place oppose to the chemical based reality one exist upon. 

 

Goddammit, I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!

Colonel Conley, take us to DEFCON 5.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Static

[VF101_jay]

Just finished playing through the first four SP missions, I really enjoy this game (love the flight model and perspective effects), but do think it needs more scalability. I would like to turn off some of the game aids like waypoint markers and aim assists that pull you out of the immersion. I haven't played far enough to see if this is in the unlocks yet or noticed if I am able to select expert difficulty in campaign. I can say that the missions so far didn't give me a feeling that the objectives were relevant to the larger conflict, though I do hope and suspect that as I get farther into the missions they will have more historical reference. I did like how the thought of negative consequences for crashing when landing added last minute tension to my approach.

 

With a little more fleshing out this could be my new favourite.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Oh War Games now I get it. Sorry man I didn't catch it the first time.

[Elbows]

I wasn't planning on responding to this thread again.  Now it's become borderline absurd the head-in-the-sand philosophy I'm seeing from the 1C/777 guys.

 

For myself and my group (we're not nearly good enough to pretend we're a squadron!) the damage is already done.  I fully plan on playing BoS occasionally with my buddy (we made the mistake of buying it the second it came onto Steam)...because we spent $95 a pop.  We'll just putz around in MP to waste time.  My other guys will not be buying the game, nor will we be picking up any future DLC/planes until we see a serious change of attitude from the designers.

 

That's the unfortunate part of this whole mess.  It's 100% removed our confidence that the developers are even remotely interested in the wishes of the community (honestly it seems the opposite at the moment).  It's not about the content anymore, or the silly unlocks.  It's proof that we can expect no genuine response or interest from the designers for future changes etc.  I've been rather surprised by the lack of interest in the developer posts I've seen in this thread.  I'm particularly non-plussed by the "Well we made this decision so we can't change it now...".  Yes.  Yes you can, and quite easily.  You could patch stuff incredibly easy.  You can turn back on what you turned off, etc.

 

Unfortunately now, if the developers/designers change their minds 100% tomorrow and everything was fantastic, my consumer confidence has already been shaken.  The same goes for my buddies (the two who don't own BoS yet do fly in RoF so this was all a foregone conclusion that we'd be flying together in BoS at some point).  They've been following the nonsense and their interest in purchasing the game has plummeted, more so due to the way the issue is being handled (or, not handled) than the actual changes to the content.

 

This saddens me because slowly but surely more game companies I've been supporting are turning sour (I'm lookin' at you Creative Assembly!) and I'm having to ditch franchises or games I've been following for years.  I'm sure I'll spend enough time flying around in MP with my buddies in stock aircraft, but the excitement/desire to heavily invest in the game for the next 4-5 years has disappeared.  I was actually looking forward to the excitement of DLC every couple of months, new planes, maps etc.  Now it's much more unlikely that we'll be bothering with that stuff.

 

1C/777: Please start reconsidering your approach to customer feedback.  It's really not casting a good light on you guys at the moment.

[LukeFF]

 

 

Sad is the reality some of us live, there is no scene of lets make the world a better place oppose to the chemical based reality one exist upon. 

 

 

Fixed.

 

I can only imagine why you have this anti-business stance in so many of your posts, but I know that every day I go to work, I am helping to make the world a better place.

[unreasonable]

Alas, Jason.

At no point during the developer diaries did I see mention of an unlock system pervading every crack and crevice of Stalingrad to the degree that Friday's update implemented. You spoke about it at length, that it was undoubtedly coming and that we should look forward to our new MMO/RPG XP grind, however it was always vague. We were never made aware that it would be made so integral to the MP system. I simply wish we had the choice again to play as we desire, rather than being shoe-horned into a path that is undesirable (as per each player finds fitting).

Frankly, I feel that the wool was pulled over my eyes - royally hoodwinked. I've pitched Stalingrad to so many folk over the past few months, most of them have gone on to purchase it. It's a shame that I cannot do so any more.

 

Stalingrad! You were so close to being perfect.

 

Leifr, not particularly getting at you, but:

 

DD3 Jan 2013

9) Tell us more about the structure of campaigns and other

attributes offline, i.e. how many planned missions in each

company, etc., has announced the estimated number of aircraft

for each side?

 

This is a very big question. We'll come back to it later with a

detailed story is in the blog, because I can not answer it

simply. Single campaign will be one of the bases in the

gameplay and will be across the red line. All players, even

those who prefer only online battles will go through several

stages of the campaign.

 

DD23 July 2013

 

(Talking about MP servers...)

 

With global stats on or off, you'll be using only the planes and

mods that you've obtained by purchasing the game or have

unlocked by playing the Historical campaign

 

***

 

In all fairness to the devs, they have said what they are going to do repeatedly and with reasonable clarity.  The problem has been that so many people simply pay no attention and assume they are going to get what they have had before, or what they want, or interpret their words to fit their preconceptions.  Cognitive dissonance I believe (though I have to be careful of amateur psychologizing now, sorry to cause offense, whoever you were).  Now this is partly the devs fault - calling the game "IL2-whatever" was always going to cause people to assume that it would be like IL2 only "better".

 

We had the same phenomenon manifest itself when the decision to go to pre-sets only post release was announced: critics of this decision, of whom I was one, were met with a wave of posts essentially saying that the devs did not say that, or if they had said it they did not mean it, or if they did mean it they would change their mind. Pure self-deception.

 

I have to admit to enjoying a little schadenfreude at the piteous complaints of the MP only crowd: after years of having SP mod development of my favourite games limited because of the fears of the MP community that it would encourage cheating it is amusing to see the reaction when the devs impose a one size fits all philosophy when the boot is on the other foot!

 

Personally I would rather they just exempted MP from unlocks, (or at least the founders) and gave us a little human interest colour to liven up the SP campaign.  But I fail to see what all this hysteria is going to achieve.

[No601_Swallow]

Just finished playing through the first four SP missions, I really enjoy this game (love the flight model and perspective effects), but do think it needs more scalability. I would like to turn off some of the game aids like waypoint markers and aim assists that pull you out of the immersion. I haven't played far enough to see if this is in the unlocks yet or noticed if I am able to select expert difficulty in campaign. I can say that the missions so far didn't give me a feeling that the objectives were relevant to the larger conflict, though I do hope and suspect that as I get farther into the missions they will have more historical reference. I did like how the thought of negative consequences for crashing when landing added last minute tension to my approach.

 

With a little more fleshing out this could be my new favourite.

 

On "normal" difficulty, all of those aids can be turned off. The new aiming aid, the engine management limiters, the HUD elements - they can call be turned off, leaving you with basically a hardcore "expert"  mode, but with externals should you so wish - and if you feel the urge, ahem, for a helping hand with, say, waypoints, or spotting ground targets, you can just turn the HUD markers back on! For instance, altitudes are vague, so I let the waypoints tell me how high I'm supposed to be (usually 3500m or so). Likewise, I find the wind "arrow" in the HUD compass a godsend when I'm planning my approach to landing.

 

Honestly, this gives me all the flexibility I need to play the campaign missions exactly as I want to, while avoiding the self-inflicted frustrations of "expert" mode.

 

I find the missions challenging (I'm not that good a pilot, obviously) and exciting. And failing a mission because I've wrecked my aircraft on landing is all part of the tension and excitement for me!

 

(I find some ofthe schizophrenic comments made my fellow simmers curious. On the one hand, people criticise the HUD elements for taking away immersion (even though it's so easy to turn these off) and yet at the same time bemoan the fact that  the missions are too hard or too long, that they can't "do" the missions on autopilot! So are the missions too easy or too difficult? Are they too realistic or not realistic enough? I can't square that particular simming circle!)

 

Anyway, love the game, Zak and Loft, love the design choices. Rock on!

 

I do find the circular firing squad mentality of the "community" a bit depressing though. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by No601_Swallow

[Static]

The best thing to do is to make jokes about the situation in turn & not kindly beg for change that is set in stone within the upper level decisions.

 

The devs do not have the ability to change the marketing aspect from the task to be completed. The developers are the worker as the corporation makes the decisions. Fo! Reals! 

 

Dystopian Economics 101

 

 

Fixed.

 

I can only imagine why you have this anti-business stance in so many of your posts, but I know that every day I go to work, I am helping to make the world a better place.

 

In reality you "think that" but that is not the case. I suggest you dig a bit deeper into the economic structures set by few within the world on this Earth. 

[Feathered_IV]

This last update is just bonkers.  First the funlock, and now this. 

 

If you wanted to restrict the use of the Autopilot/time compression, place extra air units at a high skill level along the exit waypoints.  You will have people needing to fly in real time to engage or evade them.  You might even make some friends by injecting some interest into the barren campaign missions. 

[Static]

Leifr, not particularly getting at you, but:

 

DD3 Jan 2013

9) Tell us more about the structure of campaigns and other

attributes offline, i.e. how many planned missions in each

company, etc., has announced the estimated number of aircraft

for each side?

 

This is a very big question. We'll come back to it later with a

detailed story is in the blog, because I can not answer it

simply. Single campaign will be one of the bases in the

gameplay and will be across the red line. All players, even

those who prefer only online battles will go through several

stages of the campaign.

 

DD23 July 2013

 

(Talking about MP servers...)

 

With global stats on or off, you'll be using only the planes and

mods that you've obtained by purchasing the game or have

unlocked by playing the Historical campaign

 

***

 

In all fairness to the devs, they have said what they are going to do repeatedly and with reasonable clarity.  The problem has been that so many people simply pay no attention and assume they are going to get what they have had before, or what they want, or interpret their words to fit their preconceptions.  Cognitive dissonance I believe (though I have to be careful of amateur psychologizing now, sorry to cause offense, whoever you were).  Now this is partly the devs fault - calling the game "IL2-whatever" was always going to cause people to assume that it would be like IL2 only "better".

 

We had the same phenomenon manifest itself when the decision to go to pre-sets only post release was announced: critics of this decision, of whom I was one, were met with a wave of posts essentially saying that the devs did not say that, or if they had said it they did not mean it, or if they did mean it they would change their mind. Pure self-deception.

 

I have to admit to enjoying a little schadenfreude at the piteous complaints of the MP only crowd: after years of having SP mod development of my favourite games limited because of the fears of the MP community that it would encourage cheating it is amusing to see the reaction when the devs impose a one size fits all philosophy when the boot is on the other foot!

 

Personally I would rather they just exempted MP from unlocks, (or at least the founders) and gave us a little human interest colour to liven up the SP campaign.  But I fail to see what all this hysteria is going to achieve.

 

They should of stickied this: 

 

All players, even

those who prefer only online battles will go through several

stages of the campaign. (and doing so needing to unlock weapon load outs, skins, etc for your multi-player experience.) 

 

I really care not what has happened within the game as unlocks much, more of the custom restrictions within the game. Why did the corporation choose to 86 custom graphic settings and custom realism settings on a PC title? That attitude seems to stem from the AAA publishers. No mess, they release countless patches for a AAA title and say sorry, but we are trying to fix a game you all payed for with patches one year into the future. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by Static

[Static]

Stephen Falken: Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up.

 

Jennifer: What kind of a lesson is that?

 

Stephen Falken: Did you ever play tic-tac-toe?

 

Jennifer: Yeah, of course.

 

Stephen Falken: But you don't anymore.

 

Jennifer: No.

 

Stephen Falken: Why?

 

Jennifer: Because it's a boring game. It's always a tie.

 

Stephen Falken: Exactly. There's no way to win. The game itself is pointless! But back in the war room, they believe you can win a nuclear war.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Static

[AbortedMan]

-snip-

Your faith in this company seems curiously deep. Is this your first video game? Have you not seen how these things usually go, or do you have some specific inside information that can back this monologue up?

 

The developers are talking to members of the closed mod making community about how to deal with unlockables and load out issues for MP missions.

Probably Jason or Zak from memory, in response to a thread where folk running servers were concerned about how to manage mission loadouts... but if you're going to call me a windbag you can go look it up yourself. 

If what you're referring to is what I think it is...that was me. I ran the Eagle's Nest server and had this very question in relation to my missions I was creating for it. If I'm your hope for "the closed mod making community talking about how to deal with unlockables and load out issues for MP missions"...then we're all screwed.

[Madov]

Et voila, the smoking gun. Some of us do actually read what gets communicated from 777. How many posts are there here bemoaning the lack of clarity from the Devs over this issue, saying that everyone assumed that only SP would have to do that sort of thing?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, and those that fail to see the wood for the trees, read the billboards and memorandums. It's all there in black and white, no deception, no evil genius plotting to bring you down.

[Static]

Solution = set SP aside from MP, but why not? What is the logic? I will always bypass the SP and go into the MP world, that world is much more electric. Until the devs are able to code artificial intelligence; then I might change my view.

 

I'm flying a bomber man do you want to be my gunner?

 

Do you have bombs in your load out? Nope but I fly a mean bomber man. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by Static

[ClipWing]

Pizzicato

 

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4018569/Creative_vision_and_target_aud#Post4018569

 

Thanks Kendo, very good analytical opening post, and quite a humorous thread to read.

[Feathered_IV]

Any word on what our friends in the Russian forums are saying about all this?

[AbortedMan]

Leifr, not particularly getting at you, but:

 

DD3 Jan 2013

9) Tell us more about the structure of campaigns and other

attributes offline, i.e. how many planned missions in each

company, etc., has announced the estimated number of aircraft

for each side?

 

This is a very big question. We'll come back to it later with a

detailed story is in the blog, because I can not answer it

simply. Single campaign will be one of the bases in the

gameplay and will be across the red line. All players, even

those who prefer only online battles will go through several

stages of the campaign.

 

DD23 July 2013

 

(Talking about MP servers...)

 

With global stats on or off, you'll be using only the planes and

mods that you've obtained by purchasing the game or have

unlocked by playing the Historical campaign

 

***

 

In all fairness to the devs, they have said what they are going to do repeatedly and with reasonable clarity.  The problem has been that so many people simply pay no attention and assume they are going to get what they have had before, or what they want, or interpret their words to fit their preconceptions.  Cognitive dissonance I believe (though I have to be careful of amateur psychologizing now, sorry to cause offense, whoever you were).  Now this is partly the devs fault - calling the game "IL2-whatever" was always going to cause people to assume that it would be like IL2 only "better".

 

We had the same phenomenon manifest itself when the decision to go to pre-sets only post release was announced: critics of this decision, of whom I was one, were met with a wave of posts essentially saying that the devs did not say that, or if they had said it they did not mean it, or if they did mean it they would change their mind. Pure self-deception.

 

I have to admit to enjoying a little schadenfreude at the piteous complaints of the MP only crowd: after years of having SP mod development of my favourite games limited because of the fears of the MP community that it would encourage cheating it is amusing to see the reaction when the devs impose a one size fits all philosophy when the boot is on the other foot!

 

Personally I would rather they just exempted MP from unlocks, (or at least the founders) and gave us a little human interest colour to liven up the SP campaign.  But I fail to see what all this hysteria is going to achieve.

Et voila, the smoking gun. Some of us do actually read what gets communicated from 777. How many posts are there here bemoaning the lack of clarity from the Devs over this issue, saying that everyone assumed that only SP would have to do that sort of thing?

 

Ladies and gentlemen, and those that fail to see the wood for the trees, read the billboards and memorandums. It's all there in black and white, no deception, no evil genius plotting to bring you down.

 

You guys are correct...how foolish of this entire community to straight to the assumptions that they have...oh wait, what's this? Let's take a look at the rest of that post in all of its relevancy:

All servers are divided into two classes:

 

1) Global statistics ON

2) Global statistics OFF

 

If a server was created with global stats turned on then all the match results will affect your profile; if not - your stats won't be influenced by your combat performance. If the server is open for global statistics then the player will only be allowed to use the skins that they've unlocked playing the Historical campaign.

 

With global stats on or off, you'll be using only the planes and mods that you've obtained by purchasing the game or have unlocked by playing the Historical campaign (game SKUs and pricing will be described later)

 

For the stats to be counted, the server must fit one of the difficulty presets: Normal and Hard. If the server's owner does not want the stats to be counted (or the server has been created for a specific event) then setting can be changed in any possible way.

This says two directly conflicting things:

 

Global stats off = the player will only be allowed to use the skins that they've unlocked playing the Historical campaign. (So all non-default weapons are locked? That seems unlikely...one would assume since only skins are mentioned that everything is unlocked...since limiting content with no reason or way to remove the limit isn't logical)

 

then

 

Global stats on or off = you'll be using only the planes and mods that you've obtained by purchasing the game or have unlocked by playing the Historical campaign

 

...wut?

 

To me, that says stats off means the only thing you need to worry about unlocking in MP are skins--someone please chime in if I'm not alone in interpreting it this way--which is fine, I think unlocking skins for doing extra SP stuff is acceptable, and by no means mandatory to an enriched and dynamic MP experience. Then right after that statement is a statement that completely nullifies the first! Wtf?!

 

Do you see the reason for the mass confusion here? This isn't a clear description of what is planned. If it's poor translation from someone that doesn't use English as a primary language, the onus is upon them to explain what the product is if they expect people to be satisfied and buy it with a smile...which I assume is the goal for this company.

 

And if the first "global stats off" statement is in fact true...then why hasn't ANY developer or agent of 777/1C used this fact to quell the giant shitstorm that has been painting this forum's walls brown for the last 3 days!?!

Edited October 7, 2014 by =SE=AbortedMan

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Any word on what our friends in the Russian forums are saying about all this?

I'm also curious. For sure some changes are nice, but others are not necessary. So knowing what happens there could also bring something new. 

[Jason_Williams]

I wasn't planning on responding to this thread again.  Now it's become borderline absurd the head-in-the-sand philosophy I'm seeing from the 1C/777 guys.

 

For myself and my group (we're not nearly good enough to pretend we're a squadron!) the damage is already done.  I fully plan on playing BoS occasionally with my buddy (we made the mistake of buying it the second it came onto Steam)...because we spent $95 a pop.  We'll just putz around in MP to waste time.  My other guys will not be buying the game, nor will we be picking up any future DLC/planes until we see a serious change of attitude from the designers.

 

That's the unfortunate part of this whole mess.  It's 100% removed our confidence that the developers are even remotely interested in the wishes of the community (honestly it seems the opposite at the moment).  It's not about the content anymore, or the silly unlocks.  It's proof that we can expect no genuine response or interest from the designers for future changes etc.  I've been rather surprised by the lack of interest in the developer posts I've seen in this thread.  I'm particularly non-plussed by the "Well we made this decision so we can't change it now...".  Yes.  Yes you can, and quite easily.  You could patch stuff incredibly easy.  You can turn back on what you turned off, etc.

 

Unfortunately now, if the developers/designers change their minds 100% tomorrow and everything was fantastic, my consumer confidence has already been shaken.  The same goes for my buddies (the two who don't own BoS yet do fly in RoF so this was all a foregone conclusion that we'd be flying together in BoS at some point).  They've been following the nonsense and their interest in purchasing the game has plummeted, more so due to the way the issue is being handled (or, not handled) than the actual changes to the content.

 

This saddens me because slowly but surely more game companies I've been supporting are turning sour (I'm lookin' at you Creative Assembly!) and I'm having to ditch franchises or games I've been following for years.  I'm sure I'll spend enough time flying around in MP with my buddies in stock aircraft, but the excitement/desire to heavily invest in the game for the next 4-5 years has disappeared.  I was actually looking forward to the excitement of DLC every couple of months, new planes, maps etc.  Now it's much more unlikely that we'll be bothering with that stuff.

 

1C/777: Please start reconsidering your approach to customer feedback.  It's really not casting a good light on you guys at the moment.

 

I have made several posts answering questions etc. If you don't like my answers, I'm sorry, but all this Devs aren't talking is nonsense. Go read the Russian forum. You'll see many of the guys including Loft discussing these topics with users. I do the same here except after years of exhausting conversations, arguments and enduring many personal smears, I'm not biting as hard this time around. What some of you want is for us to somehow erase all that has been built and do it differently. I'm sorry that isn't going to happen at the moment. I've explained what task we are currently focused on and that we always listen and evaluate as time goes on.

 

I was not party to the update today, my current focus is elsewhere at the moment. Everyone in the company has their roles to play. I always look into decisions that seem unpopular and discuss this with the team. Sometimes things are changed, sometimes not.

 

I'm playing the long game, it's a marathon not a sprint as I found out with ROF. Five years and that story is still being written. I'm still the same hardcore sim lover I have always been. I will continue to work with those that share my personal passion for this genre. Unlocks or no unlocks, there will always be a way to play in a hardcore style. All the elements are still there. 

 

Jason

[AbortedMan]

tl;dr: 37mm cannon or 4x cannon on 190s =/= elements.

[Afwastus]

Do you see the reason for the mass confusion here? This isn't a clear description of what is planned. If it's poor translation from someone that doesn't use English as a primary language, the onus is upon them to explain what the product is if they expect people to be satisfied and buy it with a smile...which I assume is the goal for this company.

 

This, this is a huge problem.

 

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but it would seem like a good idea if the Russian developers found a Russian/English translator who could make sure that both they (the developers) and the players are actually communicating successfully.

 

Again, it's something most other companies or institutes do in order to avoid major communication issues, you make sure that you have someone who can communicate on the level of a native speaker in at least the major languages you're company deals with.

 

Just look at the U.N., they don't provide highly qualified translators to World Leaders for the lulz, they do it so that when the Prime Minister of Sweden says something, it doesn't end up being mistranslated as some insulting idiom in Potato language (commonly known as Danish, that's a joke).

Edited October 7, 2014 by Afwastus

[Madov]

 

 

Global stats off = the player will only be allowed to use the skins that they've unlocked playing the Historical campaign. (So all non-default weapons are locked? That seems unlikely...one would assume since only skins are mentioned that everything is unlocked...since limiting content with no reason or way to remove the limit isn't logical) then Global stats on or off = you'll be using only the planes and mods that you've obtained by purchasing the game or have unlocked by playing the Historical campaign ...wut? To me, that says stats off means the only thing you need to worry about unlocking in MP are skins--someone please chime in if I'm not alone in interpreting it this way--which is fine, I think unlocking skins for doing extra SP stuff is acceptable, and by no means mandatory to an enriched and dynamic MP experience. Then right after that statement is a statement that completely nullifies the first! Wtf?! Do you see the reason for the mass confusion here? This isn't a clear description of what is planned. If it's poor translation from someone that doesn't use English as a primary language, the onus is upon them to explain what the product is if they expect people to be satisfied and buy it with a smile...which I assume is the goal for this company. And if the first "global stats off" statement is in fact true...then why hasn't ANY developer or agent of 777/1C used this fact to quell the giant shitstorm that has been painting this forum's walls brown for the last 3 days!?!

 

 

Granted there may very well have been some confusion caused by translation but I do think it was clear that the second statement does in fact overarch and expand on the first, that is to say that whether the Global Stats are on or off, the prerequisite in place will always be the same - skins and mods need to be unlocked via the SP campaign route.

[SimHog]

I was excited when I saw the SP campaign news pop-up in the launcher, then I read the instructions, followed step 1 and while it was uninstalling I was checking out this thread.

 

I'm afraid I won't progress past step 1.

 

I hardly come here, and just skim the website every now and then so I had no idea about this unlock design.

 

Unlocks ... Seriously ... Worst decision ever.

 

I'd actually rather pay real $$$ for the unlocks to help fund further development, just like in RoF.

Edited October 7, 2014 by AirHog

[354thFG_Leifr]

-snip

 

Looking through your posting history there's a grand total of some four or five posts in recent days, mitigating the latest events and reducing it down to "EULA... Do what we want... Should have read the invisible ink...", with the usual panache of faulting the customer and not yourself.

Being told that I must learn to read Russian in order to gain a grasp on what the developer's are up to is incredibly patronising Jason. Glad to know that you're in synchronization with your product though; being told exactly how to play the SP Campaign has the same effect.

You must be a pretty brave soul to be playing the long game again, especially after Rise of Flight. I love that game dearly, I've invested money into each aircraft and field pack but it's dead in the water chap - it's not even a finished product.

[AbortedMan]

I do think it was clear...-snip-

Look around...You must have a special cognisance about you, and I am envious. Do you think this sort of community reaction would have been a thing if it was clear?

 

Please note, that your objective is wasted if you're trying to convince me...it's everyone else that you need to convince. You think the plans were laid out and shown to everyone, yet here we are.

 

@Jason's post...if you're not biting this time around, then why should the customers?

 

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight or attack, just discussing, but you really need to stop saying that sort of stuff.

Edited October 7, 2014 by =SE=AbortedMan

[Lowe]

What some of you want is for us to somehow erase all that has been built and do it differently.

But is it "all that has been built"? Is it not that people just want to be able to do this unlock thing, if it is here to stay, in multiplayer mode rather than being forced into the the quick-mission generator referred to as a 'campaign'? People will continue to play a game for the fun of it, in their prefered way. By placing obstacles between a player & what (s)he wants to do you risk disconnecting them from the game. Surely, if the development team are insistant about unlocks then it would make sense to meet their games' dedicated, passionate community half-way?

 

From a developer perspective, yes exploits are cheating. I acknowledged that they may be justifiable but they are also game-breaking in that they are an example of players metagaming rather than engaging with the proscribed ruleset. For a develper (who can't babysit the players and make them "play right") there is no difference between a justified exploit and a cheat. For the game to survive the community that plays it they need to be squished. This is just pragmatics. You can't manage a multi player game where exploits are easily achieved as it leads to balance issues and community discontent. Multi-player is the bread and butter of any sim franchise, and the best guarantee of longevity and replayability so getting it right and exploit free is critical. 

I'm a little confused as to why people are referring to the time constraint & autopilot thing as an "exploit". Both tools were implemented by choice of the development team, who made the decision to spend time coding both in and making them available to the players. Players then start using the autopilot & time compression to burn through the SP campaign and suddenly it's an exploit? Yes that's most likely not the original developer intent but players just used the tools presented to them, they're not glitching or cheating or using third party software or anything other than what the development team provided people with.

[FG28Kodiak]

@Jason

Is it so difficult für your Devs to add a Server Setting like,

- Unlock works like intended

- the Unlocks are ignored (everyone can choose everything maybe except skins)

- all Unlocks locked

- possible Unlocks are chosen by the mission designer (which i prefer, thinking about SC > 1000 ruining fun for all other players)

 

I don't want to be forced to things i do not wanna do. I am only a silly Multiplayer wanna have fun.

 

Sorry for my bad english.

Edited October 7, 2014 by FG28Kodiak

[Madov]

The history of the flight sim community is clear about one thing, that developers have a fickle beast to contend with at all times. No other flight sim has had such a level of clearly planned and executed design plans as this one. It has come to fruition in record time for something that is comparable to Cliffs of Dover in terms of complexity and immersion.

 

I have no need to convince anyone of anything, though I am convinced that this community delights in the process of self destruction. For myself, I don't feel the schadenfreude. I fly a variety of absorbing sims and love my passion deeply. Yes I feel very content with what 777 have provided with this EA and look forward to seeing how the franchise develops. Whether in a year's or 5 year's time I am still flying alongside the same crowd as we have here now is of little consequence to me personally, though I hope the throwing of teddies out of the pram doesn't result in people throwing in the proverbial towel.

[Jason_Williams]

Looking through your posting history there's a grand total of some four or five posts in recent days, mitigating the latest events and reducing it down to "EULA... Do what we want... Should have read the invisible ink...", with the usual panache of faulting the customer and not yourself.

Being told that I must learn to read Russian in order to gain a grasp on what the developer's are up to is incredibly patronising Jason. Glad to know that you're in synchronization with your product though; being told exactly how to play the SP Campaign has the same effect.

You must be a pretty brave soul to be playing the long game again, especially after Rise of Flight. I love that game dearly, I've invested money into each aircraft and field pack but it's dead in the water chap - it's not even a finished product.

 

How did I fault the customer? I said that we said what the design was going to be n the Dev blogs and Streams and yes, the developer gets to decide what the final design is like. I'm surprised that you all say you're so surprised. Lots of people I talked to knew about the unlocks and how it would work. Guess I assumed this wouldn't be a surprise. What if anything can I do after the fact except tell you that I hear you and will of course discuss feedback this with my partners. I've been completely honest about my position. People who have whatever beef with me keep trying to paint a picture that simply isn't true.

 

And I love when people tell me ROF is dead and unfinished. It's dead and finished when I say it is, but for now new customers keep coming every day so it's plenty healthy. There will be some ROF news in the near future.

 

Jason

[Jason_Williams]

I'm going to give one more warning. Don't get personal with each other or I will start banning people.

 

Jason

[Afwastus]

Personally I am starting to feel a bit bad about not learning Russian. I could have finally lived up to my ancestry and become the most diplomatic  and powerful Swede ever, the Dag Hammarsköld of IL-2: BoS, the peacemaker and bringer of happy times.

 

 

I'm sorry Battle of Stalingrad community, I have failed all of you. From this day forth, I will dedicate my life to the pursuit of learning Russian, so that in the future, we, the English speaking community, can actually know what is going on. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by Afwastus

[Madov]

The Swedes have always made great interlocutors and diplomats. The Russian language is one that I studied at school for a year and dearly wish I had developed more. The land has great culture and historical significance and it's a great sounding tongue too.

Edited October 7, 2014 by MADOV