Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ace_Pilto

Kudos to 1C for the recent news regarding the Campaign.

Recommended Posts

1c doesn't have the DGen code and Starshoy gave it away to someone else for further development. I know who has it and had the possibility to take a look at parts of it. Unfortunatly for BoS it is useless because of the completely different structure of the mission files. The parts that concern squadron statistics, briefings and other stuff not directly related to the missions could be used as a template, but they are relatively simple, so a talented programmer wouldn't really need the DGen code to create something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know some people will never be satisfied and people have different ideas of what makes a good campaign: but all of them seem to want a common element of identification with a specific person in a particular unit. Leaving this out is a major mistake and why so many SP types are disheartened.

 

Yes, big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FuriousMeow, what you seem to be saying (forgive me if this is incorrect) is because it would take two years of development to make an DGen type campaign generator we should not criticize 1C/777 for not including any aspect of role play in the initial SP offering.

 

 

 

 

I'm saying it took two years of a dedicated individual that had all of his free time for two years to design, build, modify and update DGen. BoS has been in development for 1 year and the team had to focus on building the entire game. Il-2 was already built by the time a third party, that could dedicate his time to building DGen, began working on DGen.

 

What I'm saying is the entire team is working on the entire game, a third party was focused on building DGen, and the devs of the original Il-2 series never were involved in creating DGen.

 

You can criticize, but you can't use (old)Il-2 as a comparison because all of the above I just stated doesn't compare. Then again, it's been 1 year and the small team had to focus on getting the core together. Look at what the dedicated SP is, and that was built by a dev in less than a year. Look at what DGen offered, and that was built by a dedicated third party over 2 years.

 

Il-2, all of it, doesn't compare because the entire development of the SP campaign system was done over 2 years, out of house, and by someone extremely dedicated to their passion. Expecting something like that from the devs in less than a year when they were busy building the game, that is definitely not something anyone should have expected. Hiring a small team to build the campaign? Yeah, lets make this even less profitable so we can ensure we never continue this series for any further development in the WWII environment.

 

And as far as getting someone else's code, it's really easier to build from scratch than to get someone else's source code and redesign it to work with an entirely different game engine. Coding isn't like opening up a schematic and just reading it, unless the schematic is written in a different language using code words with the schematic drawing not using anything standard and all of that has to be deciphered before work of modifying it to work with something else can even begin and in many cases they simply can't be just slightly changed to work with something else they have to be massively overhauled sometimes removing complete sections or modules, or completely re-writing up to 80% of the program. It is tons of work to take someone else's program designed for a particular game, and then alter it so it works with a game of the same type but built completely different. In 90% of the cases, it is easier and quicker to just start from scratch.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but not everyone criticizing the SP campaign is making this specific comparison. 

 

They are saying that stripping out all RP elements has dramatically reduced immersion for those that like such things, which is a simple fact. Also that they need not have done this: the engine is quite capable of including the core of an RP approach (named pilot, named unit) without significant work. They could have put in a bare minimum and left the rest for future development.

 

The argument that they did not include any of this because it would be too time consuming etc is simply not credible and going on about DGen, DCG is a red herring.

 

So the question is why they did this.

 

The only rational reasons I can think of are:

 

1) They genuinely believed that the intended customer base does not like RP in SP campaigns, (which I think is a clear mistake) or,

 

2) The SP campaign is only intended as a trainer and introduction to MP where RP is irrelevant. (in which case those of us who purchased BoS on the basis that they would be getting an immersive SP experience feel disappointed at best, cheated at worst).

 

As it is they have managed to annoy both groups of customers, and their announcements about future campaign expansions are not very reassuring as they can easily be interpreted as promising more of the same rather than any change in the basic design philosophy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The argument that they did not include any of this because it would be too time consuming etc is simply not credible.

I tend to believe this also, if a few folk on this forum can rattle up a believable  back story for some missions in a couple of days you would think folk who's job this is could have done it in the time that they had, 2+ years?

 

If the structure is already there for stat collection surely it wouldn't have been that hard to include a very basic SP story line with collection data rather than nothing at all, I mean c/mon this was meant to be what the whole game was built around, the SP campaign?

 

Makes me wonder.

 

Mick. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot understand the reasoning behind the design of the game.
Yes, it's their ball game and they can do what they want with it, not disputing that, but if they want to make lots of money so they can continue the process, it makes sense to listen to their customers who in turn will continue to buy their products.

But ok, they focused on a design that many do not like, they have also managed to upset a proportion of MP and SP users (that must be a first) but as said, it's their vision of a WWII flight sim... but why?

 

I don't know if I have missed something along the way, but I don't have a clue as to 'why' they have chosen the route they have taken. It's alright putting a plea out for users to 'give them a chance' and to make the game a big success, but I would be more likely to spend more of my hard earned money in supporting them further if I understood why and the reasons for the design process they have implemented.

 

Is it a 'Russian thing'  loss of face or something, or the need for secrecy, keep your cards close to your chest kind of thinking?

A few words of explanation may go a long way to mending the bad feeling that many have had over the last week or so...

I am away overseas quite a bit with my work, so I do have gaps in the games progress from time to time so maybe you guys actually do know the reason behind the route IC have taken. If so could someone please give me a heads up :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have now is a good mission generator.It just needs time to fill in proper unit and pilot management level and story line that interconnects all of them.

 

To justify "unlocks" (and not to treat them as pure evil)

 

1.Make proper tutorial - training missions for LW and VVS to unlock armament = ex. you need to pass bombing training mission to be allowed to carry bombs - makes sense to me,eh?

2.Get rid of skins as unlocks.Give us standard cammo schemes and working decals system.

3.Give us proper ranking as "unlock" instead of "pilot level 1-10"

4.Give us medals as "unlocks" not XP points

5.Give us flying hours for given plane/sorties/combat missions as "unlocks" for next rank and unit command level (leader of para,zveno,escadrille,polk...)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have now is a good mission generator.It just needs time to fill in proper unit and pilot management level and story line that interconnects all of them.

It also needs the will...is it there?

 

Otherwise agree with you 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  For me,I can live with unlocks and also this Advanced QMB we have instead of full SP campaign for now.It will only become better in future.Game is fully playable for me and I enjoy it.I belong to that "reenactment" group rather than "MP competitive".Missions are fine to relax in the evening when I come home from work.I fire up my klimov in LaGG3,climb up with my zveno,do the job (or fail to do) and return back to base.I want to be my own hero in my own SP world.I do not need other "MP aces" to ruin my freetime.I have enough human competition daily at work.And I also do not have time and will to organise myself in some virtual squadron.I just want to have my AI comrads available,when I find it suitable.I do not have time to wait for people to organize themselves online.I want possibility to fly campaign (or missions) in COOP mode with my brother (potentional customer!) 

  I can´t uderstand people,who with one hand claim back their 16x timecompression autopilot cheat,and with second hand they wave and shout "Hey,I am hardcore simmer,ya know".

 

My few lines of grumbling,I feel better now :biggrin:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, uses the same Digital Nature engine, enhanced by taking some features away.

 

Han was definitely a graduate of the Bongodriver charm school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can´t uderstand people,who with one hand claim back their 16x timecompression autopilot cheat,and with second hand they wave and shout "Hey,I am hardcore simmer,ya know".

That always struck me a odd as well... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I can´t uderstand people,who with one hand claim back their 16x timecompression autopilot cheat,and with second hand they wave and shout "Hey,I am hardcore simmer,ya know".

 

That's easy to understand.  If you're being forced to play a version of the game that you don't feel is challenging, and you have no interest in playing, then you do whatever you have to do to get it over with as fast as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ok, they focused on a design that many do not like, they have also managed to upset a proportion of MP and SP users (that must be a first) but as said, it's their vision of a WWII flight sim... but why?

 

If so could someone please give me a heads up :)

I will try - the logic goes something like this:

 

1) The existing customer base of flight-simmers (MP and SP together) is too small to support a new product with up to date programming of all the features they are used to from RoF, IL-2 1946 etc.

 

2) The product is so complex that it is easy to lose control and end up over-time and over-budget and still not get a decent finished product.

 

3) Taking 1 and 2 together, the solution is to simplify the programming task by cutting out pieces that are deemed not essential, while adding new features that will help the marketing of the game to new customers.

 

4) The problem now is that step 3 has been handled in such a way as to enrage a significant proportion of the existing customer base, before the possible future new customer base has been established.

 

So we now have the sad situation where the BoS forum has more excitement and human interest than the game.

 

Hope this clears everything up. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, nobody has been able to explain to me how these new features are expected to bring in the masses ... :/

Agreed: this is their logic, but their proposed solution seems implausible.

 

The real answer is as I proposed years before for RoF: a fantasy dragon riding module.

 

Sadly I received only ridicule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starshoy created DGEN on his own over the course of a couple of years.

 

It stands to reason a team of three or four professional coders, having being employed to do so, could produce something similar in a matter of six months. And it could have been beta-tested during early access so it was ready for release.

 

I struggle to understand why 1C/777 didn't employ a small team to do just that.

 

Surely they could see that what was being produced instead would be viewed as inadequate.

Well, apparently not!?!

 

Because a team of three of four professional coders costs money, and not a negligible amount. Neither could they use coders they already employ, as they're busy coding other things. And if you think all it needed was 3-4 coders, then you're missing all the other people who would need to be involved.

 

What about the designers? The testers? The artists? The writers? And all the support personnel that comes around game production (you're adding 4 more programmers, for example, so you need to devote IT personnel and time to support those 4 extra employees), they count too.

 

This is the basic concept of production cost: you can't have something for nothing. Every feature has a cost in time and personnel, and that cost means something else doesn't get done (unless you magically get more funds earmarked for just that feature).

 

Could they have made a fully immersive dynamic campaign? Certainly, but it would have meant something else didn't get done.

 

Instead they made a simpler campaign that contains all the core elements needed for a more immersive dynamic campaign. You do have some fairly customizable random mission generation, across multiple maps and airfield selection. All that's left to make it fully immersive is the stuff that comes around it.

 

Why would they do so? Simple: because these are things that can be done by 3rd party modders, freeing the devs to devote their resources to things only they can work on.

 

After all, look at RoF: they spent time and money to make a full dynamic campaign, but plenty of people use Pat's campaign generator instead. To any objective eye, it's pretty clear that the career mode was a waste of time and effort, or at least not something that needs to be a high priority, because it can be modded in.

 

Which is what I think is happening here: the devs are giving us all the tools modders need to make such a campaign mod, and are focusing their efforts on the things modders cannot accomplish.

 

Thank you.

 

Itkovian

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument that they did not include any of this because it would be too time consuming etc is simply not credible and going on about DGen, DCG is a red herring.

 

How can it be not credible? Programmers and designers and testers and what have you don't work for free. They need to get paid, and any extra feature they work on will cost the developers money. These people aren't philanthropist hoping to better the world through better WW2 simulators. They're game developers, and they do this for a living.

 

This means they cannot freely add more features to a game without sacrificing some other feature, and usually these things are decided at the onset.

 

Clearly in this case, the decision was made to have a simpler, more gamey campaign, rather than the fully immersive campaign you see in SOME other games (many don't have any dynamic campaign at all!). I imagine the plan is that this kind of campaign is modded in (as happened for RoF and IL-2).

 

The only way they could have gone ahead and done a fully immersive campaign without sacrificing anything else would have been if it were somehow simpler to create than the current campaign, which is preposterous of course.

 

And to those saying that it's not that hard to do, because people can knock out design proposals and write AARs, need to understand there's a whole lot of work that goes between initial design and a final product. It's _never_ as simple as it seems to the layman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, nobody has been able to explain to me how these new features are expected to bring in the masses ... :/

I will give you a hint auto aim was going to be the default on normal mode. You only really need auto aim if you are flying from outside the cockpit and controlling the plane via mouse aka W Thunder. That is the target market and one is assuming a F2P version with a handful of planes goes live months after release. a constant revenue generator. The people who play WT want shiny achievements, weapons unlocks etc. It is all part of the game. Then they slip in XP boosters for a few dollars more. Remember when work began on BoS the whole WT funding model seemed unworkable. But now it has proven the way to go. 777 get summoned to 1C HQ and get the new business model. They are third party contractors... They comply. single player plans are shelved and we get a glorified tutorial for mass market online play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<stripped out content just to keep response size down>

 

The design of the campaign, and the requirement to play it, has me baffled. I'm trying it out, well being forced to, and simple things are missing - fighter patrols or Friejagd for the Axis side just for example, it's all intercept or escort for fighter roles. There are active flights other than your own, I'll come across them occasionally, but the whole mission briefing is just a generic fly the route and encounter whatever. You find out your target as you hit the "Action" waypoint. There will be no action prior to that, regardless if it is a mission requirement or not. And that, the mission requirement - so silly. Oh, and the requirement to  hit the exit waypoints just to end the mission. Several times last night I tried different missions for different planes just to see if they could ever change from being the same monotonous thing - and for the most part they are the same, but even if you complete all required tasks to end the mission and then on the egress get shot up - but still make it to friendly territory, mission doesn't finalize simply because you didn't hit the single exit point.

 

It's so structured and gamey, and is a requirement just to have ordinary loadouts, that it is simply anti-fun. You will not hear a disagreement from me on the campaign being poor, I'm hoping for a third party to come along and do something up nice for us. I would but my coding skills were very basic and have gone for years unused so at best you'd get a "hello world" and it would BSOD your computer permanently. The unfortunate impact of this XP/unlock thing is that even a third party campaign will be limited and that is the most frustrating/disappointing thing.

 

Everything else is done so amazingly and then it is crippled by the XP/unlock, and SP requirement to do the aforementioned, that I just don't see how they envisioned this to actually work properly.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several times last night I tried different missions for different planes just to see if they could ever change from being the same monotonous thing - and for the most part they are the same, but even if you complete all required tasks to end the mission and then on the egress get shot up - but still make it to friendly territory, mission doesn't finalize simply because you didn't hit the single exit point.

Not true, as soon as I finish the mission I make a bee line straight for my home field, bypassing the exit point unless it is along my direct route home, and still get allocated all the points fot the completed mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, you can do the home field but as you'll note - that is further than the single exit point. Both are two single points, if you get into friendly territory you should be able to ditch if damaged and still complete the mission. What I said is very true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 777 get summoned to 1C HQ and get the new business model. They are third party contractors... They comply. single player plans are shelved and we get a glorified tutorial for mass market online play.

I agree , 1C has experience from CoD then back to IL2 old day ... they need to alternate business model in BOS

(IMHO)

IL2-BOS for multi-player is seem ready to making money in a shot run. ( if 1C can convince 777 making free dedicate server and mission builder in next phase that will be a good long run )

IL2-BOS for single player with good campaign is not easy job in a shot time. ( if 1C funding for campaign generate by third party one time but be able to re-use from every next theater this is a smart move )

Edited by Karost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 single player plans are shelved and we get a glorified tutorial for mass market online play.

 

I am tending to agree with your train of thought, which is why I am not completely dismissive of those crying "bait and switch" over at Metacritic.  I hope I am wrong though, if I ever did start to truly feel that I had been deliberately deceived by 777 etc I would be seriously angry, not only with them but with myself for being suckered.

The design of the campaign, and the requirement to play it, has me baffled....etc

 

I agree fully. The division into chapters is a smart move, but everything else is very odd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is odd, but I would be very dismissive of those at metacritic simply because there was no "bait and switch." The campaign was never promised to be anything above what it is, XP and Unlocks were stated from the beginning but perhaps many - myself included - were projecting that it wouldn't impact MP and just be a SP/campaign only thing, and that is about it.

 

The rest of the title is very solid. So the metacritic stuff is a bunch of sour grapes and other less than flattering descriptives for some of the posters of the completely negative and totally unwarranted reviews - with many containing straight up lies.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that when it all went tits up at Maddox Games, 1C were quick to point out that their community liaison and mission design person, known as 'BlackSix', would be staying with the new team. I also recall that when B6, the excellent mission designer of IL2 fame saw the RoF 'mission editor', he said 'WTF? Aaaargh!!' Then went off sick for a few weeks with severe concussion........

 

But I could be wrong. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The campaign was never promised to be anything above what it is,...

That is incorrect, read the following from Developer Diary 21 and you will see that there is at least one significant difference. I agree that the "unlock" system was signaled though.

 

From DD 21, How it works...

 

When you enter a phase you'll be asked to join a regiment. The regiments available vary from phase to phase the way it happened back then during Battle of Stalingrad: some squadrons leave, some come to the front lines, join other units or get renamed. Which regiment you choose defines which side you server with - Soviet Air force or German Luftwaffe. You'll be free to change sides before every mission. Thus, all your stats gathered in the game get bound to your account while specific data is split in two separate profiles - USSR and Germany.

 

Every regiment has a home base and specific aircraft in service. You can use any plane that your regiment has available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have now is a good mission generator.It just needs time to fill in proper unit and pilot management level and story line that interconnects all of them.

 

To justify "unlocks" (and not to treat them as pure evil)

 

1.Make proper tutorial - training missions for LW and VVS to unlock armament = ex. you need to pass bombing training mission to be allowed to carry bombs - makes sense to me,eh?

2.Get rid of skins as unlocks.Give us standard cammo schemes and working decals system.

3.Give us proper ranking as "unlock" instead of "pilot level 1-10"

4.Give us medals as "unlocks" not XP points

5.Give us flying hours for given plane/sorties/combat missions as "unlocks" for next rank and unit command level (leader of para,zveno,escadrille,polk...)

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, you can do the home field but as you'll note - that is further than the single exit point. Both are two single points, if you get into friendly territory you should be able to ditch if damaged and still complete the mission. What I said is very true.

Furious I cant be 100% sure, but I think I have had at least one mission where I bellied in about 10 clicks short of the home field and still got mission complete and mission points but only got 50% of the landing points for crash landing?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is incorrect, read the following from Developer Diary 21 and you will see that there is at least one significant difference. I agree that the "unlock" system was signaled though.

 

From DD 21, How it works...

 

When you enter a phase you'll be asked to join a regiment. The regiments available vary from phase to phase the way it happened back then during Battle of Stalingrad: some squadrons leave, some come to the front lines, join other units or get renamed. Which regiment you choose defines which side you server with - Soviet Air force or German Luftwaffe. You'll be free to change sides before every mission. Thus, all your stats gathered in the game get bound to your account while specific data is split in two separate profiles - USSR and Germany.

 

Every regiment has a home base and specific aircraft in service. You can use any plane that your regiment has available.

 

So aside from picking a regiment, everything else is exactly as they said in DD21 and DD22. The current method actually works better/makes more sense with the unlock requirements, because if you pick a regiment and go through the whole campaign - if you even could - then you can only do the unlocks/XP for a single aircraft.

Furious I cant be 100% sure, but I think I have had at least one mission where I bellied in about 10 clicks short of the home field and still got mission complete and mission points but only got 50% of the landing points for crash landing?????

 

I don't know, maybe you hit the Exit point and didn't realise? I'm not sure, I just know I've returned inside friendly lines and ditched just to get 0 points. Maybe a bug, beats me.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have an answer that will keep everyone happy about the "unlocks"issues. This will even make the developers more money! How cool is that!

This is it:-

Just like we will have the ability to "pay" for more aircraft and maps when they are released, can we also pay to "unlock" everything in one go. Id quite happily pay £10.00 or something for this option. I'm quite serious. :-)

Id also pay £10.00 for all the skins

Id also pay £10.00 to not be forced to play the campaign.

An extra £30.00 per player straight to the developers.... not to be sniffed at.

 

Hugs to everyone in the flight sim community. We all love each other really........

 

Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have an answer that will keep everyone happy about the "unlocks"issues. This will even make the developers more money! How cool is that!

This is it:-

Just like we will have the ability to "pay" for more aircraft and maps when they are released, can we also pay to "unlock" everything in one go. Id quite happily pay £10.00 or something for this option. I'm quite serious. :-)

Id also pay £10.00 for all the skins

Id also pay £10.00 to not be forced to play the campaign.

An extra £30.00 per player straight to the developers.... not to be sniffed at.

 

Hugs to everyone in the flight sim community. We all love each other really........

 

Bunny

 

You know that makes BoS another WarThunder. Besides, WarThunder is F2P game.

 

What about season pass for another $99.99 that unlocks every mods and free aircrafts forever?

 

Just kidding.  ;)

 

For me this MMORPG like EXP thingy(which affects MP experience) is not a good idea especially for a non-F2P flight sim game. It's just don't make sense.

 

IL-2 is not a Call of Duty

Edited by SeriousFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So aside from picking a regiment, everything else is exactly as they said in DD21 and DD22. The current method actually works better/makes more sense with the unlock requirements, because if you pick a regiment and go through the whole campaign - if you even could - then you can only do the unlocks/XP for a single aircraft.

That is true, but it is also the source of the despair. As you point out, the unlock system in its current form makes most sense when all historic or pilot centered RP is stripped out, and that is what they have done, even though they sold this game to me on the basis that there would still be a historic RP element, albeit not as much as I would have liked.

 

You perhaps see this as a detail, since you are more of a MP player, I believe. I do not, because it indicates not only that the inclusion of the unlock system required a short term reallocation of resources, as you are indicating in your previous posts, but that the unlock system will make the future introduction of RP elements much more difficult and less likely to happen.

 

Hence I do feel that the accusation of "bait and switch", while overblown and emotive, is not as absurd as you are claiming.

 

Now I hope I am wrong and someone, either the team or an outsider, manages to create an RP campaign. Meanwhile, I have no interest in going out of my way to make the title fail as I have better things to do and do not over-estimate my importance in the scheme of things. Who knows, I may even become a hardened MP addict. But I am still annoyed about how this has all been handled and communicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...