Multiplayer is a mess from a game design perspective

[YSoMadTovarisch]

This game has nice FMs, and unparalleled feel of flight, but the game design itself is seriously lacking.

 

Number 1:

Historically, the common aerial combat altitude on the eastern front was below 3km, but in this game it's above 3km. Why? First of all the air war on the eastern front centered around close ground support, involved low flying bombers/attackers and their escorts, but in this game there's no incentive to win a match, and thus no incentive to destroy ground targets, no incentive to fly ground pounders, no incentive to escort them, the only incentive to do so is because you like it.

 

Number 2:

And thus, the multiplayer's turned into a deathmatch style game, where everybody's roaming around at 4k plus altitude and this brings another serious problem: balance. 1942 Russian aircrafts are barely competitive with German aircrafts below 3km, have no hope to compete with them above 3km. IRL German fighters were forced to come down low to intercept Russian aircrafts because if they didn't Russian aircrafts would shred German ground forces to pieces. In this game any low altitude action involve vulching the vast majority of the time.

 

Number 3:

AA's ineffectiveness leads to vulching being a serious problem in this game. The AI is extremely buggy, and hell, the AAs themself are not even properly modeled in the slightest, it's not unusual to see the AA fire at the exact same place for hours till match's end, without even stopping to reload or cool their guns,

 

Number 4:

Maps are buggy and extremely poorly designed. Half of the objects on the airfields don't even have collision model, some airfields are hard to taxi while other don't, further deepen the vulching problem. Objects are sometimes placed in inappropriate places(like rows of truck right on the runway).

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[dkoor]

This game has nice FMs, and unparalleled feel of flight, but the game design itself is serious lacking.

 

Number 1:

Historically, the common aerial combat altitude on the eastern front was below 3km, but in this game it's above 3km. Why? First of all the air war on the eastern front centered around close ground support, involved low flying bombers/attackers and their escorts, but in this game there's no incentive to win a match, and thus no incentive to destroy ground targets, no incentive to fly ground pounders, no incentive to escort them, the only incentive to do so is because you like it.

This solely reminds me why I don't play online deathmatches at all.

 

We should know better.

10 years of IL-2 1946 deatmatches peaking with popularity and low popular historical COOPs taught me well.

So I didn't have my expectations high for BoS.

 

Unlocking items unrealistic? Meh. This is real problem.

Edited November 7, 2014 by dkoor

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think the trucks along the runway are deliberate. They have been placed by the people running the server to prevent players from flooring the throttle from the start pen and taking off with no regard to anything other than getting airborne as quickly as possible.

[mondog]

Wait for the mission builder. Once that is out you'll get online scenarios which are realistic, to a point.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

This solely reminds me why I don't play online deathmatches at all.

 

We should know better.

10 years of IL-2 1946 deatmatches peaking with popularity and low popular historical COOPs taught me well.

So I didn't have my expectations high for BoS.

 

Unlocking items unrealistic? Meh. This is real problem.

Wait for the mission builder. Once that is out you'll get online scenarios which are realistic, to a point.

I'm not talking about coop, I'm talking about giving the players incentive to complete the objective, like a rating system where player get/lose rating points upon winning/losing match, of course the system will need fine tuning, like if you've joined the game when your side is already seriously behind you'll not lose point at all and vice versa.

 

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Here is the way I see it for 1 and 2, If you're red..er blue in this game.. Russian. If you fly at the 3k or lower mark you will force the alt monkeys to come to you. Therefore playing your game. There are us ground pounders who will not fly high, we like to come in low and make them come to us. This tactic works well in ROF and here too. Vulching, well if I'm low in on your base on a bomb run and you spawn, well sorry to be you. The spawn camping I can't stand.

Number 3.. I dont know..AA will shred me if I make more than one pass.

Number 4. I have seen the trucks on a taxi way so you have to taxi to the other end of the field' more a go this way not that way and not just floor it and run across the snow to take off.

 

​The incentive should be to kill the targets and roll the map winning for your side. Or defend the targets and kill the bombers :D

Edited November 7, 2014 by Blackwolf

[Yakdriver]

This game has nice FMs, and unparalleled feel of flight, but the game design itself is seriously lacking.

 

Number 1:

Historically, the common aerial combat altitude on the eastern front was below 3km, but in this game it's above 3km. Why? First of all the air war on the eastern front centered around close ground support, involved low flying bombers/attackers and their escorts, but in this game there's no incentive to win a match, and thus no incentive to destroy ground targets, no incentive to fly ground pounders, no incentive to escort them, the only incentive to do so is because you like it.

 

Number 2:

And thus, the multiplayer's turned into a deathmatch style game, where everybody's roaming around at 4k plus altitude and this brings another serious problem: balance. 1942 Russian aircrafts are barely competitive with German aircrafts below 3km, have no hope to compete with them above 3km. IRL German fighters were forced to come down low to intercept Russian aircrafts because if they didn't Russian aircrafts would shred German ground forces to pieces. In this game any low altitude action involve vulching the vast majority of the time.

 

Number 3:

AA's ineffectiveness leads to vulching being a serious problem in this game. The AI is extremely buggy, and hell, the AAs themself are not even properly modeled in the slightest, it's not unusual to see the AA fire at the exact same place for hours till match's end, without even stopping to reload or cool their guns,

 

Number 4:

Maps are buggy and extremely poorly designed. Half of the objects on the airfields don't even have collision model, some airfields are hard to taxi while other don't, further deepen the vulching problem. Objects are sometimes placed in inappropriate places(like rows of truck right on the runway).

 number one

is up to the Mission designer - and the players.

Not the game makers.

 

number two:

is a consequence of the mission designers.

not the game makers.

 

number 3:

put more AAA: mission designer problem, not game maker.

 

number 4

use a different airstrip.

 

 

Conclusion:

i understand your anger and frustration, but you are pointing it at the wrong group of people.

and that puts your credibility at risk.

 

Outlook:

as soon as you get the FMB and the ded server, please put up some missions yourself in order to prove you can do better.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I know alot of people here are old people with old people's mentality but I'm just gonna say it: gamers nowaday are spoiled, if they gain nothing materialistic from it they're not gonna do it and just go around have fun death match style, you can design the greatest map and yet barely anybody(percentage-wise) will play it properly because most other people don't care, they just wanna kill each other and have some quick fun, and this will also spoil the experience of people who want to play the map properly because the former take up server slots. And thus this is not a FMB issue, but a fundamental game design issue.

 

Need to remind you another thing is that alot of people nowaday are introduced to flight sim through War Thunder, and thus, they usually come with the materialistic mentality.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

I don't know, I had a La5 doing 560kph. and a yak @ 550kph. but that's at around 3500feet.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

 

 

I know alot of people here are old people with old people's mentality

I resemble that statement! Old is a state of mind..now what was I saying? 

[Yakdriver]

There is no proper way to use a map.
an online server is like creative mode in minecraft. do what you want. briefing? yes, but nobody reads it and nobody respects it, right? frustrating!
so if people like you complain that the nasties are flying too high and that the commies dare to go into thin air with supercharger 2, you have not understood this basic fact.
dogfight servers are  THAT: airquake.
have been, are, will be.
The Mission is key and only the Mission can force people to fly different.

and no- if you had a heinkel+pe2; Il2+stuka only server, with targets 150 km apart, you would not see the dogfights...
you would see both sides bombing the enemy targets as fast as possible to win.

maybe some Peshka would try to cover the Shtormos, maybe some stukas will cover the heinkels...
but not a lot.

if you limit fighters, and provide only tank and train, depot and bridge targets, you won't see any air to air action.

Just telling from experience with the NNFFL dudes on a 1945 alps mission in 1945. we rode Spits and Mitchells so fast through the valleys and strafed the hell out of the retreating germans... The lolwaffle would not even be able to react.
systematically we would win the match, only by strafing and Bombing passes.

and yes - there were fighters available. Tons! Mustangs, Doras, Kurfürsts, the crème de la crème of both camps. but i always thought screw this, screw them. tactical flying, focussed flying, and the Game was over before the 40 egomaniac fighter jocks could have any ego time at all.
and we laughed...
till we were back in 1940, France, where the emils would do their Jabo thing on the retreating french troops. Those backstages!

==============
but that was a ded server with properly coded mission rotation, depending on mission outcome.
and THAT STUFF is yet to come, so just hold your horses, sit and wait.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[YSoMadTovarisch]

and no- if you had a heinkel+pe2; Il2+stuka only server, with targets 150 km apart, you would not see the dogfights...

you would see both sides bombing the enemy targets as fast as possible to win.

The mission is important yes, but so is the incentive to complete the mission's objective, if there's no incentive every mission will turn into a deathmatch because nobody care if they win or lose so they'll just go around and kill stuffs and spoil the experience of people who want to play the mission properly.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Yakdriver]

so do not go and say in your title "from a game developpers perspective"

i understand what you want to say.
But you are not a game developer. you are a user.
I am quite mad because you use this misleading title to say something along the lines of "the online play sucks because the way it is built is wrong, i know, i have developed Games"

If you could change that title that feels like a mental sledgehammer to something more accurate, and not a complete lie [you are not a game developper, are you?] that i could have a lot more respect for your initial post.
 

siriously. no need to bash anything.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[Rjel]

I know alot of people here are old people with old people's mentality...

There's just so much to say to this but honestly, why bother? We all wanted to bring in new people and new players. Sometimes you just get what you asked for.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

so do not go and say in your title "from a game developpers perspective"

 

i understand what you want to say.

But you are not a game developer. you are a user.

I am quite mad because you use this misleading title to say something along the lines of "the online play sucks because the way it is built is wrong, i know, i have developed Games"

 

If you could change that title that feels like a mental sledgehammer to something more accurate, and not a complete lie [you are not a game developper, are you?] that i could have a lot more respect for your initial post.

 

siriously. no need to bash anything.

 

I'm not a game developer but I've played enough games to know that good game design is where the players play the game the way the scenarios are meant to be played out, can you go to any of the expert servers and say with a straight face that what the players are doing most of the times is the way the game is meant to be played?

 

And that was just one of my issues with the game, but this issue leads to other serious problems, like balance problem, immersion/realism problem.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[=LD=Hethwill]

So, if I do not give a dime about statistics, what is my incentive ? How can a game designer accommodate that ? 

 

Yes, you are right, he cant. As much as he can not force anyone to do the missions.

 

Answer is, it all starts and ends in the community tools and squadron events. For that we still have to wait.

 

For now you find decent MP play on Syndicate and LD Heavy Metal. Join the Teamspeaks and gang up with someone. There is always someone running proper tasks and doing things correctly.

 

AND NO, you cannot force EVERYONE in a public server to play as you wish everyone would play.

[Yakdriver]

no i understand that the players are doing airquake. i get that.

but A) you are talking like you are game developper or designer, whiich you admit you are not only a USER [i been using windoz 15 years now, i still dunno how to make my own, see]

and B) you admit that part of the way gamers game is shaped by the mission.

 

so how am i sposed to take you seriously.
how are the devs sposed to take you seriously.

and i know you dont carte about MY opinion, but you want to talk to the DEVS.
but the way you write and behave, nobody gonna listen to your ramblings.

 

ain nobody got time for dat and stuff.

ain nobody got time for dat.

 

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

You are right,  GrapeJam. We need serious work to put people working together to reach missions objectives and not roaming alone looking for a free for all dogfight.

 

We could use a in built system where people could be rewarded for team working and ground attack objectives.

[Yakdriver]

not again...
rewarded with Bombs on the LaGG? rewarded with skins?
awwwww *rips hair out*
 

 

how about punished? if you dont fly in teams close together and achieve stuff, you get banned from one of the 32 slots for 24 hours... : mwaahhahahah

[YSoMadTovarisch]

So, if I do not give a dime about statistics, what is my incentive ? How can a game designer accommodate that ? 

 

Yes, you are right, he cant. As much as he can not force anyone to do the missions.

 

Answer is, it all starts and ends in the community tools and squadron events. For that we still have to wait.

 

For now you find decent MP play on Syndicate and LD Heavy Metal. Join the Teamspeaks and gang up with someone. There is always someone running proper tasks and doing things correctly.

 

AND NO, you cannot force EVERYONE in a public server to play as you wish everyone would play.

 

 

no i understand that the players are doing airquake. i get that.

 

but A) you are talking like you are game developper or designer, whiich you admit you are not only a USER [i been using windoz 15 years now, i still dunno how to make my own, see]

and B) you admit that part of the way gamers game is shaped by the mission.

 

so how am i sposed to take you seriously.

how are the devs sposed to take you seriously.

 

and i know you dont carte about MY opinion, but you want to talk to the DEVS.

but the way you write and behave, nobody gonna listen to your ramblings.

 

ain nobody got time for dat and stuff.

 

ain nobody got time for dat.

 

 

I'm playing on Syndicate and my OP is what I've been experiencing on Syndicate server. Yes you can't force a player to play the way he want, but you can give him incentive to play the game the way you want him to play, take for example Dota 2, ever since they introduced the rating system people've been taking the game far more seriously. The incentive can be something else, but there must be one(other than having fun), else if most players don't play the way you want them to play then everything else in the system will be broken.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[SYN_Per]

I think much of this will sort itself out with more servers being available.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I think much of this will sort itself out with more servers being available.

Having too many servers create another problem as it spread the population out and thus everyone's experience will be lacking.

[dkoor]

I'm not talking about coop, I'm talking about giving the players incentive to complete the objective, like a rating system where player get/lose rating points upon winning/losing match, of course the system will need fine tuning, like if you've joined the game when your side is already seriously behind you'll not lose point at all and vice versa.

 

Sure but that's one notch up from a deathmatch to me.

 

You get killed? No prob, respawn, jump to another plane and fight on.

 

Points, minuses, pluses... what are they for in a game like this.

 

Seriously... WTF?

How is that acceptable by any means as a serious world war 2 flying simulator?

It may be serious flying and combat simulator, but war? Has nearly zero resemblance.

People, regardless of settings, will always fly to get most kills or points and not to win the map in a coordinated manner, because deathmatch is set up for that.

 

The only way for it to be as close to real thing as possible is to fly in some kind of COOP mode.

Objectives are set and go. If you die, you lose. And if you do a poor job, you most likely lose too. Even if you do a good job you can still lose.

Only if a team is coordinated enough to do a good job you win. Such scenario worked for the most part in a real thing too.

 

Truth is, vast majority people will never be up for it, and most will want to fly arcade war in a serious flying simulator.

And yet there are tons of anti-unlocks posts, which especially in this light, I don't get seriously.

[Yakdriver]

and more complex online missions or campaigns get written.
i never cared about any online rating thing, and can not understand any points system or stats.
in Warthunder i was turned down by squads because my bomber airkill stats were too good to be true.

truth is, the fighters were lame 6o'clock shooters, but nobody cared. stats fudged up my rep.
Stats. Rating. I mean ever since metacritic, we SHOULD know that those things are useless.

agree with dkoor. cooperation is the way to go.

cooperation type missions, private passworded servers where serious squad players meet up.

and voice comms.
pure bliss.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Hawker_Typhoon

[YSoMadTovarisch]

People, regardless of settings, will always fly to get most kills or points and not to win the map in a coordinated manner, because deathmatch is set up for that.

 

This can be solved with that if you lose you'll get nothing.

 

[Yakdriver]

its a game! you wll get nothing if you win either.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Some kind of online squadron could be the answer. When you join game you could join a group of players tasked with an objective. If decide go somewhere else you will gain nothing for it.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

its a game! you wll get nothing if you win either.

And thus you don't understand the today gamers mentality.

 

Tell you what, epeen/pretty pixels matters a lot to today gamers.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[BraveSirRobin]

And thus you don't understand the today gamers mentality.

 

Tell you what, epeen/pretty pixels matters a lot to today gamers.

 

You're really only speaking for yourself.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I played earlier today ROF War Grounds none of my squad was on but a few others joined up to bomb a factory and their base..no TS just chat, myself one other bomber and an escort. We completed the mission,wombat was shot down I ditched on our side but we finished the mission. Closed the base and factory. We could have just spawned fighters and air quaked it. We chose not to and did what the mission brief said to do.

 

Some kind of online squadron could be the answer. When you join game you could join a group of players tasked with an objective. If decide go somewhere else you will gain nothing for it.

Thats kind of what we did, I'd like to see that team play in BOS as well.

[Yakdriver]

i hope i never run across one of today's gamers.
hold on. i gamed today.
i AM a today's gamer.

ah!

i hate Kids. these klick and pointers point and statwholes.
This is a SIMulator.

you dont get stats in FSX either.

 

on one hand you complain about arcade airquake players, on the other hand you want them to behave like arcade players by giving them "points" like in a quake game.

if you want to stop arcade behavior, stop offering arcade incentives.

come up with a deeper idea than stats and points that are tied to an accound. something bigger and simulator like.
 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

You're really only speaking for yourself.

You're free to find out how wrong you are when you play a game with rating system and look at the statistic of cosmetic items sales.

 

I played earlier today ROF War Grounds none of my squad was on but a few others joined up to bomb a factory and their base..no TS just chat, myself one other bomber and an escort. We completed the mission,wombat was shot down I ditched on our side but we finished the mission. Closed the base and factory. We could have just spawned fighters and air quaked it. We chose not to and did what the mission brief said to do.

 

Thats kind of what we did, I'd like to see that team play in BOS as well.

Unfortunately this was at best, isolated cases, we're talking about the average person here.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

i hope i never run across one of today's gamers.

hold on. i gamed today.

i AM a today's gamer.

 

ah!

i hate Kids. these klick and pointers point and statwholes.

This is a SIMulator.

you dont get stats in FSX either.

 

on one hand you complain about arcade airquake players, on the other hand you want them to behave like arcade players by giving them "points" like in a quake game.

if you want to stop arcade behavior, stop offering arcade incentives.

 

come up with a deeper idea than stats and points that are tied to an accound. something bigger and simulator like.

 

Oh, I used to be like you, then I found out that the only way to make "these kids" behave is to give them a carrot on a stick. Example: Guilds Wars 2, a game that was built on a premise that everything you do in the game was for the purpose of fun, and people bought the game because of that premise(along many), in the end Arena.net had to give the players a carrot on a stick to get them to play the game.

 

It's a sad fact of life that we have to accept.

Edited November 7, 2014 by GrapeJam

[dkoor]

This can be solved with that if you lose you'll get nothing.

 

From my perspective, and experience so far, people are most interested in their K/D ratio on serious servers.

That separates them as "good pilots".

 

Rarely anyone, like EVER, boasted her/his stats on a forums: "hey look at my/her/his 50:1 map win to lose ratio!".

I never saw that in 10 years of visiting IL-2 forums.

 

No. No one did that and probably never will. Same for points or whatever.

People will probably always find 50:1 kill/death ratio to be impressive regardless if the guy flew like a last dirtbag disconnecting when he's about to be killed, flying for the side that is likely to win (superiority), never flew attack planes, always try to fly FW-190 at 10000m, mostly over his own lines or something like that.

 

Now... is there a way to make them seriously look like a coops... with head and tail instead of being airquake - I don't know.

Edited November 7, 2014 by dkoor

[BraveSirRobin]

You're free to find out how wrong you are when you play a game with rating system and look at the statistic of cosmetic items sales.

 

I'm not wrong.  People who make proclamations about how everyone else thinks are really just projecting their own views onto other people.

[DD_Arthur]

 

The only way for it to be as close to real thing as possible is to fly in some kind of COOP mode.

Objectives are set and go. If you die, you lose. And if you do a poor job, you most likely lose too. Even if you do a good job you can still lose.

Only if a team is coordinated enough to do a good job you win. Such scenario worked for the most part in a real thing too.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more.  'Course a coop mode would have to go hand in hand with a FMB.

[Yakdriver]

touching the subject of reputation - if you play enough, you will KNOW who is a serious player, and who is not.
stats for rep aint working in this small community. its not like we a re a million players... even if i wish that a billion copies be sold.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

You're free to find out how wrong you are when you play a game with rating system and look at the statistic of cosmetic items sales.

 

Unfortunately this was at best, isolated cases, we're talking about the average person here.

No it happens everyday in ROF, Squads and lone wolves do work with each other on both sides to win. Yes there are some who play quake or grab ass as we call it.  I would like to see that type of team work in BOS either in a server or a CO-OP setting..I think dkoor got it right a dead is dead type of gameplay would stop a lot of the quake, rinse and repeat stuff.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

From my perspective, and experience so far, people are most interested in their K/D ratio on serious servers.

That separates them as "good pilots".

 

Rarely anyone, like EVER, boasted her/his stats on a forums: "hey look at my/her/his 50:1 map win to lose ratio!".

I never saw that in 10 years of visiting IL-2 forums.

 

No. No one did that and probably never will. Same for points or whatever.

People will probably always find 50:1 kill/death ratio to be impressive regardless if the guy flew like a last dirtbag disconnecting when he's about to be killed, flying for the side that is likely to win (superiority), never flew attack planes, always try to fly FW-190, mostly over his own lines or something like that.

 

Now... is there a way to make them seriously look like a coops... with head and tail instead of being airquake - I don't know.

 

You can solve that problem by not having a K/D ratio section in your profile at all, but instead, a rating system like Dota 2 (minus the match making aspect), eliminate the capability to switch side except for players balance(and if you lose when you join the other team for balance you will not lose rating points, and get half of the rating points you'd get from your original team), if your team is outnumbered 2 to 1 you'll not lose rating point and if you join the game half way through your rating will not be counted. It needs some fine tuning for sure, but that's an example.

 

I'm not wrong.  People who make proclamations about how everyone else thinks are really just projecting their own views onto other people.

Pretty funny because I'm the type of player who doesn't give a damn about epeen nor cosmetics.

[Yakdriver]

Then say what you really feel instead of going thru a thousand pieces of proof that the game suucks.

say you want a Dota-2 like game point system.
get to the point...