Multiplayer is a mess from a game design perspective

[LeLv76_Erkki]

If people not playing for objectives is unfun and deteriorates into another low altitude furball every time, its equally boring to have the game "won" by bomber pilots who flew one way sorties and didnt even attempt to stay alive. At least to me this was a problem in a number of dynamic online campaigns I played in the old Il-2(AFW, ADW, Bellum, Il-2war) as well as mission-oriented df servers. Mission wise there was little to absolutely no incentive to stay alive as suicide attacks not only let them take targets out more efficiently, but also faster as death let them take off again without the return flight in DF servers.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

If people not playing for objectives is unfun and deteriorates into another low altitude furball every time, its equally boring to have the game "won" by bomber pilots who flew one way sorties and didnt even attempt to stay alive. At least to me this was a problem in a number of dynamic online campaigns I played in the old Il-2(AFW, ADW, Bellum, Il-2war) as well as mission-oriented df servers. Mission wise there was little to absolutely no incentive to stay alive as suicide attacks not only let them take targets out more efficiently, but also faster as death let them take off again without the return flight in DF servers.

You can always punish this behavior by significantly limiting the amount of bombers than can spawn. This will further encourage fighters to escort them.

[sturmkraehe]

Bad idea, GrapeJam. There is and always already had been a lack of guys to take bombers. I'd say 90% of all people flying combat flight sims do that because they want to live the "glory" of a fighter pilot (there have been always more holywood movies on fighter than on bombers reflecting exactly that). The fighter always got the glory (since ww1 in real life) and bombers not. No need to  even further punish those who take bombers. The incentive to stay alive for bombers could be that if they stay alive they get huge points and less points if dead. There is and never will be an incentive apart from paying money to really get all or simply most people to play the way you want to. It is just not realistically possible without paying money. You may get a few more than those who play the game as it should be anyway with incentives possible in the game.

 

I am no friend of inciting people to do something (in their spare time) by punishment. It is always better to reward them if they do so.

Edited November 8, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

You can always punish this behavior by significantly limiting the amount of bombers than can spawn. This will further encourage fighters to escort them.

Yeah don't do that or the 10% of us who do fly the bombers won't like you.  Fighter pilots make movies, Bomber pilots make history.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Bad idea, GrapeJam. There is and always already had been a lack of guys to take bombers. I'd say 90% of all people flying combat flight sims do that because they want to live the "glory" of a fighter pilot (there have been always more holywood movies on fighter than on bombers reflecting exactly that). The fighter always got the glory (since ww1 in real life) and bombers not. No need to  even further punish those who take bombers. The incentive to stay alive for bombers could be that if they stay alive they get huge points and less points if dead. There is and never will be an incentive apart from paying money to really get all or simply most people to play the way you want to. It is just not realistically possible without paying money. You may get a few more than those who play the game as it should be anyway with incentives possible in the game.

 

I am no friend of inciting people to do something (in their spare time) by punishment. It is always better to reward them if they do so.

Oh I can assure you that once their personal stats/material gain is involved in winning and losing there'll be no lack of people who fly bombers.

 

We just need to remove the PvP K/D ratio and give a unified point system instead.

 

Anyway, I agree with the idea that if you bring the plane back to base you'll be rewarded a lot of points instead.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GrapeJam

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Also if you limit the bomber numbers, that not only opens chances for some exploiting, but may also result in someone not being able to fly his/her favorite plane type because they're either all already reserved or blown to bits at takeoff by mr. IPlay4funl33t or somesuch. That is not good.

 

It wont work GrapeJam. I will personally always rank PvP higher than PvE which is why I fly fighters and not attack aircraft or bombers. There are lots and lots of people like me. Punishing that preference outside of a campaign system will not make us migrate towards PvE or protecting suiciders that "play for the mission objective".

 

ADW solved this by introducing per-squadron aircraft limitations and 10 minute death kick.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

 

 

Oh I can assure you that once their personal stats/material gain is involved in winning and losing there'll be no lack of people who fly bombers.

There is some truth to that..In ROF the scoring changed so If you kill a factory in game you get 22 points..but if you land without damage you get about 125 points. So I see a lot more bombers now. 

[sturmkraehe]

That's the idea. I think bombers really should get "insane" points for killing ground target if they stay alive and "nice point amount" if they get the target but not staying alive. The points for a successful bombing mission have to exceed by far those achievable by shooting down planes.

[dkoor]

And we yet again return to the old issue. Ongoing DF server will never ever feel 20% as good as barely average old IL2 co-op mission with set objective goals and 1 life and then exit or spectate. And no, none of mission/map designs can ever provide such nice experience as proper co-op chain of missions can hosted one after another...

 

ROF and BOS both require way too much work for this to happen, won't even mention how hard CLOD fails in this department. That is why old IL2 will take even longer to get worthy successor, regardless of how far in FM and DM newer games have advanced. Don't get me wrong, I love all mentioned games here, but that don't change the fact that IL2:1946 can only be truly replaced by a game that will provide easy (yes it must be fairly simple) way to create and host co-op mission sequences (online campaigns if you like).

Agree 100%.

 

I have absolutely no interest to play online like I did in my old IL-2 days on DM servers... regardless of settings.

 

COOPs are where this thing is, and I can't believe it gets overlooked so easily...

 

One would expect fully grown online pilot campaigns (DiD etc.) by this time... old IL-2 was one step away from doing this all... but now... who knows.

Edited November 8, 2014 by dkoor

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Also if you limit the bomber numbers, that not only opens chances for some exploiting, but may also result in someone not being able to fly his/her favorite plane type because they're either all already reserved or blown to bits at takeoff by mr. IPlay4funl33t or somesuch. That is not good.

 

It wont work GrapeJam. I will personally always rank PvP higher than PvE which is why I fly fighters and not attack aircraft or bombers. There are lots and lots of people like me. Punishing that preference outside of a campaign system will not make us migrate towards PvE or protecting suiciders that "play for the mission objective".

 

ADW solved this by introducing per-squadron aircraft limitations and 10 minute death kick.

 

Ok, forget that idea.

 

As for people who prefer PvP I'm sure there'll be fighters only servers when Dservers come out, but what I'm talking about is encouraging people away from the death match mentality on mission servers.

[LeLv76_Erkki]

Ok, forget that idea.

 

As for people who prefer PvP I'm sure there'll be fighters only servers when Dservers come out, but what I'm talking about is encouraging people away from the death match mentality on mission servers.

 

A strawman again. Please. I never said I dont enjoy a dynamic campaign environment but only dogfighting. If I did I wouldnt have played basically only campaigns and coops for the past 7-8 years. PvP does not exclude everything but fighter vs. fighter, just as bombing in a full difficulty environment can be equally "deathmatch" as that furball on old il2's SkiesofFire server.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

That's the idea. I think bombers really should get "insane" points for killing ground target if they stay alive and "nice point amount" if they get the target but not staying alive. The points for a successful bombing mission have to exceed by far those achievable by shooting down planes.

Thank you..we bomber pilots have been saying that for years. It may take skill to shoot a plane down in a dogfight, but it takes much more skill to fly a path,sneak around patrolling fighters, line up bomb a target..and then hit it! Then fly home without the fighters finding you or shooting you down, landing and maybe getting some points.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

A strawman again. Please. I never said I dont enjoy a dynamic campaign environment but only dogfighting. If I did I wouldnt have played basically only campaigns and coops for the past 7-8 years. PvP does not exclude everything but fighter vs. fighter, just as bombing in a full difficulty environment can be equally "deathmatch" as that furball on old il2's SkiesofFire server.

 

You don't have to do close escort, close escort is not the only way to protect bomber, forward fighters sweep is also one. There's also intercepting.

Edited November 8, 2014 by GrapeJam

[LeLv76_Erkki]

You don't have to do close escort, close escort is not the only way to protect bomber, forward fighters sweep is also one.

 

You are again making assumptions about someone you dont know. You need to accept that people can have preferences that differ from yours. I prefer full difficulty dynamic campaigns and flying fighters, but despite of that and me always picking that over easier environments and pure dogfights, I can still be aware of the various issues associated, such as suiciders(people not caring if they survive), "deathmatchers"(people who only play for furball action, usually they also never land), plane balance and so forth.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I've said before, but I'll say again, I think a mystery server, for expert level players, would be beneficial.

 

By mystery server I mean, apart from other players that you might bump into, hopefully figuratively as opposed to literally, you have no idea how many players are on the server. That's not to say there is no action, you can always be guarantied ground targets and maybe, just maybe, some air action. The important thing is there is always doubt. Everyone, at the moment, flys with an expectation of aerial combat, every time, preferably as quickly as possible. That's great for pump and grind but utterly unrealistic and pilot behaviour reflects this.

 

Maybe, instead, you do an air patrol, starting with a few mates, or not, so you know you not alone on the server,, but unless you do ground pounding their is no guaranty of contact, or if there is, how many and if they are A.I or human. You might just arse around for half an hour and meet nobody, then again ! ! It encourages a mission mindset rather than an air quake mindset. It might also encourage a ground pounding mindset, because you wool definitely have something to shoot at.

[SCG_Neun]

Everyone has a niche...but this is as close to the historical and tactical component as it gets in a CFS.....Worth watching if you have the time....I post this example not as a plug for another sim....but showing the MP environment for battle with a squadron and mission oriented mentality.  There's no room to go off on your own in a setting like this....This is teamwork and discipline and truly recreates the history behind the battle, without the every man for himself furballs....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4059mLQ6wNE

Edited November 8, 2014 by JagdNeun

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

 Nice, going to be up around your neck of the woods next week so if your cell drops out..I didn't do it   

[Pringliano]

Everyone has a niche...but this is as close to the historical and tactical component as it gets in a CFS.....Worth watching if you have the time....I post this example not as a plug for another sim....but showing the MP environment for battle with a squadron and mission oriented mentality.  There's no room to go off on your own in a setting like this....This is teamwork and discipline and truly recreates the history behind the battle, without the every man for himself furballs....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4059mLQ6wNE

 

Thx for the video!

 

Slowly becoming a fan of CoD :-)

[[DBS]Prody]

I don't have much experience with this game but as i understand it, in order to be historical accurate , the game should revolve around bombing objectives with fighters either supporting or intercepting , i dont think it's that difficult to implement , for example :

1. remove the k/d ratio , it's just dumb and it actually tells players that this is your measure of success in the game . Players will gain experience points , the team with the most experience gained would most likely be the victorious one also.

2. every objective and aircraft that carries bombs should have a certain "zone of control " , only what is happening into these zones earns you exp , for example :

 - you bomb an obj , of course you gain exp, but also other friendly units in the area will gain exp ( according to their type of aircraft)  since it is considered that they supported you

- you kill enemies in the zone of control of an obj or a bomber you gain experience because you were either supporting or intercepting 

These are just some basic idea, i\m sure something along these lines can be optimized further , for example :

- a bomber zone of control persist a couple of minutes after it is destroyed in order to allow those involved in the initial fight to gain some exp

- there should always be a certain ratio between your fighter / bombing aircraft - you cannot join as a fighter if there are not enough bombers in your team

- if a bomber is destroyed while having bombs on board it is worth more exp points , players will be more or less forced to play escort and intercept , and so on .

 

 I hope these suggestions are not stupid ,while being a ww2 fan , i dont have much experience with this game

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

 

 

ThePrody' timestamp='1415466354' post='197498'] - a bomber zone of control persist a couple of minutes after it is destroyed in order to allow those involved in the initial fight to gain some exp - there should always be a certain ratio between your fighter / bombing aircraft - you cannot join as a fighter if there are not enough bombers in your team - if a bomber is destroyed while having bombs on board it is worth more exp points , players will be more or less forced to play escort and intercept , and so on .

 

Bomber zone would be IF the fighters could gain control of the air, I would rather have less bombers and more fighters to protect the bombers you do have...say I join in but have to fly a fighter..well I'm no dogfighter so Im a target. Im a target in a bomber but at least I feel that I can help out the side. The last one I do like it would give an incentive for fighters to hunt bombers before they get to target because if we drop and hit we still win..hey wait ok maybe I don't like that one!

I don't think any suggestion is stupid..if you added up all the great ideas in this thread you would have a nice on line server!

[[DBS]Prody]

Anyway, i think the general idea is this : the k/d ratio should be replaced by a Victory Points / Experience system , where the kills that you score or other actions that you take will give you a certain number of VP's that are added to you and your team , the value of those VP's depending of certain factors ( where the action took place , what type of aircraft you shot down, etc .) . By manipulating these factors you can pretty much direct the players to revolve around certain areas on the map or to perform certain type of actions . As long as the game is presenting us a k/d ratio, people will always be tempted to hunt kills and care less about everything else.

[SCG_Neun]

 Nice, going to be up around your neck of the woods next week so if your cell drops out..I didn't do it   

Always good to have a backup excuse  for work.."We've been trying to reach you all morning....where have you been?"

[Elbows]

I do think the state of MP in BoS is pretty poor...but I don't think the developers should develop a fix.  The players should.  And no matter how much you change the system, the end result lays with the players. 

 

No plan survives once humans become involved.  I'm fine waiting for the FMB and then you'll see a couple of serves who become more popular for actual co-op missions vs. the normal dogfight stuff (which becomes tiresome).  This is really the reason I tend to just play co-op missions vs. AI with my buddies.  Regardless of how mediocre AI is, we enjoy the challenge of a mission.

 

The second you introduce humans to something, a few of them will completely ignore your rules or seek to disrupt them.  Classic example last night.  I'm flying He-111's with my buddy.  We bomb a target and I crash.  I hop into a gunner slot in his bomber.  A VVS fighter strafes us and I hit him, blowing up his engine.  That player then switched sides...jumped into our waist gun...and shot our wing off...then disconnected.  With people like that playing the game, there is no "fix" for anything.  Some people are just stupid asses.

 

Once more serves are up, I'm also fine with private lobbies...so "squadrons" and such can exist, and only vetted players are allowed in.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Incentive doesn't force anybody to not play the way they want, but encourage them to play the way you want them to play, they're always free to not follow that incentive.

 Fair enough, but the main incentive that led pilots to fly the way they did in the real BoS was a fear of death.  We fear having to respawn, a rather smaller incentive.  I'm being a bit facetious there, but it is what this business about players in MP failing to behave like real combatants boils down to.

[[DBS]Prody]

@Elbows , it should be a common effort , the players will never change the way they play if the game does not encourage such tactics by awarding points or something similar , as for idiots like the one you mentioned ... well, they will always exist no matter the rules, at least it's good we can't change names , you will know him next time, maybe   record him  if you sense he's up to something evil .

Edited November 8, 2014 by [RO]ThePrody

[Yakdriver]

the game does change the way players play - by mission design and player attitude.
mission design can be found in the upcoming FMB
player attitude can be found in serious squadrons needing the ded.server and a maximum of hosting options.
the developer can hardly dictate what you do.

 

its OUR fault that we see airquake
OURS Ours and noone elses.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

the game does change the way players play - by mission design and player attitude.

mission design can be found in the upcoming FMB

player attitude can be found in serious squadrons needing the ded.server and a maximum of hosting options.

the developer can hardly dictate what you do.

 

its OUR fault that we see airquake

OURS Ours and noone elses.

 

It's a hard fact of life that we have to accept that the vast majority of gamers nowaday are spoiled and they will just search for instant gratification, you can't force them into your way because they'll just leave, instead you'll have to encourage them into your way by giving them a carrot on a stick, it's been shown throughout history so many times already.

 

The sooner you accept that the better.

Edited November 9, 2014 by GrapeJam

[Yakdriver]

nono.

i do not have to encourage anything. ANYTHING.

 

It is, to be honest, of no large concern to me.

The FPS dudes can play the Airquake game all they want and go to great lengths to "get" the "score" they are hunting.

The serious history interested players seeking more than a kill will group up and have private servers and squads anyway.

 

and none of that has a lot to do with game design.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

nono.

i do not have to encourage anything. ANYTHING.

 

It is, to be honest, of no large concern to me.

The FPS dudes can play the Airquake game all they want and go to great lengths to "get" the "score" they are hunting.

The serious history interested players seeking more than a kill will group up and have private servers and squads anyway.

 

and none of that has a lot to do with game design.

Because you can't do the same thing when those FPS dudes got a carrot to chase, right?

 

How about the people who don't have a squad nor private server and don't wanna deal with the airquake bullshit?

 

Your elitism frankly, stinks, and you're not contributing anything to solve a problem that's plagued the series since forever.

Edited November 9, 2014 by GrapeJam

[[DBS]Prody]

Yeah,actually we don't need laws in our society because morality itself is enough to discourage immoral people . Those people that follow a moral code will prevail anyway by the power of example, the others  will simply move to an island somewhere where they will bash each other heads forever without ever interfering with the rest.

[Yakdriver]

Because you can't do the same thing when those FPS dudes got a carrot to chase, right?

 

How about the people who don't have a squad nor private server and don't wanna deal with the airquake bullshit?

 

Your elitism frankly, stinks, and you're not contributing anything to solve a problem that's plagued the series since forever.

 

 

i am not here to solve a community problem that has plagued all gaming communities since day one. That is not my goal, not my business.

my goal is to tell you you are shooting at the wrong target.

the way i see it if you are serious AND do not want to deal with airquake, join a squad. and have a squad arranged dogfight server. and chip in 10 dollars a month to keep that server rolling.

or have your own hosted server. which will come. then you get to push people around at your convenience.

 

no server and no squad, and no desire to join a serious grroup of fliers, even if they are casual oriented like the CPS squad, (one out of a rhundred) then you are in the airquake pot.

That is how it always has been, that is how it is.

 

and that is not elitist.

that is experience.

Yeah,actually we don't need laws in our society because morality itself is enough to discourage immoral people . Those people that follow a moral code will prevail anyway by the power of example, the others  will simply move to an island somewhere where they will bash each other heads forever without ever interfering with the rest.

something along those lines.

ethics and moral and stuff like can make up for "poor coding" "poor game design", if not completely, then for major parts of it.

It's the mind - not the features and the code.

[[DBS]Prody]

@Hawker_Typhoon  :That's  a dream and it will never become reality , today trolling is a real on-line profession for many . Actually this community is pretty ok compared to other games that have an on-line component , i guess due to the learning curve of the game which may not attract every kid with  a joystick . No matter what you do, there will always be players that play the way  they want regardless of the game objectives , and i guess it's their right to do so, after all this is not WW2 where you will have to pay a visit to the Martial Court after flying a plane the way you want and not according to the needs of your army . But, if you introduce a system of Victory Points ( or something similar ) that repay players for taking actions in accordance with the objectives and the historical behavior expected from a pilot, than i think we will see a major improvement in this simulation , few players will keep playing randomly if that will place them on the bottom of the score board . If the game keeps presenting us the k/d ratio and it looks like it's the only measure of one's success in game, then any future discussion is futile . 

Edited November 9, 2014 by [RO]ThePrody

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

its OUR fault that we see airquake

OURS Ours and noone elses.

Consumer guilt so thick I could cut it with a knife.

[Yakdriver]

Then i must admit that i am at a complete loss on how to motivate players.

me? takeoff, find anything worth shooting at, shoot it, and get back to base is more than any stat or ratio could ever provide me.
Becasue as I have seen here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12636-multiplayer-mess-game-design-perspective/?p=197110
stats tell me nothing about how good a BoS Pilot i am.
Or how lousy.

quite a bit of the "effort" or experience of the online flight is mental, and  i for one make a mental debriefing of like 5 seconds on how well i did in the last flight.

did i make it? was i stupid? was i careless? did i make proper use of the tools at my disposition?

answers to questions like these are more useful, rewarding than any Stats, and tats includes percentages, kill death ratios, gun hits and misses...

My mental experience always triumphs over numbers. Any numbers.
 

Consumer guilt so thick I could cut it with a knife.

sure. that is why i put it there like a half inch layer of nutella

[LuftManu]

This is what happens when the "Objective Customer" hits the Sim with the old time fliers,

 

Yesterday, I flew a little amount of time with some friends, we were shot down, it was fun, we were on Il-2s, and they destroyed us in 109 with the gunpods, I am okey with that, we should have flew lower, but we saw on the chat, that the 2 guys killed saying:

 

Noobs, stupids hahahaha, get some rekt... and some more lines I am not going to write.

 

I am also not entering in the type of players that flyes German Ace-Wannabe 360-proscope-109aceforever, that share sides with the good old axis players that needs to fly alongside this type of people.

 

I am not saying that this game is full of this, but in 46, these guys should have been banned, the biggest concern here is that we cannot start our own server to avoid this type of people.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Manu_vc

[t4trouble]

 

 

This is what happens when the "Objective Customer" hits the Sim with the old time fliers,   Yesterday, I flew a little amount of time with some friends, we were shot down, it was fun, we were on Il-2s, and they destroyed us in 109 with the gunpods, I am okey with that, we should have flew lower, but we saw on the chat, that the 2 guys killed saying:   Noobs, stupids hahahaha, get some rekt... and some more lines I am not going to write.   I am also not entering in the type of players that flyes German Ace-Wannabe 360-proscope-109aceforever, that share sides with the good old axis players that needs to fly alongside this type of people.   I am not saying that this game is full of this, but in 46, these guys should have been banned, the biggest concern here is that we cannot start our own server to avoid this type of people.

 

I remember flying old il2 on pub servers, and what used to happen not all the time but people would ask who is flying bombers organize from base to target  and some times we would get 10+ bombers, then

put out on chat for fighter cover, but rarely see it now.People need to get more vocal and organize it can be done on pub servers, not as good as thought out campaign with squads.

[Rama]

There's allways a middle ground.

 

I agree with Hawker_Typhoon that the only way tot totally eliminate the "gaming the game" behavior is to run private wars or coops on private servers involving only well organized squads. It worked with CF2, IL2, etc....

Now, the IL2 online wars, even if not totally removing such kind of behavior, allowed a mixt of side cooperation, squad play... and a often-not-to-annoying participation of individual playing their own games, sometimes motivated by the ranking and the stats (and so playing with a limited cooperation), and somtimes not.

While playing these wars, some missions were uninteresting total mess with lone jerks firing indistinctly on friends and foes, but a lot were interesting, even for the lone players, and of course even more for squads. So if you can accept a small percentage of anoyement, these wars did the job to untertain the players wanting some kind of mission immersion.

 

These kind of online wars, or just interesting coops, will allways be developped by third parties, something possible when they'll get the dserver and the FMB, something that will happen soon I hope. I think there's allready at least one team working on. So, we will have these, we only have to wait for (or better, to join a third party developping one....).

[dkoor]

Thx for the video!

 

Slowly becoming a fan of CoD :-)

You'll probably come to a full halt once you actually play  that 'masterpiece'!

 

 

These kind of online wars, or just interesting coops, will allways be developped by third parties, something possible when they'll get the dserver and the FMB, something that will happen soon I hope. I think there's allready at least one team working on. So, we will have these, we only have to wait for (or better, to join a third party developping one....).

Looking forward to it.

[Chuck_Owl]

You'll probably come to a full halt once you actually play  that 'masterpiece'!

 

I've flown hundreds of hours in CloD multiplayer... and honestly I keep coming back for more. The MP community is awesome, unlike the BoS teamspeak where it's like...

 

[Yakdriver]

Normal.
i would expect the TS userd to use their own base instead of the officially provided one by me, the game dev.

habits...

here, a bunch of interesting pixels...

work being done by someone, somewhere