Jump to content
LG1.Farber

Multiplayer Goals (IL2 Perspective)

Recommended Posts

From a multiplayer IL2 perspective I sincerely believe the following is needed.

 

One server of the correct specifications should be able to run:

 

100 Players

250 AI Ground objects (tanks, ships, AAA, artillery etc)

50 AI aircraft

1000 Static objects minimum (spawns, front markers, sandbags, static aircraft and other targets)

 

 

Simple dogfight style of play will not be acceptable to a large portion of the IL2 crowd.

 

 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a multiplayer IL2 perspective I sincerely believe the following is needed.

 

One server of the correct specifications should be able to run:

 

100 Players

250 AI Ground objects (tanks, ships, AAA, artillery etc)

50 AI aircraft

1000 Static objects minimum (spawns, front markers, sandbags, static aircraft and other targets)

 

 

Simple dogfight style of play will not be acceptable to a large portion of the IL2 crowd.

+1

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After flying a lot of online campaigns and missions I also hope BOM multiplayer can run with those numbers.

 

WWII scenario's require such numbers for a number of reasons. One being that the planes are simply a lot faster and fly longer distances, covering a larger area of the map. Also, Stalingrad was a battle with huge concentrated numbers of anything, the outskirts being less concentrated obviously, but nevertheless.  

 

the IL-2 itself also has to have enough targets to play with, that plane can wreck a lot of havoc. Imagine what swarms of these flying tanks could cause  :o   

Edited by Sven
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have a game with a il2 or a stuka that doesnt have all that either  ^_^

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur,  and tbh this is an absolute MINIMUM spec.  This is what we presently achieve in campaigns on the COD engine without problems.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys ... you can't make demands like this. We have to come to terms with the fact that the IL-2 series will be built on an entirely different game engine.

 

I'd suggest actaully firing up RoF and see what that has to offer because I suspect that BoS will not vary that much from RoF in terms of MP.

 

I've had RoF for over a year but only played it occasionally as COOP with my mate online. Having said that, RoF does provide a pretty good MP experience IMO.

 

If they're planning a 2014 release I'll suspect they'll mainly be doing FM / DM changes, and adding in the 3D models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but we can.  Who are you to say what is acceptable?  It sounds to me like your MP experience is very light indeed.  Farber simply listed what we are presently managing in campaign in COD right now.

 

I think ultimately Jason will understand what is required,  certainly if he wants to sell it anyway.

Edited by Osprey
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but we can.  Who are you to say what is acceptable?  I think Jason will understand what is required,  certainly if he wants to sell it anyway.

 

Who am I? Just a consumer, but I'm also a developer. I know that Jason and crew will have a set agenda in terms of functionality and they're probably, right now, mapping out what they plan to have in BoS and what they're going to leave out.

 

Wait for an offical announcement as to that the sim will have and work from there. With such a close release "year", they're not going to re-write the entire game engine to cater for these "requests" if the RoF engine can't handle it now.

 

I'm sure Jason understands what you guys want, but I hope he doesn't cave into demands that he knows will not see him and the team achieve the goals of this project. We've already been there with CoD and look what happened, I hope the lessons aren't forgotten.

 

Let the devs do what they need to get this series off the ground, because seriously what alternative do you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wait for an offical announcement as to that the sim will have and work from there. With such a close release "year", they're not going to re-write the entire game engine to cater for these "requests" if the RoF engine can't handle it now.

 

I'm sure Jason understands what you guys want, but I hope he doesn't cave into demands that he knows will not see him and the team achieve the goals of this project. We've already been there with CoD and look what happened, I hope the lessons aren't forgotten.

 

 

What happened is we got an awesome game with a mega tonne of potential ahead of its time.

 

If the plan is simply RoF with a new map and WWII aircraft like you believe (and we fear) then it simply wont cut the mustard.

 

What alternative do we have? - none yet but allot can happen in a week let alone a year or two.

Edited by 5JG27Farber
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... I would not say the 'death' of IL2, but it all points to a very vague future. Where next-gen futures ( actually, COD already achieved them) will depend on how many items we buy. I also fear very slow progress because there's money to be made in other ways, like selling MP40s and personalized Iron Crosses.

Edited by Sven
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree with Farber, this is a respectfully way to say what the comunity hope from BoS, Jason and crew will understand this request. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it has a capability similar to what IL2 would have with a fully functioning MDS. DF mode.. Coop mode.. and a combo mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for the game to support so many objects simultaneously, may be superflous.

The game must do this!

 

If it doesn't, it will mean that the coding is quite inefficient on handling game info though the web, or to taxing on secondary events that are developing summultaneously.

 

If developers don't take this into their minds from scratch, they should be doing something else, but surelly not this kind of venture.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 as well, while WW1 is slightly more bearable on a smaller scale, there really is no room for limitations similar to RoF.

 

This has actually been one of the main strenghts of the IL2 series all along and the fuel to keep it going for so long.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being something of a developer myself I can see the problem of "feature creep". However, we need to understand what the *current* offerings can handle and then consider what kind of edge/advantage BOS can potentially ship with.

 

In IL-2/HSFX right now we have SEOW coops with 85 human pilots (with the choice of 200+ flyable airframe types), simultaneously with 50+ moving ship objects, 150+ moving ground units (trains, tanks, trucks, infantry etc), plus thousands of stationary objects (guns, vehicles, infantry). This doesn't include the map scenery objects etc, on maps 500 km square. This is the reality of current IL-2 online campaigning.

 

If BOS will not handle this type of scale in 2014, then we need to consider what features BOS will have that will make it attractive for people to get involved with. Obviously, updated graphics, physics effects, weather, damage modelling etc are all good things. But what else is in scope? Now, I am not trying to be demanding here, I just would love to read what the developers have to say on this kind of topic, if/when they have the time to post.

 

Cheers,

4Shades

Edited by 4Shades
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to the OP's request

 

It will also be necessary imho for the sim to accept advanced scripting like in the old IL-2 sim in order to allow for online wars of the AirForceWar kind to take place - if the devs manage to fulfill both demands I have no doubt that this sim will take off and be a long term success!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

 

Multiplayer with community developed campaigns was the recipe which made the old IL-2 live that long. I hope this will be supported by this new sim as well.

 

As an reference I propose the ADW concept. Add support for standalone DF server with API:s which developers can use to create sub-missions (AI flights, targets and ground unit movements with moving frontline) and also read object status info online to create SA info pages for participants. This would be the new WW2 flight sim MP "killerapplication".

Edited by Otto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who am I? Just a consumer, but I'm also a developer. I know that Jason and crew will have a set agenda in terms of functionality and they're probably, right now, mapping out what they plan to have in BoS and what they're going to leave out.

 

 

Being a professional developer convinces me even less.  No disrespect intended, there are loads of very clued up devs but from my experience developers usually don't know what the customer needs, they just presume they do.  That's where other members of a project team come in, to guide them and tell them how the software is meant to behave  (I've worn many hats in a software development dept of a global corp, often picking up projects where devs have gone off on a whim without a complete process which has ended in tears)  Horses for courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are loads of very clued up devs but from my experience developers usually don't know what the customer needs, they just presume they do.

The problem is that many time the user (customer) also don't really knows his own needs, he just figure he does... especially if he allready practiced a lot software in the same domain and is an expert user.

I've seen many time in my field users strongly voicing "needs", not realizing that they just took what they've allways acustomed by as "basic needs" and they just built additionnal needs on this base. It was generally not possible to convince them that other use, other fonctionalities they can't imagine would make everything easier and more confortable... until they tried the new product. Of course, for this to be possible, the dev has to be also a strong user of its own production.

 

And that's exactly the case with some (many?) of the actual BoS dev...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened is we got an awesome game with a mega tonne of potential ahead of its time.

 

If the plan is simply RoF with a new map and WWII aircraft like you believe (and we fear) then it simply wont cut the mustard.

 

What alternative do we have? - none yet but allot can happen in a week let alone a year or two.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree on having support for a large number of players and AI objects, I'm much more interested in the functional aspects of Multiplayer:

Can we have coops where you can jump in while the mission is in progress?

Will there be support for MP campaigns, maybe generating missions?

How to communicate to players in a mission, ie giving orders, change icons in-game, change objectives etc.

Which event can be used to trigger new actions?

 

On a simple dogfight server, I don't care if there are 25, 50 or a 100 players if it's only about furballing low on the deck...

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SYN_Vander: agree. I'm much more interested in these mission related details than whether the game will have dx11.

Features which allow making interesting missions which remain re-playable even when played several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being something of a developer myself I can see the problem of "feature creep". However, we need to understand what the *current* offerings can handle and then consider what kind of edge/advantage BOS can potentially ship with.

 

In IL-2/HSFX right now we have SEOW coops with 85 human pilots (with the choice of 200+ flyable airframe types), simultaneously with 50+ moving ship objects, 150+ moving ground units (trains, tanks, trucks, infantry etc), plus thousands of stationary objects (guns, vehicles, infantry). This doesn't include the map scenery objects etc, on maps 500 km square. This is the reality of current IL-2 online campaigning.

 

If BOS will not handle this type of scale in 2014, then we need to consider what features BOS will have that will make it attractive for people to get involved with. Obviously, updated graphics, physics effects, weather, damage modelling etc are all good things. But what else is in scope? Now, I am not trying to be demanding here, I just would love to read what the developers have to say on this kind of topic, if/when they have the time to post.

 

Cheers,

4Shades

 

 

Although I agree on having support for a large number of players and AI objects, I'm much more interested in the functional aspects of Multiplayer: Can we have coops where you can jump in while the mission is in progress? Will there be support for MP campaigns, maybe generating missions? How to communicate to players in a mission, ie giving orders, change icons in-game, change objectives etc. Which event can be used to trigger new actions? On a simple dogfight server, I don't care if there are 25, 50 or a 100 players if it's only about furballing low on the deck...

 

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a professional developer convinces me even less.  No disrespect intended, there are loads of very clued up devs but from my experience developers usually don't know what the customer needs, they just presume they do.  That's where other members of a project team come in, to guide them and tell them how the software is meant to behave  (I've worn many hats in a software development dept of a global corp, often picking up projects where devs have gone off on a whim without a complete process which has ended in tears)  Horses for courses.

 

 

I don't know about that in this case O... Consider that Jason was a simmer.. he had a squad.. they ran campaigns ... the ran servers.. and this was back in the heyday of IL2.. so I think that is one fo the things that gives this a unique perspective.. It isn't like he is trying to invent a standard from scratch like Oleg & 1CMG did .. they redefined the genre.. I really think that if they use aspects of IL2, BoBWoV,RoF and CoD they can come up with a decent product.. There were other products but those 4 IMO are templates to pick and choose from where you can as far as features go.. The fact that BoBWoV and IL2 are as old as they are and still have a following says a lot.. and the fact that RoF & CoD are the first of the next generation combat sims... DCS and Gaijin offerings not withstanding ... but DCS is in it's own space IMO and Gaijin still hast yet to deliver AFAIC.. WoP is dead and WT is still on it's way.. It looks promising.. but no matter how close it seems to be it isn't here yet so we don't know what it will be like.. Those 4 have features and functionality that if done right would make a great new platform... and I think that 1C777 can pull it off..

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

×
×
  • Create New...