Jump to content
StG77_Roo5ter

A Reasonable Plan to Expand the Player Base

Recommended Posts

Even if they flew completely like humans, they're still robots, and they're not going to be angry with me for the next hour if I hang them out to dry when I need to save my own ass.  And giving them names doesn't change any of that.  I don't care if they survive, I'm just going to use them as bait to help my own survival.  The immersion factor is 0.

 

Agreed, there is nothing in the code to stop you from gaming the game..

 

Just when you do, you should not expect a realistic experience..

 

In English, you get out of it what you put into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, there is nothing in the code to stop you from gaming the game..

 

Just when you do, you should not expect a realistic experience..

 

 

It's not me.  It's them.  They're robots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not me.  It's them.  They're robots.

 

Ah, I guess I misunderstood when you said..

 

I don't care if they survive, I'm just going to use them as bait to help my own survival.

 

Because reading that I got the impression that you didn't care about the AI and only use them as bait..

 

Which IMHO is gaming the game and is the reason why one should not expect to have a 'realistic' experience when they play 'unrealistically' like that..

 

So

 

What did you mean when you said you don't care if they survive and you just use them as bait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show where I said nothing should change....I said the old should exist with the new as the game evolves for the sake of familiarity  into the new iteration, much like you find in Arma...if you could use the Arma2 editor the Arma3 was not that foreign.

"These are different games, different engines" this is a very important statement that i will address at the end, beyond that you mange to agree with me in a more verbose manner.

 

 

A. "what should have been" was a fully completed and well documented product...however it turned into a mismanaged nightmare suffering from premature birth that ended in abandonment , it was however the next step in the evolution of the IL2 franchise and not just an expansion much like what BOS is.

 

 

 

I can't speak or count on "what if's" or "was [to be's]". It is what it is, and I can't quantify things that aren't to be things that are. If anything, it's an evolution of how to waste money and ruin a project.

  

 

 

B. Team fusion is a collection of volunteers who maintain a website and populate it with any info,tool or reference to help the established and new players alike  along with  patches to help improve the games function overall  along with a dedicated server. They  are also now making 3D cockpits for existing planes that don't have them as well as an entirely new plane.....but some how you have manged to reduce them to a couple of delusional dweebs siting in a basement "hacking script"...Bravo! not only was that naive but insulting as well....care to recant?....

 

 

 

 

Sorry, not sorry. I see them exactly as delusional. CloD wasn't a failure and abandoned because it needed machine guns that sound like someone farting into a mic, new smoke sprites, some gauge changes, new clouds, and a d***headed community leader. It simply was a piss-poor game built on a buggy quickly unsupported engine that plagues people today with issues that make it unplayable. What do you think it is they're changing that isn't scripts? It's exactly what they're doing...a hackjob just like any tinkerer can do glorified by people like you that don't know any better. It's cool though, it's good for people to have something to believe in, so have at it. Just don't go around spouting it's glory thinking people will be on your page.

  

 

 

 

 

the fact that you have to ask if HL was community driven and you don't even know the makers name leads me to believe you never used it or khow how it came to be....

Hyperlobby was made by a game named Jiri-Fojtasek  and was touted as the savior of the MP community because the UBI game browser was trash and the official servers were lagtasticl... HL created a one stop shopping experience for the MP user, you could login check your friends list see where they are , see how many players were logged in (listed)  there was also a list of all DED servers what maps they were running what setting s and who was in them.

There were also multiple rooms such as CO-OP rooms DF rooms campaign rooms ...etc there was also the chat area where all 5,6,7...1000 people who were logged in could see what was going on such as someone announcing a CO-OP, style,plane set and difficulty setting's.

a lot of it was very impromptu and informal ...such as a hosting a CO-OP , you simple clicked on the CO-OP room set the number of players and difficulty,  everyone in the lobby could see it and the slots would fill up the mission would launch and when it was over most of the time you were thanked for the mission and hosting and then well...wash,rinse,repeat.

Jiri created a program hosted a master server and kept a SQL data base  up and running and maintained 24/7.....I would classify that as a little more than a "hobby"...

 

 

 

 

I know what HyperLobby is. It was a rhetorical question. People are doing similar things with BoS right now minus the automatic "room" creation due to the game mechanics. You're still building obstacles that don't exist. Is it really that impossible to communicate with someone and tell them to join your server? If something like that is difficult, I find it hard that you'd enjoy the kind of games you're attempting to play in the first place.

  

 

 

 

 

 

You know who else uses a similar type of game browser?....EA, it's called battlelog..again one stop shopping, friends list, server hosts,chat function...etc you see we don't need a myriad of social outlets when there is a tried and true method that has been around for more than a decade and works!

 

 

 

 

Ouch, wrong example, friend. The majority of Battlefield players HATE battlelog. Again...I have to giggle at your standards of success and I thank the gods you're not involved in any aspect of development in this game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"These are different games, different engines." this is what is at the heart of the problem...this is not a continuation of the il2 franchise...it is a continuation of ROF...and if Jason had simple announced that he was a doing a WW2 expansion expectations would have been on par with a 777 product. Slapping on the IL2 tag created unrealistic expectations because the bar had been set so high....you cannot claim to be moving forward when you are engaging in key feature set regression (no CO-OP, cant host local, max 48 player...etc).

 

If you really want to increase the player base it might be a good idea to get a lot of the players who have been alienated by successive il advised dev decisions...and I think a true bare minimum would be CO-OP,local host followed by a game browser that has the basic or improved functions of hyperlobby.

 

 

 

 

I think you really just want to play IL2: 1946 is what it boils down to.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Edited by AbortedMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you mean when you said you don't care if they survive and you just use them as bait?

 

What I meant is that I don't care what the AI thinks of me.  When I'm flying with humans and I screw them over I know they're not going to be happy.  I protect them so they'll protect me, and vice versa.  The AI might try to protect me, or it might just fly around in circles.  Who the F knows what it's going to do?  So I use it as bait.  Like I said, the problem isn't me, it's the AI.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right up until the point when it becomes painfully obvious that you're fighting with and against robots.  Then the "realistic/historic" facade crashes and burns.

 

That all depends on the sim and the mission designer.

 

I never said that I didn't want that.  I said that it won't help to get more people to play the game, because hardly anyone plays the campaign in a flight sim.

 

I don't agree with that.. Just look at all the people who have been banging the tables about the campaign in this sim. I think that too often we look at the sim experience from our own view.. when in reality the wants and needs of simmers are as varied as the simmers themselves..

 

What I meant is that I don't care what the AI thinks of me.  When I'm flying with humans and I screw them over I know they're not going to be happy.  I protect them so they'll protect me, and vice versa.  The AI might try to protect me, or it might just fly around in circles.  Who the F knows what it's going to do?  So I use it as bait.  Like I said, the problem isn't me, it's the AI.  

 

It is funny you should say that..  because I have flown missions where i treated the AI like real pilots.. and they actually saved my bacon later...

 

Look guys... some of you need to ratchet back the drama and antagonism.. it is totally uncalled for. PMs inbound.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all depends on the sim and the mission designer.

 

 

I don't agree with that.. Just look at all the people who have been banging the tables about the campaign in this sim. I think that too often we look at the sim experience from our own view.. when in reality the wants and needs of simmers are as varied as the simmers themselves..

 

 

It is funny you should say that..  because I have flown missions where i treated the AI like real pilots.. and they actually saved my bacon later...

 

Look guys... some of you need to ratchet back the drama and antagonism.. it is totally uncalled for. PMs inbound.

 

No, I think ya'll need to ratchet back the moderation.  I like to see this kind of dialogue because it give insight into the actual feelings of the player base, not what white washed bullcorn you guys allow on the forums that are intended to discuss such issues.

 

In soviet Russia, game comments on you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think ya'll need to ratchet back the moderation. I like to see this kind of dialogue because it give insight into the actual feelings of the player base, not what white washed bullcorn you guys allow on the forums that are intended to discuss such issues.

 

In soviet Russia, game comments on you!

Word.

 

And what, exactly, are PM's supposed to do in this situation? No one is flaming anyone, nor is anyone being overly rude or adversarial. To echo Bearcat's previous sentiment, people are entitled to their opinions. A disagreement is not a breach of forum rules and a far cry from a reason for moderation.

Edited by AbortedMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here, IMHO, is that an OP about how to expand the player base has morphed into an MP vs Sp "my game is good and your is boring" insult fest. Which is not going to generate any ideas for expanding the player base, given that 1CGS believes that it has to offer both play styles to be successful.

 

If I was a billionaire I would finance an high fidelity sim with no MP functionality so that I did not have to put up with MP whinging about balance, vulching, cheating and modding. No doubt many MP players regard all expenditure on AI and SP campaigns and missions as being wasted money that could have been spent on bigger servers and more detailed statistics databases or whatever it is that they want.

 

The fact is that unless the designers choose to decide that they aim to service only one sector of the market, the result will have to be a compromise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all depends on the sim and the mission designer.

 

The mission designer has absolutely nothing to do with how the AI behaves.

 

I don't agree with that.. Just look at all the people who have been banging the tables about the campaign in this sim. I think that too often we look at the sim experience from our own view.. when in reality the wants and needs of simmers are as varied as the simmers themselves..

 

The people banging the tables in this forum are a tiny fraction of the people who play the game.  I'm not talking from my own view.  The devs have the stats that show that hardly anyone plays the campaign.  Jason has posted as much on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny you should say that..  because I have flown missions where i treated the AI like real pilots.. and they actually saved my bacon later...

 

It probably has some programming that will cause it to try to protect the wing leader, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you're treating it as human.  There is absolutely no way for the AI to determine something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my last high end computer.

 

To join a server with 4 players or a server with 23 players and lag

is not worth the cost.

 

WOT can run on less of a machine.

 

This game does not justify spending 2500$ on a machine

and 50$ month for a really good connection to go on

Facebook YouTube,Hotmail and all the other crap we do.

 

 

They better wake up we are abandoning Flight sims in droves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is that I don't care what the AI thinks of me.  When I'm flying with humans and I screw them over I know they're not going to be happy.  I protect them so they'll protect me, and vice versa.  The AI might try to protect me, or it might just fly around in circles.  Who the F knows what it's going to do?  So I use it as bait.  Like I said, the problem isn't me, it's the AI.  

 

Ah, ok so I did assume correctly..

 

You are gaming the game, and therefore you should not expect SP mode to be more realistic when you play it unrealistically 

Put another way, it is not the AI's fault that you treat them like bait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ok so I did assume correctly..

 

You are gaming the game, and therefore you should not expect SP mode to be more realistic when you play it unrealistically 

Put another way, it is not the AI's fault that you treat them like bait

 

No, I'm NOT gaming the game.  The AI Fing SUCKS!!!!!!  So I do what I have to do make the best of it.  And yes, it's the AI's fault that it sucks.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying it's bad for the game that the AI sucks.  AI is supposed to suck.  People get pissed off when the AI is really good, because it kills them all the time and they quit playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for AI sucking, as I already noted, real pilots is no guarantee of realism, I have seen real pilot in MP mode do things that are far more unrealistic than any AI

 

And based on the way your 'play' SP, it is no surprise to me that you find it to be unrealistic, therefore, just to let you know I am going to disregard your opinion/statement that SP mode is not realistic..

 

So, clearly we are at an impasse, and we are going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for AI sucking, as I already noted, real pilots is no guarantee of realism, I have seen real pilot in MP mode do things that are far more unrealistic than any AI

 

Whether or not humans always act like actual combat pilots is completely irrelevant.  At least they always act like humans, and come close to acting like human combat pilots a lot more often than the AI.  The AI rarely act like humans, and they suck as combat pilots.  

 

I tell you what, the next time you're trying to save your AI wingman tell him to break right (or left) so you can turn inside the bot that is about to kill him.  Or tell him to dive out because that idiotic wing fluttering thing he's doing is about to get him killed.  Or tell him to take out the flak position beside the hangers you want to bomb.  Or tell him to attack the airfield from the east while you attack from the south.  How do you think that's going to work out for you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not humans always act like actual combat pilots is completely irrelevant.

That is your opinion and your welcome too it..

 

But based on my 20+ years of online flight simming experience..

 

Where I use to pay $12/hr to play Air Warrior back in the early 90s..

 

I have found that real pilots do not insure realistic flight simming..

 

You limited online experience may vary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that real pilots do not insure realistic flight simming..

 

I'm not saying that they insure it, but I can say for certain that the AI insure that it won't be realistic.  

 

sometimes > never

 

I don't have 20+ years experience in MP, but I do have 20+ years experience watching AI crap all over immersion.

Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only we could convince the people who paid for the game to actually play it...

I'm finally getting around to it. Old PC couldn't handle BOS so I kept pushing off getting into the game (not gonna lie it's a bit intimidating as well). I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking around (jumping into The Eagles Nest tonight) but the lack of players and boring SP is a bit disconcerting. I for one would play the hell out of a solid SP campaign.

 

And to what Dillion said: I'm from War Thunder mainly and that game has given me the desire to step it up to a game like this. That is a huge pool of players that would love this game.

Edited by Mopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unreasonable, on 03 Apr 2015 - 01:14, said:

The problem here, IMHO, is that an OP about how to expand the player base has morphed into an MP vs Sp "my game is good and your is boring" insult fest. Which is not going to generate any ideas for expanding the player base, given that 1CGS believes that it has to offer both play styles to be successful.


 

 

This times 1000.

 

I'm not sure how this turned into an MP vs SP debate. I never play SP for more than a couple of week in new flight sims but I agree it is an important market. This argument, however, is pretty far afield of the OP. Maybe stop sniping each other over this OT and proffer some ideas about how to DRAW PEOPLE IN. We have plenty of input on why people suck and/or don't play flight sims currently. Identifying that is important but is not a solution in and of itself.

 

I don't think just using the Russian $12 game is viable in the open market. It is a loss leader for a major contributor. There is no incentive to do it over here. It wouldn't be a loss leader it would simply be a loss. And it would p!$$ people off mightilly. The rants here (forum) and abroad (aviation and/or bicycle forums) would be loud and wild as we ate our young.

 

It seems the devs don't want to do a purely F2P or they would have done it already. It may or may not have done what they wanted in ROF. They have the data to make that choice intelligently. Not implementing a true F2P is their absolute right.

 

There are thousands of WT players of a variety of skill levels we have not tapped into. We need to figure out how to appeal to them without changing the fundamentals of our current game. This is more marketing than anything else. A successful BOM in publications will go a long way here but the Devs need a good PR coup as well to silence the, "I hate how they treated all gamers, pilots, me, etc the last time. NEVER AGAIN crowd." 

 

The game is progressing nicely and I have no problem with the dev cycles or the price of the full game. It can be played with a limited amount of gear on a decent but not top end computer. It is, of course, better on a top computer, with top speed connection and a full cockpit but none of that is necessary to have fun in an introductory package. This is something that gets lost in the, “OMG $100 for BOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

 

With that said, I think the OP still has a lot of merit. Reading through, I think there is one more modification necessary. Add three or four stock missions which would take some portion of a design cycle. The missions would cover Take Offs and Landings and a basic intro to coordinated maneuvers - turns, loops, rolls - and one on ground attack. I don't think anyone needs one on basic aerial gunnery but maybe one on lead and angle would be good too.

 

So with that my proposal, feeding off the OP and adding one more element is as such:

 

Offer a limited two aircraft set of competitive (with each other) aircraft on a small map with two types (trucks and MG/AAA emplacements) of ground objects. Include the QMB but only for those two aircraft. As previously stated, my recommendation is the Emil and Rata on a fall map because it gives limited access to two aircraft which are competitive, shiny and new. It introduces you new product not your old one. It is a matter of perspective from a PR standpoint. Don’t show the “old game” which had warts, show the “new game” which will have all of the updates and seem considerably more polished at release.

 

Offer three to four stock missions to introduce the spectacular graphics and FM this sim has to offer while realizing it is not easy but not impossible to learn. Offer a NOOB DF server for these guys to get into direct competition. Keep them out of the main servers until the full game is purchased but allow full members access to the noob servers. The interaction, even with the differing skill levels would grow organically and be an additional incentive to purchase the full game.

 

Offer these two planes as a package deal only at $20 and no ability to add aircraft through grinding. Allowing that would enflame the masses again. It’s a $20 investment. You’d pay that for a basic game of Mahjong out of a wire basket at Best Buy. It would make it a reasonable purchase price for the young and or inquisitive fence sitter and excellent access to what this game can do. At $20 bucks there would be no loss to the DEVS other than a design cycle for a couple of members of the team. You could offset this further by giving the (four missions) mission making to a skilled community member like AM or another who has continued working in the FMB, if they are willing. Then you lose NO design cycles from BOM.

 

For the $20 you have the chance to introduce the product to a broad slice of potential customers. It is $20 worth of income to the devs regardless of whether the player stays or goes, is a fence sitter or has a limited attention span or just sucks. It could be the gateway to a broader player base and seems to be (one of) the only option(s) not thus far explored in the genre. If you don't like it, what is YOUR suggestion for bringing those players in. The bottom line is you have to want to get the Gen X'ers, the fence sitters and perhaps most importantly the WT crowd. Get this thread back on topic, please.

 

We don’t have to dumb the game down. We have to make it accessible.

 

According to my marketeering wife: TLDR. Sorry, guys.

Edited by HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, AbortedMan, I just realized I mentioned you in the above post without asking your opinion or notifying you first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how this turned into an MP vs SP debate. 

 

I can tell you exactly how that happened.  Some people posted the opinion that creating a better SP campaign for BoS would increase the number of people playing the game.  I pointed out the inconvenient fact that very few people actually play SP campaigns, and that 777/1C has the stats to back that up.  SP people seem to take that as an insult, and things went downhill from there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that they insure it, but I can say for certain that the AI insure that it won't be realistic.  

 

sometimes > never

That is your opinion and your welcome to it..

 

Allow me to expand on this, in light of you not letting it go, and in that I think you may misunderstand what I am saying..

 

STATEMENT No. (1)

 

Based on my 20+ years online (read MP) flight siming experience, a good 'real' pilot can give you a better dog fight 'challenge' than the best AI..

 

Note I said 'challenge' not 'realistic' dog fight..

 

This is due to the fact that real pilots have no fear of death, thus, they are willing to 'take a chance' and stall the plane 200ft off the ground in an attempt to evade/attack you.. Which is something I suspect was the exception to the rule in the real world back in WWII.

 

So, I don't equate and or confused a better dog fight with historic realism..

 

STATEMENT No. (2)

 

Based on my 30+ years offline (read SP) flight siming experience, most in-game campaigns provide a more historic setting than most COOPs and/or 24/7 servers. The depth and goals of a linear campain are more historic in their timelines and settings. As noted above, the actual one on one dogfight with the AI may not be as 'challenging' as a real pilot, but the over all battles are more historic and therefore realistic.

 

SUMMARY

 

Granted, some AI in some games may do something stupid that will make you realize your playing a game and the AI is not real, but, the same can be said for a very large number (maybe even most) of the real online players.. For example, have you ever been online and getting the best of some one, only to watch them purposely fly into the ground to keep you from getting the (their) kill? Which goes back to the real pilots have no fear of death, and thus do things online that no real pilot would have ever done in real life.. Or at least was not the NORM in real life.

 

Sadly, what with all the focus put on MP these days, good AI and SP campaigns are becoming less and less important to flight sim makers.. Mater of fact I don't think War Thunder even has SP offline play does it? There was a time where flight sims didn't have an online option and all we had was AI and to play agints. And in some ways it was better than what we have today and in some ways it is worse. So, I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from and why I think your statement that SP is unrealistic is baseless, especially in light of the fact that you game the game by flying unrealistically. Some of the best most imersive gaming I have every experience was in SP mode, but, some of the most challenging dogfights I have every had were against real players in MP mode..

 

Basically apples and oranges

 

Therefore it really depends on what game 'mood' you are in..

  • Quake Gang Bang dog fight 20 feet above and from the runway, MP is great for that.
  • Historic mission with historic settings, SP campaigns is great for that.

Now before someone get's their panties in a twist, note there is no absolutes here! Everything I said above is TYPICAL read NORM but the EXCEPTIONS to the rule do not disprove the rule.

Edited by ACEOFACES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for you to explain.  I know exactly the point you believe to be true.  It's just that I've seen more realistic (not "more challenging", realistic) behavior from humans in 5 years playing MP than I have seen from 20 years of AI.  It's not even a close call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, when you were playing RoF frequently you were usually in the Fast Food/Newbie server.  That may have jaded you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for you to explain.  I know exactly the point you believe to be true.  It's just that I've seen more realistic (not "more challenging", realistic) behavior from humans in 5 years playing MP than I have seen from 20 years of AI.  It's not even a close call. 

 

Ill see your 5 years of online playing and raise you 20! ;)

 

J/K! Ok, so we disagree, that's fine, no big whoop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill see your 5 years of online playing and raise you 20! ;)

 

J/K! Ok, so we disagree, that's fine, no big whoop!

 

The 15 extra years in MP isn't really helping your argument.  The problem is the 20+ years I have spent watching AI crap on immersion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who think that better AI will increase flight sim numbers, it won't.  RoF used to have a much better algorithm for BnZ planes.  They would maintain energy and do what BnZ aircraft do.  Unfortunately, that made them very difficult to kill.  People complained and 777 changed the BnZ aircraft into turn fighters.  People were able to shoot them down, stopped complaining, and everyone was happy.  People don't want good AI.  They want AI that will put up a decent fight before it dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BsR calls out csTHOR as not knowing what he is talking about, highlights a pretty obvious issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who think that better AI will increase flight sim numbers, it won't.  RoF used to have a much better algorithm for BnZ planes.  They would maintain energy and do what BnZ aircraft do.  Unfortunately, that made them very difficult to kill.  People complained and 777 changed the BnZ aircraft into turn fighters.  People were able to shoot them down, stopped complaining, and everyone was happy.  People don't want good AI.  They want AI that will put up a decent fight before it dies.

 

Actually quite a few people were very unhappy about that, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. More generally, a better solution would have been to allow SP players to select FM builds as mods-on choices. "People" want a lot of different things, the developer either has to offer lots of options, either in-house or as mods, or decide on a messy compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 15 extra years in MP isn't really helping your argument.  The problem is the 20+ years I have spent watching AI crap on immersion. 

 

Just not going to let it go huh?

 

Want to play the number too huh? 

 

Ok, I guess you missed the part where I noted my 30+ years of offline (read AI) experience

 

So, Ill see your 20 offline and raise you 30! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pand' timestamp='1428005277' post='249056'] dog/wife/children bark in the background...

 

Yep thats why I use PTT.  The wife's barking problem has gotten way out of hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just not going to let it go huh?
  +1

 

I think the post has gone down hill because some folks are just not willing to let it go............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is your opinion and your welcome too it..But based on my 20+ years of online flight simming experience..Where I use to pay $12/hr to play Air Warrior back in the early 90s..I have found that real pilots do not insure realistic flight simming..You limited online experience may vary

It's 2015 and we're playing BoS. Different time, different game. I'm pretty sure there's a fallacy in your sentiment here, I'm just too lazy to look up which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just not going to let it go huh?

 

Want to play the number too huh? 

 

Ok, I guess you missed the part where I noted my 30+ years of offline (read AI) experience

 

So, Ill see your 20 offline and raise you 30! ;)

 

Congrats on being old!  Was the flight sim AI really great when the graphics consisted of a few lines that kind of looked like a plane?

More generally, a better solution would have been to allow SP players to select FM builds as mods-on choices. 

 

Yeah, I'm sure there's no threat of hacking with a "solution" like that...

BsR calls out csTHOR as not knowing what he is talking about, highlights a pretty obvious issue here.

 

The issue being that csTHOR hasn't played BoS MP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some have mentioned  the popularity of War Blunder online, if you look at that, most people that play are in arcade mode and not sim mode so realism flies out the window.  BSR doesn't like playing with robots in SP but even in expert mode on BoS you have unrealistic and ridiculous behaviour from human opponents, from spawn killing ramming and intentional friendly fire etc. A hyper lobby, better in game chat and full Co Op mode would go a long way to helping MP numbers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm sure there's no threat of hacking with a "solution" like that...

Do you want options or not? Provided your server checks are robust, and I see no evidence that they are not, this should cause no problems whatever. RoF has mod-able DM and rate of fire: have people appeared on the servers with "hacked" versions and created mayhem? I have never seen any indication of this on the forum. So there should be no problem with SP players using this kind of mod. There is really no need for imposing uniformity on the SP side. Consenting adults in private...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want FM options.  

 

You want options for difficulty for auto rudder, auto-pilot, CEM etc, no?  It would be just as easy to "hack" these into an expert server as to change anything else.

 

Anyway, what we were really talking about here was actually AI options rather than FM options per se: re the problem of the BnZ AI for SE5s etc being changed. In SP, FM and AI comes to the same thing for planes other than your own.

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...