Single Player/Career mode.....clarification

[SCG_Neun]

Alright you devil dogs…..I don’t mean for this to be accusatory….just thought provoking…and I’d like some feedback to try and pin down this question:  I understand that references have been made to Jason’s statement concerning the Career/SP phase of ROF,  statements about the minimum number of players that actually use this phase of ROF.  It’s been presented by others as well, that this is the primary reason that limited resources were utilized to create a solid career mode within BOS based on these numbers….and a conclusion of sorts that not many people actually play single player/career progressive type scenarios.

 

Then I’ve heard contradictory statements that the majority of players actually are in fact single players, which is what appears to be the case, from what I read on the forums and see online within the servers, and have experienced with my many years within CFS.

 

What’s the scoop on this….did the developers misread the data on ROF by trying to barebones the single player aspect of BOS…based on ROF?  And if the data is obtained via login feedback…..what does this really say?   How many of us….want a solid historical “role player” type of campaign in our CFS and those of us that do…..does this mean we have to spend hours playing it….or is it good to purchase something all inclusive…just so you know….hey…I think I’ll start a campaign today..over Stalingrad….and it’s there to play.  Do you have to spend hours playing it, to appreciate that it’s there?

 

I believe it will come from third parties and “Rome wasn’t built in a day” .….but I keep seeing the argument….Jason said that no one used it much in ROF.  Does that argument hold up, for BOS, or is it factual in the first place?

[BraveSirRobin]

single player /= campaign

 

Many SP only people probably just play quick missions and other forms of non campaign missions.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I spent well near 100hrs in ROF's near-empty BCareer (and 777 is more than welcome to check that) and another 100hrs in PWCG - if either of those systems were here I would be taking full advantage of them.

 

Unfortunately, without that type of system in place I am not playing BOS at all right now - there is nothing to hold the interest.

Edited April 8, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[Spacesheep]

To me, I think third party creations should be there to enrich the initial content of the game/simulation. And by this I mean it is there to extend the life of the product, not to initiate a blow-up growth just after release as it is expected in most case.

 

So this do not remove the necessity to provide to the "players/customers/passionate SP pilots" a real constructed experience of campaign or career as a standard content.... on that point, I have to agree that BOS is really under my expectations and standards of the genre if compared to ROF  by example.

 

Moreover as I allready saw in other posts, working on a 1st class single player content  provide the developpers the possibility to really express all the reasons of their choices (of war theatre, planes, period... ).

By that I mean telling the true amazing story that is behind this place and period, educate the player at the same time that you entertain him...

 

And that would then pave the way for a high level of quality for all the further contents that may be created by third parties... providing inspiration and willingness to expose with the same attention some other stories or Histories...

 

anyway, this may come with time for BOS, at least I hope... and I would really appreciate to get some news (good ones if possible) from devs on that part...

Eventhough I am pretty sure they have plenty of other crutial tings to look at too at present....

 

Salute to all and dev's 

Edited April 8, 2015 by Spacesheep

[Wuerger]

Oleg Maddox once stated that more than 95% of IL2 buyers were single player. Frustrating that there is no real campaign in BoS

[I/JG27_Rollo]

The ß-career is by far the thing I miss most in BoS/BoM.

 

It's been surprising to read that this mode has so rarely been used in RoF.

It's the thing I sunk most of my RoF-time into and it's the thing that comes closest to the magnificent career systems of old (i.e. EAW, RB2).

Seems like most single players enjoy a quick QMB-dogfight more than a proper career which is quite sad.

[361fundahl]

Yeah campaign is really a limited quick mission builder...

[Feathered_IV]

The programming for the RoF career is brilliant, but wasted because the user cannot scale the level of activity within the missions to suit their hardware capability. Therefore everybody is stuck with a dull campaign that has been optimised or dumbed down for the slowest computers. If I could configure the numbers of aircraft and objects, I'd go back to it in a second.

 

I think what really happened with BoS is the developers just did not want to make another proper campaign, so they looked for data to justify leaving it out.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Feathered_IV

[SYN_Haashashin]

Also RoF career took 2 years to be developed and cover the whole war, 4 years. I see as normal not to develop such a career to only cover 6 months tops. With this I'm not saying the actual one is of my liking at all.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Oleg Maddox once stated that more than 95% of IL2 buyers were single player. Frustrating that there is no real campaign in BoS

 

He did, 100% true but he did forget to say (better.....to remember himself) that IL2 did grow up in the way we know, thank to its multiplayer community....the 5%.

Edited April 8, 2015 by 150GCT_Veltro

[I/JG27_Rollo]

I'd think with 2-3 missions per day (minus some days with poor weather) it would also take a long time to go through a 6 month career. (I think with all my RoF missions including some (virtual) hospital time the calendar barely advanced 3 months).

Plus, we have 5 phases for the Stalingrad campaign alone, each of which could/should have a different emphasis on the mission types.

And with BoM on the horizon we get another theatre. I'd really hope that the guys reconsider their approach to the campaign now that - in my limited theory - some resources should be available due to many assets being already available from BoS.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Yeah it could be done, Im not saying it cant be done but take into account that it took 2 years to complete it. You don't only have to code it but also to research to a point I don't even want to think about (ask Luke as he spent a lot of his time to add lots of Squadrons and so on to the B-career) so it was not only a devs work but also community work. Also the huge update in number on towns that the Western Front RoF map got in one of their update was community work (SYN_Vander iirc).

 

The event log added in the lastest update surely will help the guys that can code this kinda stuff.

 

I'm all into a RoF style campaign and I'm mostly a MP player.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Yes, I guess the question is: "is it worth all the effort?"

And I really hope that someday the answer will be "yes".

 

(Edit: I guess what I was trying to express is that scenario-content-wise, even BoS alone has IMO enough to justify a RoF-style cereer system)

 

This community has some fantastic contributors. I would imagine that some people would be willing to do for BoS what Luke, Vander and all the guys did for RoF.

(I wish I had the time to contribute anything else than the occasional forum post. )

The knowledge should be there. There's people with entire bookshelves filled with nothing but WWII literature so getting squadrons and such research right and adding it, should be doable with some community effort.

Edited April 8, 2015 by I/JG27_Rollo

[SYN_Haashashin]

Yes, I guess the question is: "is it worth all the effort?"

And I really hope that someday the answer will be "yes".

I agree.

[Original_Uwe]

single player /= campaign

 

Many SP only people probably just play quick missions and other forms of non campaign missions.

Hate to agree with BSR but I know hes right. For the last few years the only time I spend in IL2 46 modded was in the qmb, but its because I ran out of campaings to play!

 

I think the entire idea of basing customer expectations for BoS off of RoF experience is untenable. It really is an apples to oranges comparison. A sim that caters to a very specific niche even within the niche that is the CFS community-ww1 westfront-cant be compared to the massive appeal that a ww2 sim has, particularly with the IL2 branding.

A better comparison would be to look at the appeal the original IL2 had, the people who used dgen, DCG and even the old scripted campaings. There are THOUSANDS, and they are the people that will buy this series.

 

Also I dont believe they have taken the aging of the community into account. When Il2 came out in 2000-2001 I was an 18 year old single soldier, so I could afford to spend time online shooting other people up (when I wasnt training, carousing and blowing my minimal pay on booze, women, and song). Now 15 years later I find myself with a family that I happily dedicate most of my time to and thus the game takes a back seat making online play mostly irellivant. I can imagine that my example is not atypical.

 

I think they just took the easy way out and threw a QMB based series of missions out there so they could say there was a single player campaign. The simple answer is they screwed up, and either need to make good single player content or add a mods option so WE can do it.

 

Something like a PWCG in BoS would be AWESOME. FRAKING AMAZING.

Edited April 8, 2015 by forsale

[Juri_JS]

Instead of building a completely new campaign system, I think the campaign we have at the moment could be made more interesting without too much effort.

To avoid too much work for the developers the changes should be relatively simple to program and not affect the existing campaign concept (unlocks, different chapters, freely selectable mission types and airfields, etc.). My ideas are:

- An air intensity option (normal/high). This would require new mission templates with more planes per mission for people with high-end systems.
- The possibility to choose a unit from a list of squadrons that were active during the periode when selecting an airfield. In my opinion it isn't necessary to have every squadron based at the historically correct airfield. This will spare the developers a lot of research.
- A pilot roster for every squadron that keeps track of losses, victories, etc. This will probably be the biggest work, but maybe it is possible to use parts of the code from the RoF campaign for this.

[SharpeXB]

I earnestly hope to see a RoF or Pat Wilson style career campaign for BoS and BoM. I find it amazing to hear that it wasn't played that much in RoF because I must have hundreds of hours in it. The career type game is the best mode for a sim because you're not forced to repeat chapters like a typical campaign and it gives the player an almost endless supply of missions which are varying and unpredictable.

I can see why some of the choices were made in the BoS Campaign which are actually good ones, mainly that it allows for shorter missions. That's really essential and probably why full realistic mission campaigns aren't popular. Flight sims can't have checkpoints like other games and sticking the player in an hour long mission which has to be repeated if they fail or can't finish it is a no go. I hope they can keep something like that aspect in the career. I don't see why it wouldn't work. Jason sounds committied to getting a traditonal career going and fhat sounds great.

[BlitzPig_EL]

 I'm not at all an offline player.  The AI, no matter how good, are the deal breaker for me personally.

 

However, I think a strong offline and career component is very important to any combat flight sim title, simply because the genre is so small that we cannot afford to not be all inclusive

to the disparate members of the player base.

 

For an air combat sim to be successful in these times we need both a strong multiplayer and single player system, and we, the players need to put aside our differences with those that don't

play the way that we personally do and suppport each others needs and wants.

Edited April 8, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL

[SCG_Neun]

 

single player /= campaign

 

Many SP only people probably just play quick missions and other forms of non campaign missions.

Perhaps this is what you meant about us older players in an earlier post.....because I can't imagine that people really spend much time in QMB as the reason they purchased a CFS for 90 bucks.  It's always just been practice in there for me,and the meat of the game is within the Campaign/Career phase.  That's an offline perspective anyway.....I spend most of my time now...in Veterans missions and some that I've made with Lupson's SMB.  

Edited April 8, 2015 by JagdNeun

[BraveSirRobin]

That's an offline perspective anyway.....

 

No, it's your perspective.  I played nothing but SP prior to getting RoF, and I never played a single campaign mission in any of the many flight sim games I owned.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

No, it's your perspective.  I played nothing but SP prior to getting RoF, and I never played a single campaign mission in any of the many flight sim games I owned.

 

 

No, it's your perspective. 

 

-snip-

-snip-

 

Jason sounds committied to getting a traditonal career going and fhat sounds great.

 

And when/if that comes to fruition I will reconsider holding back future purchases.

Edited April 8, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[SCG_Neun]

No, it's your perspective.  I played nothing but SP prior to getting RoF, and I never played a single campaign mission in any of the many flight sim games I owned.

I understand....but are you saying that ROF changed your perspective then?  If so, that's exactly what I'm saying.  I guess that's where I've fallen behind with the times...to me....in terms of CFS...you are an anomaly....I guess it's my "rose colored glasses"...   Also....just to clarify...when I used the term "offline perspective" I was differentiating from the MP realm which has a whole different set of priorities....  When you came back with your flippant response....it was so obvious...and this too is where I have fallen behind the times.....which used to be more polite and respectful.

Edited April 8, 2015 by JagdNeun

[BraveSirRobin]

Adler, not sure why you think that quote is significant.  I never claimed that I spoke for all SP people.

I understand....but are you saying that ROF changed your perspective then?  If so, that's exactly what I'm saying.  

 

I never played the campaign because of AI limitations.  Those limitations are probably never going away.  I finally had a good internet connection when I got RoF.  So I started playing MP.  

 

All I'm saying is that lots of SP people seem to think that all SP people spend their time playing the campaign, and that assumption does not appear to be correct.

Edited April 8, 2015 by BraveSirRobin

[SCG_Neun]

Adler, not sure why you think that quote is significant.  I never claimed that I spoke for all SP people.

 

I never played the campaign because of AI limitations.  Those limitations are probably never going away.  I finally had a good internet connection when I got RoF.  So I started playing MP.  

 

All I'm saying is that lots of SP people seem to think that all SP people spend their time playing the campaign, and that assumption does not appear to be correct.

Okay...so the AI in all those sims prior to ROF wasn't up to snuff.  I always thought that the AI in IL-2 series was pretty darn good for campaigns, even for filling slots on online war servers, but I could be wrong.  Anyway...I do admit, things they are a changing....

[BraveSirRobin]

Okay...so the AI in all those sims prior to ROF wasn't up to snuff.  

 

No, I've found the AI to be an immersion killer in every game I have ever played.  It's not bad for flying recon or bombers (as long as all it has to do is fly formation), but it's just terrible for everything else.

[SCG_Neun]

Roger on the AI...I admit...it is a very important element...if not the most important for offline play.  But it's the same AI for the QMB as well and every other phase of the game in an offline mode.....SMB, FMB, and campaign.  Maybe it's the putting up with it for long periods of time that turns people off.  I mean, that would explain the QMB type missions being more acceptable.  It's a bummer to fly for 30 minutes only to have your Stukas fly into the ground, or not even hit the target.....10 minutes investment on the QMB...no  problem....

Edited April 8, 2015 by JagdNeun

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Okay...so the AI in all those sims prior to ROF wasn't up to snuff.  I always thought that the AI in IL-2 series was pretty darn good for campaigns, even for filling slots on online war servers, but I could be wrong.  Anyway...I do admit, things they are a changing....

 

When the AI in ROF aren't in a left-hand spiral down to the deck they do pretty well at 2v1 offensive tactics.

 

I've found that 2v1 is exceptionally easier against human players on the Syndicate Server than 2v1 against two Spad XIII's at Ace difficulty - human players make poor tactical decisions, get separated or have no concept of transitioning in and out of the offensive... On the other hand it's pretty hard to make mistakes in combat the way a human does when it isn't programmed in to your AI logic.

 

Also... Human-manned gunner positions are a piece of cake... AI-manned gunner positions on the other hand... Nothing like getting sniped while in a 45 degree dive at top speed when you are 500m away from the rear of a Handley Page...

Edited April 8, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[BraveSirRobin]

I've found that 2v1 is exceptionally easier against human players on the Syndicate Server than 2v1 against two Spad XIII's at Ace difficulty - human players make poor tactical decisions, get separated or have no concept of transitioning in and out of the offensive... On the other hand it's pretty hard to make mistakes in combat the way a human does when it isn't programmed in to your AI logic.

 

 

Then you are fighting against incompetent human players.  2 good players in Spad will shred you relatively quickly, no matter what you are flying.  Also, the AI Spads will not coordinate.  They both just chase you around.  If it looks like they're coordinating, it's just a coincidence.

 It's a bummer to fly for 30 minutes only to have your Stukas fly into the ground, or not even hit the target.....10 minutes investment on the QMB...no  problem....

 

That is exactly the problem.  Do I really want to get invested in a campaign when I know the AI is going to do something idiotic that will probably get me killed or screw up a mission?  No, I don't.  I don't even like flying with noobs in MP any more, for pretty much the same reason.

[SharpeXB]

The really poor AI spoiled the SP experience for me in CoD + Desastersoft which otherwise is very good. By comparison the RoF and BoS AI are aces!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I still find ROF/BOS AI better than any other AI I'm flown against. IL2 and CLOD AI was utter abysmal.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I really don't understand this campaign obsession.

 

Just learn how to be competitive on line and fly your weekly 30 to 60 minutes sortie with a squadron mate.

 

Now we have even servers with AI if you are too afraid of other players.

 

Wanna stats or historic medals?? Just make a paper log book and take notes of your kills and flights like real pilots did. When you reach the requirements of each medal without dying, send me a PM and I will send you an iron cross. After some months of delays and bureaucracy...

 

I am having a lot of fun playing the ghost. So far 12 missions, 10 kills and shot down 3 times but lived to tell the tale. My other option is to come here and complain that someone need to do something so I can have fun. I took the responsibility. What about you? ?

 

All complains here already solved if you join a squadron. Just prepare a briefing that you think should be great for your mission yourself. Take off earlier and make a track of the target and some pictures using a program like FRAPS. Or again wait 3 years for developers to make a briefing/recon tool with some AI fake pilots names.

 

Don't forget that you don't encounter action on every mission you fly. Just take a look on aces kill ratio per combat per sortie.

 

Thus you must ask yourself what you really want?? If you just want to fly a mission on a unpredictable environment like a war theater or you just want play god controlling every variable on your predictable campaign full of easy to kill AI? ??

[SCG_Neun]

I really don't understand this campaign obsession.

 

Just learn how to be competitive on line and fly your weekly 30 to 60 minutes sortie with a squadron mate.

 

Now we have even servers with AI if you are too afraid of other players.

 

Wanna stats or historic medals?? Just make a paper log book and take notes of your kills and flights like real pilots did. When you reach the requirements of each medal without dying, send me a PM and I will send you an iron cross. After some months of delays and bureaucracy...

 

I am having a lot of fun playing the ghost. So far 12 missions, 10 kills and shot down 3 times but lived to tell the tale. My other option is to come here and complain that someone need to do something so I can have fun. I took the responsibility. What about you? ?

 

All complains here already solved if you join a squadron. Just prepare a briefing that you think should be great for your mission yourself. Take off earlier and make a track of the target and some pictures using a program like FRAPS. Or again wait 3 years for developers to make a briefing/recon tool with some AI fake pilots names.

 

Don't forget that you don't encounter action on every mission you fly. Just take a look on aces kill ratio per combat per sortie.

 

Thus you must ask yourself what you really want?? If you just want to fly a mission on a unpredictable environment like a war theater or you just want play god controlling every variable on your predictable campaign full of easy to kill AI? ??

You're right....that's the way to go for sure.....But it takes commitment, and time to join a squadron...I know....I founded two myself and flew online for many years, but alas....I have satellite now.  If I had a preference....I'd go coops, if I could fly online that is.....I hear this about AI all the time....about how easy it is, but a decent set of AI can create a lot of havoc in the right numbers which make it unpredictable where it might turn up.  For instance.....easy AI...at 2000 meters...I'm at 3000...why don't I take my guys down low and have some fun.....In CFS of the past....hey..there's AAA down there......and plenty of free roaming AI...you go down...do your business....maybe lose a man, maybe take some damage...AAA or a lucky pass from those silly pathetic AI fighters....and low and behold.....on the RTB...there's some more of those pathetic AI fighters....about 1500 meters above you...If you play DID...it's not a pushover to fly offline in a decent sim...I wouldn't underestimate it.  Also....you don't have those human squadmates of yours watching your six when you fly offline...So I wouldn't make light of it too much.  We just have an offline mode right now that needs some work....Also...you won't find some lone guy flying at 7000 meters in a 109 ready to swoop down and pick you off..in an offline mode.  Vulching..waiting at the spawn points....nope.  Randomly generated Dynamic campaigns with good AI can be very enjoyable for sure....

Edited April 8, 2015 by JagdNeun

[SharpeXB]

I really don't understand this campaign obsession.

Just learn how to be competitive on line and fly your weekly 30 to 60 minutes sortie with a squadron mate.

 

Online is great. The trouble is 90% of the time the servers are empty. Only one or two days per week, on a weekend, is there really any action. Plus online requires a time commitment in order to play and SP can be paused. Only in SP can you really get realistic scenarios as well. So both are needed for a good experience.

 

Human players are very often easier to take out than the AI. You really can't bounce the AI they always seem to see you coming. But human players can be surprised.

Edited April 8, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SCG_Neun]

I still find ROF/BOS AI better than any other AI I'm flown against. IL2 and CLOD AI was utter abysmal.

I found it the opposite....As I recall...IL-2 AI was very aggressive....You had to watch you're six....because it wasn't unusual to get bounced in there.  I haven't been bounced in BOS yet...Maybe it's because it just feels so lonely out there.....I just feel like BOS AI doesn't respond in a tactical way......It's only a feeling...I can't put my finger on what it is and maybe I'm altogether wrong...

Edited April 8, 2015 by JagdNeun

[BraveSirRobin]

Dynamic campaigns with good AI can be the very enjoyable for sure....

 

If you can convince yourself there is such a thing as good AI.  I can't.  I'm reminded that such a thing does not exist every time I'm about to get an RoF aircraft in my sights and it magically maneuvers at just the right instant.  Over and over and over again.  It only happened a few times before I realized that the AI is cheating.  It's not just that the AI is bad, it's that the AI is constantly doing things to remind you that it's AI.

[SharpeXB]

If you can convince yourself there is such a thing as good AI.

Have you tried the AI in DCS WWII planes? They're almost too good. It's like fighting the T1000

[BraveSirRobin]

Have you tried the AI in DCS WWII planes? They're almost too good. It's like fighting the T1000

 

I have barely flown DCS.  Also, I don't consider "too good" to be "good AI".  Good AI is AI that acts like humans.

Edited April 8, 2015 by BraveSirRobin

[SCG_Neun]

One of the things that I see in BOS AI is you can shoot one of them up pretty darn good....and he still won't break away.  That's not realistic at all.....An enemy aircraft with black smoke wafting behind it.....should not be heavily engaged in a dogfight....and should not be throttling up and gaining altitude like I've seen....Oh well....it's got to be one of the trickier things to tweak....

[unreasonable]

If a sim wants to get a really good campaign it has to have the right basic structure. The community can then fill in most of the work.

 

One problem with RoF and BoS SP campaigns is the way in which missions are generated. This is the "bubble and spawn" in which flying into a defined zone triggers an event, either scripted or randomized. Both of the campaigns have relatively few "bubbles" and a limited repertoire of "spawns", so after playing them for a while you realize what is likely to happen, and equally what is not going to happen.

 

Both these campaigns would be improved by having more bubbles and more varied spawns, so that missions become much less predictable. They should also be scalable. These are actually fairly easy fixes.

 

PWCG and DCG (my favourite Il2 1946 campaign generator) work on a different principle. They generate AI activity (missions) according to an OOB and some player choices, designed more or less to create contact with the player mission but not dependant on crossing certain spawn points. This is another way to create unpredictability.

 

The great thing about DCG was that it was relatively easy to create your own campaigns on any map. (Trust me, if I could do it, anyone could...) The player could choose units, pilot names, skins etc and provide the routes for the ground war. The point is that I did not have to learn to create missions as such: DCG was the mission generator, working within the campaign framework I set (or downloaded from the community).

 

PWCG has done a great job for RoF but I do not know if it could be ported to BoS because RoF does not deal with moving front lines. It is a much more complete campaign generator in respect of historic content than DCG, but this may make it less flexible as well? I am hoping for something to get me into BoM but at the moment I am on the fence because I am unsure whether there really will be a breakthrough on this.

 

The other thing needed for a decent campaign is AI. Not the dogfight AI, so much as the "operational AI": take-off, forming up, actions when damaged, scared, out of fuel etc, landing, taxiing. This is no doubt difficult, since you want the AI to make believable mistakes but not die in droves. Still room for improvement in BoS (and RoF), but it is probably not a team priority, so even if we get a campaign generator we may have to put up with a lot of weird stuff.

[BraveSirRobin]

Oh well....it's got to be one of the trickier things to tweak....

 

Really good AI is probably an impossible goal on a desktop PC (not to mention doing it at a reasonable cost).  

Edited April 8, 2015 by BraveSirRobin