Single Player/Career mode.....clarification

[Brano]

Pat Wilsons campaign is the one I want.I dont need fancy stuff,walls of text with deep and thorough historical research for every single detail of the unit and complete CVs of all VVS and LW pilots.Who wants to know that,buy a dedicated book and read!

I want semihistorical campaign where I participate in the struggle for survival in a big scheme which is just revealing around me.

Thats exactly what PWCG does.You enlist,you chose unit,you have roster of pilots with simple statistics,pilot logbook and thats it.You hit generate mission button and you go.

It has also option to optimize nr. of planes in the air,so if you are into bigger encounters,suit yourself.If you are more into small units combat,suit yourself.

 

Single missions conected into chain of events = campaign.And the kill claim system is just brilliant.I love it! After mission it is YOU who must claim the kills and HQ may or may not credit the kill (depending on some conditions to be met) And you can write your own pilot logbook! With fresh memories of last flown mission you can create quite interesting reading.I did it myself and after maybe 20 missions it was very funny reading.

 

And people were sharing their campaign progress and deeds,finaly making them talk about game itself,not arguing over BS on the forums 

 

IMO Jason is heading this way and it is good sign.Im looking forward to what he can do with skilled java programmer.

[itsmecamille]

I strongly suspect that the low number of people flying the beta career in ROF simply comes from the fact that they all fly PCWG. I started with the beta career and enjoyed it - it had some limitations, and when PCWG appeared, I moved to that and played many many hours of it - all the people flying ROF who I know did the same.

 

Currently, there is nothing like PCWG for BOS, and it would be a real gamble to just hope that someone will appear and commit to something as genial as what Pat Wilson did for free. In this context, an equivalent to the beta career would be awesome: I would play that, and I would then most likely also buy BOM. Without it, I don't even have BOS installed and I won't look back. Maybe I represent a minority, and maybe all my friends belong to the same minority, or maybe the stats about ROF are misread because of the existence of PCWG. 

[josephine]

I'm an offliner as I do not have much time to spare on brushing up my skills to fly with the online crowd who spend in the game more hours per day than I have available for the whole week.

 

The statement that people do not have interest in ROF Beta career as they do quit the career rather soonish is somewhat true in my case - my careers usually last between one week and one month. Is it because I do not have an interest? No. It is because I play dead is dead. Yes the deaths seems unfair at times (shot by my own flak, opponents going berserk and ramming my plane), but that is life.

 

BOS campaign seem to be rather more predictive than ROF, but I hope that we are just beginning the journey and it will get better with time.

[KodiakJac]

I haven't logged into RoF for almost a year.  How can 1CGS know my playing habits or the fact that I play PWCG offline 6 to 8 hours a week?  Combined with PWCG, I think RoF is one of the best combat flight sims ever created in any genre.  Take away PWCG (and the b-Career) and RoF would be utterly boring.  There are a few nice static campaigns for RoF, but unfortunately not many.  Stand alone missions have no continuity, while PWCG is infinitely replayable with continuity.  RoF will probably be on my hard drive for the rest of my life but I'll not be buying BoM or playing BoS until they come up with something for this series similar to PWCG or the RoF b-Career.

[jeanba]

I find PWCG better for fighter pilots careers and beta career is better for bombing and arty spotting missions

[ParaB]

The lack of a decent SP campaign is the single most important reason why I've pretty much lost interest in BoS and why I'm not interested in BoM.

[MolotoK]

The question should not be "What gamemode did customers spend most time with?" but "Why did customers buy the game?". The promise of a solid single player career must have been a great pull for people, even if they just played it for a couple hours to get their skills sharp for multiplayer. Would they have bought a pure multiplayer game?

 

It's hard to draw conclusion from a niche market like WW1 sims, but before RoF there was Richthofen's Skies, which never attracted a significant playerbase despite being free and actually pretty great. Might have been because it was multiplayer only.

[Feathered_IV]

To put it plainly, having to alt-tab out of the game to generate a new mission sucks arse. It ruins the experience in PWCG, stopped me playing DCG in Il-2 and has me going yeah, nah forget it every time DCS loads up. I hope any new campaign project will appreciate how important it is to preserve game flow and work hard to incorporate the campaign mechanics inside the core game.

[Russkly]

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.

 

+1

[JG1_Daze]

Would it not have been a good idea to ask the community what they want in a flight sim? like with a muti choice questionnaire?    I had hoped for a ROF style career mode and an IL2 46 /CLOD user friendly mission builder.  I got neither.   I may come back to BOS after the new summer map is available tho.... Man that gloomy winter atmosphere now is depressing.  I guess thats the way it was in RL then.  But the game play is just sterile or something to me.  I like "pilot value" type of play. I wish ROF career missions either weren't so long or one could save the flight in progress like MSFS and with that feature and refuel/repair/rearm you could have a persistent war in sp career.    

[mbar]

I'm a late comer to ROF and BOS as I just purchased both recently. I personally have no intention of playing multi-player in either. My primary enjoyment comes from QMB and mission editing. I like campaigns but I like them to be dynamic. I don't much care for linear mission that need to be "won" to progress. A dynamic campaign/role-play is more fun and allows you to "lose."  The front line can move back and forth depending on battle results. Just my 2 cents.

 

(perhaps a campaign could play out like a persistent game of EA's Battlefield 1942 with locations that could be captured by winning battles in that area.) 

[unreasonable]

To put it plainly, having to alt-tab out of the game to generate a new mission sucks arse. It ruins the experience in PWCG, stopped me playing DCG in Il-2 and has me going yeah, nah forget it every time DCS loads up. I hope any new campaign project will appreciate how important it is to preserve game flow and work hard to incorporate the campaign mechanics inside the core game.

 

Both PWCG and DCG can be configured to run without leaving the main game at all, although it is a bit fiddly to set up: DCG loses some functionality.  My cure for this problem (and I agree it is an annoyance) is to fly one mission and then go and make a cup of coffee, kick the cat or whatever. Never start a new mission immediately after finishing.

[=VARP=Cygann]

Whether or not you personally would enjoy it is not the issue.  The problem for them is that hardly anyone uses it in RoF.  They have limited resources, and using those resources on something they believe that very few people will use is not a good idea.  I'm pretty sure this is not their first rodeo.  They probably have a pretty good idea how people actually use the game.

 

Indeed, that is why they removed custom graphics settings, because all other games in existence are doing it wrong since forever and no one use such silly features that are very time demanding and expensive to develop (takes about a week to develop UI that can fiddle with settings in full graphics glory).

 

You just assume way too much, and for everything players ask on forums, answer seem to be it's to demanding to develop. So what is not too demanding? Just making new planes and maps because that you can sell unlike other very wanted improvements. 

 

Some things are expected in this day and age from a title like this, and many of those things are just missing making this product feel promising but unfinished and lacking that something to make it a true classic. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Chief, I'm with you on a decent SP experience to just relax and kick back and below is one of the reasons why. 

 

I had fun tonight but when you are a lone LaGG-3 surrounded by 5 109's the novelty can wear off pretty quickly and you just wish for a better SP campaign.

[SCG_Neun]

Chief, I'm with you on a decent SP experience to just relax and kick back and below is one of the reasons why. 

 

I had fun tonight but when you are a lone LaGG-3 surrounded by 5 109's the novelty can wear off pretty quickly and you just wish for a better SP campaign.

 

You know...it must be pretty difficult for those 109's not to collide into one another.....Look at the bright side....you're not likely to run into one of your mates....

Edited April 10, 2015 by JagdNeun

[CheeseGromit]

I like campaigns but I like them to be dynamic. I don't much care for linear mission that need to be "won" to progress. A dynamic campaign/role-play is more fun and allows you to "lose."  The front line can move back and forth depending on battle results.

 

I'll echo these comments since they reflect my opinion as well.

 

Continuity and consequence are very important to me.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

You know...it must be pretty difficult for those 109's not to collide into one another.....Look at the bright side....you're not likely to run into one of your mates....

   Germans.......everywhere!

[AndyHill]

To put it plainly, having to alt-tab out of the game to generate a new mission sucks arse. It ruins the experience in PWCG, stopped me playing DCG in Il-2 and has me going yeah, nah forget it every time DCS loads up. I hope any new campaign project will appreciate how important it is to preserve game flow and work hard to incorporate the campaign mechanics inside the core game.

I've played a lot of DCG and never had to alt-tab. Just choose the "replace dgen/ngen" mode and after the initial campaign setup (if you don't want to use default settings) you can do everything you need from within the game.

[Feathered_IV]

That's great.  All the more reason for the present developers to keep the feature in mind when lending support to a similar third-party project.

[Vaxxtx]

I'm a late comer to ROF and BOS as I just purchased both recently. I personally have no intention of playing multi-player in either. My primary enjoyment comes from QMB and mission editing. I like campaigns but I like them to be dynamic. I don't much care for linear mission that need to be "won" to progress. A dynamic campaign/role-play is more fun and allows you to "lose."  The front line can move back and forth depending on battle results. Just my 2 cents.

 

(perhaps a campaign could play out like a persistent game of EA's Battlefield 1942 with locations that could be captured by winning battles in that area.) 

 

I am pretty sure a true dynamic campaign will not/cannot be done for BoS. Sadly.

 

I'll echo these comments since they reflect my opinion as well.

 

Continuity and consequence are very important to me.

 

Yeah. This is quite a few people thoughts.

 

I've played a lot of DCG and never had to alt-tab. Just choose the "replace dgen/ngen" mode and after the initial campaign setup (if you don't want to use default settings) you can do everything you need from within the game.

 

Yeah, after you set up theatre, campaign, and generate you never have to open DCG again...unless you want to tweak something.

[Cybermat47]

single player /= campaign

 

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

No, careers are the meat of any CFS game's single player.

[unreasonable]

I am pretty sure a true dynamic campaign will not/cannot be done for BoS. Sadly.

Why is that? PWCG works for RoF, add in a mechanism for ground units to engage over a moving front line and you get something like DCG.

 

Is there some technical reason why this is impossible?

[BraveSirRobin]

No, careers are the meat of any CFS game's single player.

 

Have you got the data to back up that opinion?

[Feathered_IV]

Have you got the data to back up that opinion?

 

Cybermat is right.  You think you can name anything bigger in a CFS game's single player???

[3instein]

Well BSR, have you got data to to show your view is correct?  

 

Personally I prefer a SP campaign and if a combat flight sim was sold without a SP campaign I wouldn't buy it, nor would a lot of people I think. (Just my opinion)

 

You would think that to include a well made SP campaign in a CFS would be one of it's major selling points, IMO.

 

Mick.

[unreasonable]

If you start a new career in RoF and then go to check the individual pilot stats you will find that your new pilot is number 30,000 + change.

 

If you delete a pilot, he goes from the list. Uninstall the game without deleting and he becomes immortal. An individual player can have 2 profiles, with 5 pilots each, but my guess is very few do. I am a long term Career addict (500 hrs +?) and I have never kept more than 5 pilots open.

 

Checking how many users are on the list would be difficult as you can only see the pilots +/- 10 from your position. If I had to guess I would go for 20,000 or so.

 

This does not include users who have deleted their Career pilots and only play PWCG.

 

I wonder how many people play MP?

[Banshee]

Sp or Mp ... this is not the question 

For me a modern flight simulator which has the ambition to replace the ancestor Il2 must have :

 

- Multiplayer 

- real true SP campaign 

- Cooperative campaign/missions to play with friend(s) against IA when multiplayer servers are empty and/or when you want it !!..

.

- Campaign/Mission editor to make your owns and create more of the 3 stuffs above !...

 

give me this and you will have my money for many years to come !!! 

[Vaxxtx]

Why is that? PWCG works for RoF, add in a mechanism for ground units to engage over a moving front line and you get something like DCG.

 

Is there some technical reason why this is impossible?

PWCG is as close to a good career mode as you can get for RoF. Its still not dynamic in the likes of DCG.

 

I have been told many times it was not possible. Like you blow up a bridge one mission....it will be destroyed next. Take out a squadron and next mission it wont be active. Things like that are not possible. Technically why? I have no idea. It is something the developers would need to answer.

 

That's why I would love to have DCG for BoS....it would make it worth it IMO. But I am a realist and now lower my expectations for BoS just to have a good, in depth scripted campaign, and maybe something like PW to keep it semi interesting give it some replay value.

[SharpeXB]

I think the Career Mode is essential in a game defined as a "simulator"

"Sim" doesn't just imply realistic flight models and aircraft. It defines playing the game in a "simulated" reality

Chapter type campaigns aren't reality. If you fail a mission in real life you aren't forced to endure a "ground hog day" phenomenon and repeat the mission endlessly until some arbitrary "sucess" is achieved. The war goes on and it's another day. Sucess means coming back in one piece. The real goal is survival. Without that goal nothing you do in the aircraft makes any sense. So you can't "simulate" air combat tactics without that.

[SharpeXB]

Have you got the data to back up that opinion?

I don't think this is something that can be judged by statistics. Those can be misleading for all the reasons mentioned above. It's about the character of the sim and what it should include. A sim absolutely requies a career campaign. Another reason being that the learning curve and equipment are such that most people won't invest that time and money just to play through a 20-30 hour scripted campaign. For the effort that goes into a sim the player needs an endless supply of missions. Career modes like RoF or PWCG give the players that and make the sim worthwhile.

[AndyHill]

PWCG is as close to a good career mode as you can get for RoF. Its still not dynamic in the likes of DCG.

 

I have been told many times it was not possible. Like you blow up a bridge one mission....it will be destroyed next. Take out a squadron and next mission it wont be active. Things like that are not possible. Technically why? I have no idea. It is something the developers would need to answer.

That's a rather strange thing to be told considering the fact that DCG and the likes of it exist and have existed for years. BoS might be a more difficult, however, since for some weird reason it doesn't have any kind of multiplayer besides dogfight (which can be made to approximate coop/versus missions at least to an extent, though).

[SharpeXB]

Like you blow up a bridge one mission....it will be destroyed next. Take out a squadron and next mission it wont be active.

In the real war they'd just build a new bridge or replace that squadron. As far as moving front lines I think PWCG actually has a setting for that so it's probably a matter of having maps for the mud rather than programming.

[Bearcat]

Sp or Mp ... this is not the question 

For me a modern flight simulator which has the ambition to replace the ancestor Il2 must have :

 

- Multiplayer 

- real true SP campaign 

- Cooperative campaign/missions to play with friend(s) against IA when multiplayer servers are empty and/or when you want it !!..

.

- Campaign/Mission editor to make your owns and create more of the 3 stuffs above !...

 

give me this and you will have my money for many years to come !!! 

 

Words of wisdom. I don't understand how anyone neglected coops... but it seems that every developer since IL2 did just that..

[Vaxxtx]

In the real war they'd just build a new bridge or replace that squadron. As far as moving front lines I think PWCG actually has a setting for that so it's probably a matter of having maps for the mud rather than programming.

 

Yeah, of course a bridge or a building was rebuilt overnight.....supported by a never ending supply of planes. Silly me.

That's a rather strange thing to be told considering the fact that DCG and the likes of it exist and have existed for years. BoS might be a more difficult, however, since for some weird reason it doesn't have any kind of multiplayer besides dogfight (which can be made to approximate coop/versus missions at least to an extent, though).

And thats why this title does not excite quite a few people.

[SharpeXB]

Yeah, of course a bridge or a building was rebuilt overnight.....supported by a never ending supply of planes. Silly me.

Well the point is I'm not sure how much the individual player (pilot) gets to determine to overall outcome of a campaign. That seems preset by history and mission design.

[BraveSirRobin]

Well BSR, have you got data to to show your view is correct?  

 

777 has the data.  You are certainly free to disagree with their data and develop your own game with the priorities that you believe will be a success.

I wouldn't be able to say... 

 

 

Then you probably should not develop a combat flight sim.

I don't think this is something that can be judged by statistics. 

 

 

If that's the case it would be the only thing in human history that could not be better understood by collecting data and looking at the results.

[DD_Arthur]

Words of wisdom. I don't understand how anyone neglected coops... but it seems that every developer since IL2 did just that..

 

Now that's the weird thing as RoF has a perfectly useable coop mode.  We now have the FMB to make coop missions.  We just need to have this coop mode put into BoS.  This can't be too difficult, can it?

[BraveSirRobin]

Now that's the weird thing as RoF has a perfectly useable coop mode.  

 

 

It might be usable, but no one uses it.

[SharpeXB]

If that's the case it would be the only thing in human history that could not be better understood by collecting data and looking at the results.

"Looking at" = interpreting. Meaning you have to look beyond raw numbers. It's certainly the case that more elaborate missions get played less than simple quick missions. And that there's another 3rd party career which draws away participation from the in-game career mode. Neither of those reasons mean a career campaign isn't a valuable addition.

If statistics mean everything then multiplayer would not even be included in the game at all.

If RoF didn't have its career mode or PWCG, despite its otherwise fantastic features it would be almost worthless as a game. There needs to be a SP game mode that's more appealing than just running QMs or a scripted campaign that's only played once.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Vaxxtx]

Well the point is I'm not sure how much the individual player (pilot) gets to determine to overall outcome of a campaign. That seems preset by history and mission design.

No, I get your point. A great, historical, scripted campaign is good fun, no doubt. Also a non-historical one, like Heinkills mission for COD with the Germans landing in Britain. Also good fun.

 

But for longevity and replay value you cant beat a dynamic campaign. And I think you dont understand that is not just the player that determines the outcome, but every single AI as well. Many times using DCG I had a great flight and knocked my target out, yet an allied flight failed and it changed line in the ground war. I have also had missions where my flight was too late at picking up an incoming bomb raid, but an allied AI flight intercepted. Just saying its not Top Gun, and it does not revolve around the player. You are just one piece in the whole thing. The outcome is not always historically accurate either, but it makes it interesting.