Single Player/Career mode.....clarification

[BraveSirRobin]

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

 

One of the statistics they look at is cost/benefit.  MP is really cheap relative to SP.

 And I think you dont understand that is not just the player that determines the outcome, but every single AI as well.

 

 

That sounds like total crap.  The last thing I want in a game is to be depending on the AI for anything.

[KodiakJac]

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.

 

I love Lowengrin's DCG for IL-2 1946 (also Asura's is good).  But Mission4Today also has about 800 linear campaigns for IL-2 1946 which amounts to about 13,000 hours of playing time.  So there is literally a lifetime of unique linear campaigns for IL-2 1946, and that came from the community with easy to use campaign tools.  Build it (the tools) and they will come.  Whether 1CGS cracks the nut with a DCG or easy to use campaign tools it would give BoS the wheels it needs.

 

Stand alone missions just don't cut it.  The continuity of something you can play for weeks or months on end is where its at...always has been for single player combat flight sims.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Bucksnort

[KodiakJac]

One of the statistics they look at is cost/benefit.  MP is really cheap relative to SP.

 

That sounds like total crap.  The last thing I want in a game is to be depending on the AI for anything.

 

DCG is super popular, so there's lots of folks who enjoy that sort of thing.

[SharpeXB]

One of the statistics they look at is cost/benefit. MP is really cheap relative to SP.

An SP Career Mode is cost effective if it's developed by a third party. That's what Jason is talkng about.

The hesitation for them to develop an elaborate SP career I'm sure is not based upon the possibility that it wouldn't get used, it's the chance that it would just get outdone by a third party. So just go that route.

 

And if you applied any mathematical formula for MP funding based upon its participation the result would be zero. Any number multiplied by zero = zero. SP is really the only viable game mode for a flight sim.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[unreasonable]

That sounds like total crap.  The last thing I want in a game is to be depending on the AI for anything.

All that it is doing is providing variability: the DCG campaign can start with a given disposition of forces, but over time the outcomes will vary according to what you and the AI on each side succeeds in doing. A campaign map could be completed in a few game days, or it might take a month. The winner may be in doubt. This adds replayability to a particular scenario. Think of it as a wargame with the computer playing both sides - except for your plane.

 

I know you do not like AI at all - so avoid SP. Us SP merchants have to live with its faults, just as MP types have to live with feral kids acting up. There is no perfect sim.

[AndyHill]

Data and statistics don't tell anything by themselves, they might even be misleading. You have to understand what's behind the numbers.

 

Also I'm kind of getting the impression RoF didn't sell as much as 777 would have wanted (or how much it would've deserved to, being a great game), which is a shame. It's of course wise to learn from previous mistakes, but I think the devs are currently looking at the issue from the wrong angle. Instead of taking a look at what seemingly might not have worked or what people didn't do very much in a product that didn't sell as much as they would've liked, they should instead be looking at what factors made the original Il-2 such a massive hit and why people liked it (and still do) so much. 

[BraveSirRobin]

And if you applied any mathematical formula for MP funding based upon its participation the result would be zero. Any number multiplied by zero = zero. SP is really the only viable game mode for a flight sim.

 

Does War Thunder have a really good SP campaign?

[SharpeXB]

Does War Thunder have a really good SP campaign?

War Thunder is not BoS

I'm not sure what you're arguing about, the topic of this thread is what features should an SP career have, not whether we are getting one or not, see below.

 

 

"But I understand there is a desire to see a more traditional player career by a sizeable portion of the users and I hope to address by working with some talented individuals who can provide that experience for you in some way as we did with ROF. As soon as I have my new office setup in the coming weeks that is my top priority. " 

 

Jason

The last thing I want in a game is to be depending on the AI for anything.

How do you play a flight sim without AI?

and don't answer Multiplayer because 99.9% of the time nobody is playing it.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Brano]

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.

I like that "kick the cat" line.Good advice!      

[BraveSirRobin]

War Thunder is not BoS

 

I guarantee you that the developers of BoS wish they had War Thunder's online numbers.

How do you play a flight sim without AI?

and don't answer Multiplayer because 99.9% of the time nobody is playing it.

 

If there is no one online I practice ground attack.

[BraveSirRobin]

What I struggle to understand is why anyone who uses campaigns in this or any other sim seems to need to be 'put down' with stats as being irrelevant.

 

 

You're misunderstanding lots of things.  I'm not saying that the developer should get rid of SP at all.  But they should not put a lot of resources into a campaign because it won't get a lot of use.  People will use quick missions, individual missions or 3rd party campaigns.  If they're not going to use the developer's campaign, why put resources into making one? 

[SharpeXB]

You're misunderstanding lots of things. I'm not saying that the developer should get rid of SP at all. But they should not put a lot of resources into a campaign because it won't get a lot of use. People will use quick missions, individual missions or 3rd party campaigns. If they're not going to use the developer's campaign, why put resources into making one?

That's why Jason is talking about getting 3rd party people involved.

If there is no one online I practice ground attack.

I do that too. But if there was a decent SP campaign I wouldn't.

I guarantee you that the developers of BoS wish they had War Thunder's online numbers.

 

War Thunder is a free game you can play with a keyboard and mouse. Plus I'll bet the majority of its online action is arcade 3rd person air shooter. The "full real" or whatever they call it I'm sure is just as barren as BoS

[BraveSirRobin]

But if there was a decent SP campaign 

 

There is no such thing.

[SharpeXB]

There is no such thing.

A better SP campaign there can be. Have you tried Desastersoft for CoD?

Perfect is not attainable in any endeavor. But SP campaigns are the only way a simulator can actually simulate historical events. Like the Battle of Britain. Even a simple mission to escourt or intercept a flight of Bombers is nearly impossible in MP. So the historic scene of flights of Bombers over the channel can only be done in a campaign.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[BraveSirRobin]

A better SP campaign there can be. Have you tried Desastersoft for CoD?

 

The only way to have a good SP campaign is to get rid of the AI and replace it with humans. 

I think the key to my arguement is that if a good campaign was presented by the developers,

 

Unfortunately, that takes a huge amount of resources.

[LukeFF]

Are we going around in circles yet?

[SharpeXB]

The only way to have a good SP campaign is to get rid of the AI and replace it with humans.

 

But that's impossible because even a simple formation requires more people than are ever online or act in cooperation. Real historical scenarios can hardly be done in MP

The example of Desastersoft has Battle of Britain scenarios that can't be done with online players

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Are we going around in circles yet?

 

Long time ago, mate... 

-snip-

 

You're wasting your time, mate... He's a programmer with 30 years of experience!

 

"Formal Fallacy" as presented by Wikipedia:

 

If statements 1 and 2 are true, it will absolutely follow that statement 3 is true. However, it may still be the case that statement 1 or 2 is not true. For example:

1. If BraveSirRobin makes a statement about game design, it is correct.
2. BraveSirRob states that all game modes created that include AI is are a waste of time.
3. Therefore, it's true that all game modes created that include AI are a waste of time.

In this case, statement 1 is false. The particular informal fallacy being committed in this assertion is argument from authority.

Edited April 13, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[SharpeXB]

You're wasting your time, mate... He's a programmer with 30 years of experience!

?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

?

 

See the informal logical fallacy above.

[SharpeXB]

See the informal logical fallacy above.

So if any sim that involves AI is a waste of time

And 100% of sim gameplay involves AI

(I arrive at the 100% figure by rounding the 99.999997% of SP gamers up to 100%)

Then flight sims themselves are a waste of time?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

So if any sim that involves AI is a waste of time

And 100% of sim gameplay involves AI

(I arrive at the 100% figure by rounding the 99.999997% of SP gamers up to 100%)

Then flight sims themselves are a waste of time?

 

Correct! Now all you have to do is provide some measure to present yourself as an authority (ie. 30 years of programming experience) and you're all set to go!

 

/S

 

Edited April 13, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[BraveSirRobin]

So if any sim that involves AI is a waste of time

 

 

It's not a complete waste of time.  AI is ok for target practice.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

LOL!

Edited April 13, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[SharpeXB]

It's not a complete waste of time. AI is ok for target practice.

Human players are quite often easier targets than the AI

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Human players are quite often easier targets than the AI

 

He's just going to make the argument that that isn't true when, as a programmer, he should know that AI are procedural and not prone to the non-procedural mistakes that humans make (and in online play, humans make a lot of mistakes - it gets to the point that they are as predictable as AI.)

 

He should know that without logic they can't make the unstructured mistakes that a human makes - x-ray vision through clouds and 1000m machine gun snipers are a thing that no human player can achieve.

 

Without a procedure call for a specific failure based on specific criteria all AI will always be incapable of making human mistakes. Unrealistic, sure... But he also accused others of having unrealistic expectations when it sounds to me that he should be advising himself of this fact.

 

That can play to his point of "breaking immersion" or being unbelievable... But whether that breaks his immersion is nobody's problem but his - he has already stated that he doesn't play singleplayer campaigns anyway so I'm not sure what his investment in this discussion is... With that being said, continuing any form of discussion with BSR about this is just a waste of time. He's a contrarian and that's all. He participates in these discussions just to have a circle jerk with himself. He is not an AI and is (obviously) prone to logical fallacies and accusations based on opinion. Oh well.

 

AI is not perfect and is unlikely ever to be so... But the majority of human players suck and are as predictable as the AI (in fact, even more prone to failure than the AI ever will be!)

 

That is the point.

Edited April 13, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[BraveSirRobin]

He's just going to make the argument that that isn't true when, as a programmer, he should know that AI are procedural and not prone to the non-procedural mistakes that humans make.

 

 

The AI cheats, genius.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

The AI cheats, genius.

So do human players.

[BraveSirRobin]

So do human players.

 

How do human players cheat?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

So do human players.

 

 

How do human players cheat?

 

 

He's just going to make the argument that that isn't true when, as a programmer, he should know that AI are procedural and not prone to the non-procedural mistakes that humans make (and in online play, humans make a lot of mistakes - it gets to the point that they are as predictable as AI.)

 

-snip-

[SharpeXB]

The point of this discussion is what features a new Career campaign might have. Not how good or bad the AI are...

 

One thing AI does much better than human players and why SP campaigns are more believable than MP is that they can fly in formation. Real WWII aircraft didn't fly solo air shooter. Seeing flights in formation is nice and immersive. There aren't enough human players to do this and even if there were most players aren't very good at it, it takes lots of practice.

How do human players cheat?

Icons Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

The point of this discussion is what features a new Career campaign might have. Not how good or bad the AI are...

 

-snip-

 

I don't disagree with you nor was it I that decided to turn the discussion in to that... But if it is on the table I'm going to make my point about it since I do play SP campaigns and have invested a lot of time in to BCareer and PWCG.

 

AI is integral to an immersive SP campaign whether it is dynamic, static, this-that-or-the-other... Whether AI itself is good, bad or ugly is a moot point and while there is some merit to the fact that AI aren't perfect (obviously... any programmer with 30 years of experience would know that!   ) the whole MP Elitist argument doesn't matter much in a thread about SP/Career modes.

Edited April 13, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[SharpeXB]

True. I actually think the RoF/BoS AI are quite good compared to CoD where they're so awful it is actually off putting to the point not even the best campaign could make up for it.

Or DCS where they're inhumanly good to the point the average player would never make it past the first mission.

 

And speaking of stats. Does the interpretation of that data take into account RoF is free to play? That means you'll get a lot of casual players just trying it out.

If you limit the survey to actual game owners and people who play longer than 20-30 minutes. I'll bet you find a high % are playing either PW or the RoF career.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

True. I actually think the RoF/BoS AI are quite good compared to CoD where they're so awful it is actually off putting to the point not even the best campaign could make up for it.

Or DCS where they're inhumanly good to the point the average player would never make it past the first mission.

 

AI in Cliffs is definitely poor but once they go on the defensive... Sheesh... They definitely aren't using the FM we're using... LOL.

 

The only way I've managed to take down the P51 AI in DCS is when they make the mistake of trying to climb away from the K-4... And with the consistency in which that happens there is definitely some randomized interval (a variable of sorts) which accounts for the AI making mistakes in its piloting.

 

ROF AI has its merits just as it has its cons. That lefthand spiral down is annoying but 2v1... One is always going high and one is always going low... Gotta stay on your toes.

 

A 3rd Party campaign generator (or, of course, something official) would definitely give me an incentive to fly some BOS again. There is nothing to peak my interest where it stands.

Edited April 13, 2015 by 4./JG26_Adler

[SharpeXB]

They definitely aren't using the FM we're using... LOL.

And that's a big plus for RoF/BoS that the AI uses the same FM

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

And that's a big plus for RoF/BoS that the AI uses the same FM

 

It could be considered a con as well because it would seem to increase the processing overhead, thus limiting the number of AI instances in a map area...

 

I wonder if it would be possible to bind the AI to a parameter (limit its abilities to that of the player FM) rather than run the same player FM calculations against the AI.

 

I am not a programmer with 30 years of experience so I don't know how that is being handled in the engine - they could already be doing it that way.

[Bearcat]

single player /= campaign

 

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

 

That is me.. most of my SP play is either QMs or SP missions.. but Campaigns have never been  a big thing for me..  I never completed one until BoS.

 

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.

 

You are talking a dynamic campaign..

 

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.  

 

For me it was both.. but for a lot of us.. most of our sim hours are in IL2.. and most of my time in IL2 was spent in Coops and Quicks.. and I see no problem with dropping $90 for a CFS to do QMs if that is your thing and the sim does it well.. I may look at things differently though.. for me it is all relative.. I see no problem with dropping $90 for something that I enjoy when considering that the more I engage in it the more it's cost drops per hour spent..

 

Since campaigns have never been a huge thing for me perhaps that is why I have such a hard time understanding the level of angst over the one in BoS. That difficulty is also compounded by my understanding that the sim is still so new and I don't get why it seems (and i could be wrong..) that some folks

 

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 am pretty much the same way.. I never completed a campaign.. until BoS.. I started a lot.. and I found Lowengren's DCG to be the best of them

 

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...

 

The latest AI in IL2 is the best yet (in IL2... ) .. but you still have to temper them.. and if you do make a mission.. at least a Quick with 64 planes in it, if they are all fighters you may have an entire flight or two on your tail... I have found that often live pilots are easier than AI because AI wont do things like stray from the flight parameters too much.. (the new AI in 46 will.. which is good IMO.. I have had AI stall out trying to evade me... which never used to happen). 

 

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 value and longevity you can't 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.

 

I agree.. I got that from the BoS campaign... 

 

I love Lowengrin's DCG for IL-2 1946 (also Asura's is good).  But Mission4Today also has about 800 linear campaigns for IL-2 1946 which amounts to about 13,000 hours of playing time.  So there is literally a lifetime of unique linear campaigns for IL-2 1946, and that came from the community with easy to use campaign tools.  Build it (the tools) and they will come.  Whether 1CGS cracks the nut with a DCG or easy to use campaign tools it would give BoS the wheels it needs.

 

Stand alone missions just don't cut it.  The continuity of something you can play for weeks or months on end is where its at...always has been for single player combat flight sims.

 

I guess the main reason why I never got into campaigns that way was for so long I had coops. We would be on 3-6 nights a week for 2-4 hours of coops.. so I just never had the time to do a campaign because I always had the coops.

[AndyHill]

I wonder if it would be possible to bind the AI to a parameter (limit its abilities to that of the player FM) rather than run the same player FM calculations against the AI.

I think the problem with this approach is that it's quite hard to know what the parameters are at any given point unless you are actually calculating the FM. RoF / BoS do indeed sacrifice quite a bit in the performance department but there is a definite upside to it as well in the form of reasonably performing AI adversaries.

 

BTW since CloD was mentioned I have a question for people more experienced with it; I remember the F-109 and Eurofighter Spitfire with incredible performance flown by the AI in the early release versions, has that been changed in later patches / mods?

[AndyHill]

I guess the main reason why I never got into campaigns that way was for so long I had coops. We would be on 3-6 nights a week for 2-4 hours of coops.. so I just never had the time to do a campaign because I always had the coops.

Anyone who likes coops really should try a coop (or versus) campaigns. The continuity and meaningfulness of the events raises the whole game to a different level. SEOW is of course totally epic, but DCG can be pretty fun as well with far less trouble.

[SharpeXB]

The point of a good Career mode is you can never "finish" it. That's the trouble with Chapter campaigns is even if they're good. They end. The RoF or PW Careers can go on for something like 800 days if somehow you could fight your way through the whole of WWI. That combined with all the possible aircraft and squadrons you can fly for gives you nearly infinite gameplay.

Sure the battle of Stalingrad lasted for about 6 months and that's still a lot of game time. Hey it would be even better if you could start a career in BoM and transfer.

Careers are the way to experience a sim because you've got a stake in keeping your pilot alive and that makes all your actions and decisions realistic. Without the career there's no "sim"

The most realistic sim feature the career can have is that it's DID. Desastersoft will end your career if your killed or captured and there's no Esc key. Same can be set in PWCG

That really makes it exciting.

Edited April 13, 2015 by SharpeXB