How Popular is Multiplayer?

[RockRidge]

Once we got past the BlueByte days and Hyperlobby became the default way to fly online things exploded.  Even early on I don't remember seeing numbers as low as they are now.

 

PM on the way.

Mandate alert! wait til the boys hear....

 

 

Oh and yeah HL used to be packed alright.

[SYN_Haashashin]

 You need to be an IT professional to run the bloody editor.

 

Not need it at all. I have no IT education whatsoever and can use the ME just right. All its needed its time and willing to learn.

 

 with no documentation

 

Ok you are right with that, devs didnt provided much but there is enought documentation around made by other ME users for anybody to learn.

 

 or really even wanting us to have it in the first place.

 

This right here is simply wrong. The ME was allways going to be release to the public. You are mistaken with RoF, there wasnt a ME there for a while untill the devs released their tool to make missions and called it ME. With BoS the ME has been in place from almost day 1, true it was only given to some people that already used RoF one so they can help to pulish the thing. I trully cant remember how many ME version we got before it went public, +5 for sure.

 

Once we got past the BlueByte days and Hyperlobby became the default way to fly online

 

I dont know if im wrong, please correct me if so, but wasnt HL developed by a third party??, not Il2 devs. If thats the case I dont understand why people think devs should provide that kind of tool, since its precessor wasnt even developed by the team which make the sim. Thats is a good tool and would maybe do some good??Sure, I wont disagree with you there but now days its not like those times.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Il-2 didn't have an ingame lobby so it needed HL to allow "browsing" of public servers.

[DD_Arthur]

I dont know if im wrong, please correct me if so, but wasnt HL developed by a third party??, not Il2 devs. If thats the case I dont understand why people think devs should provide that kind of tool, since its precessor wasnt even developed by the team which make the sim. Thats is a good tool and would maybe do some good??Sure, I wont disagree with you there but now days its not like those times.

 

You don't understand why people are asking for a HL type interface or why the devs should provide one? Simples; it worked very, very well.

 

As long as we have nothing but a glorified dogfight server option multiplayer in this game will remain stunted.  

[SYN_Haashashin]

As long as we have nothing but a glorified dogfight server option multiplayer in this game will remain stunted.

If you think that we have nothing but that kind of server, well.... I'm stunted. You should check any of the many Coop styles campaing and events that are going on every week.

 

You don't understand why people are asking for a HL type interface or why the devs should provide one? Simples; it worked very, very well.

I totally understand both whys but still don't think its the best idea for a dev to spend their resources on doing that. No dev team has tried to do such a tool since, and there has to be a why, maybe cus they hope for the community to come up with one, like the last time around, I don't know. Anyways, asking for HL kind of tool is talking to a wall, as far as I know they said there is no such plan.

Il-2 didn't have an ingame lobby so it needed HL to allow "browsing" of public servers.

So it's a thing that there is now in game, in a different and less functional way I admit. Maybe asking for a development of the ingame browser would be more likely to be heard than expecting them to develop another browser.

[JimTM]

Ok you are right with that, devs didnt provided much but there is enought documentation around made by other ME users for anybody to learn.

 

Case in point is Prangster's Mission Building Guide, which gives you a very good introduction to the editor and takes you through several tutorials that illustrate various aspects of the editor.

 

Also, I am continuing to work in my spare time on a Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual, which is currently at over 300 pages. This will be a comprehensive manual. Some topics require a lot of research and sleuthing so between that, RL commitments, and freelance writing work, it will probably take a few more months to put it to bed. Once the writing is done, I'm planning to provide a "pre-release" version and crowd source the technical editing.

 

Cheers!

Edited May 13, 2016 by JimTM

[DD_Arthur]

If you think that we have nothing but that kind of server, well.... I'm stunted.

 

So it's a thing that there is now in game, in a different and less functional way I admit. Maybe asking for a development of the ingame browser would be more likely to be heard than expecting them to develop another browser.

 

If you are stunted then I'd advise a change of diet and give up smoking cigarettes.  I am very aware of the great efforts that members of the community have made in providing a decent multiplayer experience from the lacklustre arrangements the devs have given us.

 

As to the ingame browser; isn't that exactly what people are asking?  For the devs to development it into something much more functional?  I know that your main experience is in the limited - dare I say it - stunted world of RoF but lots of us have a long experience of original IL2 multiplayer which is a much, much richer enviroment.

 

Compared to the amount of interaction that the devs have with the Russian forum, I agree; we are mostly talking to a wall. 

Edited May 13, 2016 by DD_Arthur

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Il-2 didn't have an ingame lobby so it needed HL to allow "browsing" of public servers.

 

Not only that but hosting an 8v8 was a challenge for most....the co-ops in 2002 and 2003 were rubbish and nothing like what we can do today. On my home PC I think we hit 50 players on Sunday and it can probably manage a full server.....that was something we could only dream of back in those days.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Well, to me if you ask for the to have a HL kinda of tool...you are asking for a tool outside the game. If you want them to develop their browser say so, but other wise lots of people will think you are speaking about a out of the game application(not integrated)

 

For the rest of your post, well you have no idea of my previous experience, not at all. That I started using a ME and getting involved in a squad with RoF doesn't mean I didn't play IL2, European Air war, wings, etc, etc... So please leave that kind of personal guess for yourself and if you want to guess about myself you can allways do it by PM.

 

Ohh and about been stunted, I wanted to write stunned, sorry but some times people that dont use English as first lenguage can make mistakes. Also no need for you to try to give me health advices, I do not smoke cigarettes at all and workout everyday 1 hour minimum, but hey thanks for worrying about my health.

 

About the communication, are you surprise that people communicate more and better with other people which speak their same mother tongue?? Cus I'm not.

 

Now I'm out of here, I gave my point of view and we can allways agree on disagree and all is good.

 

Good night and good weekend all.

[DD_Arthur]

, but hey thanks for worrying about my health.

 

 

 

 

I don't give two hoots about your health.

[No601_Swallow]

...Also, I am continuing to work in my spare time on a Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual, which is currently at over 300 pages. This will be a comprehensive manual...

 

Cheers!

 

Keep on going Jim!   Don't become a "DCS WWII"! We're counting on you to do all the testing of obscure ME functions so we don't have to! 

 

[And, on a more general point, by the way, as far as the "You have to be an IT professional to use the ME" nonsense is concerned, I spent several (literal) years trying to get to grips with CloD "scripting", because - astonishingly - using "code" - Visual C/C++/C-shell/Basic/Fortran/? - I still don't bleedin' know... Anyway, using "code" was/is the only way to get that sim to do interesting things! Mercifully, the BoS ME allows us to deploy the same sophistication but using an easy-to-understand interface, without having to count our curly brackets and semicolons, ffs.  Clod, eh! ...Grrr. Bitter? Me? Nooooo....]

Edited May 13, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[Jason_Williams]

Case in point is Prangster's Mission Building Guide, which gives you a very good introduction to the editor and takes you through several tutorials that illustrate various aspects of the editor.

 

Also, I am continuing to work in my spare time on a Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual, which is currently at over 300 pages. This will be a comprehensive manual. Some topics require a lot of research and sleuthing so between that, RL commitments, and freelance writing work, it will probably take a few more months to put it to bed. Once the writing is done, I'm planning to provide a "pre-release" version and crowd source the technical editing.

 

Cheers!

 

Jim,

 

For Christ's sake dude. Ask us if you get stumped. Man 300 pages sounds in-depth!

 

Jason

[SCG_Neun]

 

Emil has his missions running on Sundays....then there's FNBF and SNBF if you want some good historical mission based CFS it's out here, you just have to make the time to try it out.  Everyone that I've had the pleasure of flying with and against has just been an awesome bunch of guys and we really have fun.  Once you do get  your own Dedicated Server hosting becomes rather easy and the number of servers and coop opportunities are growing all the time.  The online base is not what it used to be...and it's a just a sign of the times.  As far as US, we are trying to bring more opportunities here with some varied timeslots and the VVS numbers here have increased as well.  I'd like to see more people in the servers, but it's not because the slots aren't available.

 

Members of our group fly, FNBF, SNBF, and WEF on Wednesdays and Thursdays and with the exception of FNBF there are always slots available.  In addition, guys can reach out to other squads and schedule their own battles.  If you don't have a server, I'd be willing to setup ours for you to use.  Just let me know.

Edited May 14, 2016 by 4./JG52_Neun

[JimTM]

For Christ's sake dude. Ask us if you get stumped. Man 300 pages sounds in-depth!

Thanks Jason. I'll send the stumpers your way when they pop up.

 

Jim

[BlitzPig_EL]

 Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual, which is currently at over 300 pages.

 

 

I salute your effort, truly, but the fact that a manual that is not finished is over 300 pages just proves my point.

 

A streamlined editor that doesn't take a novel length manual to understand should be a priority, wouldn't you think?

[JimTM]

I salute your effort, truly, but the fact that a manual that is not finished is over 300 pages just proves my point.

 

A streamlined editor that doesn't take a novel length manual to understand should be a priority, wouldn't you think?

Thanks! Don't let the 300 pgs. put you off. The manual is user-task oriented rather than feature oriented. That is, the table of contents lists tasks that a mission editor may want to accomplish rather than features of the editor. Each topic then introduces the editor features to use to accomplish the task. You don't need to read through most of the manual; you can read the introductory topics and the jump around to whatever interests you. Plus, there's lots of numbered lists, bullet points, short paragraphs, and white space, so it's pretty easy reading.

 

Anyways, this little doc sidetrack is just to show one of the ways that we can help make multiplayer more popular: make it easier for the average Joseph to start playing with the editor and gradually learn more advanced techniques.

 

Cheers!

Edited May 14, 2016 by JimTM

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'd be interested in it when completed Jimmy.

[beepee]

The ME is not that hard to learn if you are willing to put some time in effort in to it.

 

For me, coming up with ways to put it all into a flowing co-op style mission or dogfight map without overdoing it on the A.I is the problem.

 

Looking forward to the manual JimTM.

 

I live in NZ, so most of the time I get a chance to jump online there are not all that many folk around anyway, or the ping is too high to enjoy populated servers.

 

Our hobby is a fairly niche one, and it seems the population in the online air combat sim community has decreased in general, so I don't think we will see full servers any time soon unless a new generation becomes interested.

[ZachariasX]

So, this is about the ME now?

 

Back OT: I think if one really cared about air combat, MP is the ultimate test. There's some downside to it. First of all, if you don't do TS, you're a victim no matter what. Now, I don't mind being shot down by people with this amazing flying and shooting skills, There is a second aspect: the unlocks.

 

As sated in many threads, you are just fodder if you are flying alone. Fair enough, as "in reality", this was the case as well. BUT now I am the green speck in a white world fighting white planes, unless I fly through all campaigns for all planes getting my white skins. What if I don't want to do that? Screw me then. It's like my plane has icons on while the others are icons off. MP servers ofter are no place for casual play.

 

Of course, considering these odds, should I decide to go on a sucide mission to go and bomb the other teams airfield, oh well, then I'm frowned upon because I spoil their fun, as it is "unethical" to act like that. But it is "ethical" to gangbang the casual players. (Stupid me, trying to participate MP.) They say it's not realistic that I would take off to go and die, but without teaming up I will exactly do that, no matter what. But I might take some with me going after their nest. It's the reasonable thing to do!

 

Servers would be way more populated if they didn't consist of a playerbase of 40 Hartmanns shooting 10 victims, of whom maybe 1 stays for longer and maybe hast the time and place to team up on TS and do as the pro's are doing and finally jion their ranks.

 

As 777 leaves it to the users to set up servers pro bono, it is clear that only the most interessted will do this (expensive) venture. And those most interessted are interessted in "reality", and certainly not on furbal servers or anything that would give you fun if you had like 20 minutes time. As the player base here is say, 35 to 60 years, I am impressed that there are so man people who on a regular basis have like 3 hours of uninterrupted time in their mancave. "Honey, I need your help quickly!" will cost you a frag on a furbal server. I will cost you the last half hour you were flying in formation in the hope of getting your turn on a victim in a full realism server as well as killing your whole mission althogether.

 

The higher you set the requirements for participating a mission on a server, the more you narrow out your player base.

 

Taken together, MP can be far the most rewarding way to experience a combat sim, but as it is implemented today, for 99% of all people who bought BoX, it just sucks. Stats tell what people think of it. If they sold 100'000 copies of BoX, and 1000 people are more or less regularly online, this means 1% of the users care to click "Multiplayer" next to "Mission". 99% click "Mission" (or "Quit"). 1 to 100 is a bad ratio.

 

As long as the "pure" combat sim player (and server owner) doesn't feel like giving the casual player a break, and at least provide some sort of biotope for them, he will continue to dilute his small peer group amongst other sims (like DCS) and we will have a few (count with one hand) semi-populated servers that feature the usual grumpy old men gangbanging noobs, wondering why there are so few players.

 

 

So, depending on how you set missions on a server one should know that:

• Icons are not bad per se. And there's more to icons than just the labels.
• It is possible to have fun on a furbal server.
• It is not unethical to feel like playing MP when you have say, 30 mins time at hand to play.

 

About realism: It is not realistic

• when you get to choose when you fly your mission
• when you're not freezing at altitude
• when you can go and take a leak
• when you're rested (most of the time)
• when you don't commit suicide after being shot dead in game (or at least have to re-purchase the game).
• ...

So, please, "realism" is nice, that's why we're here and not over ar WT, but *please*...

 

There are really great missions out there on servers. But just because it's great doesn't mean it's great for everyone here. You want more players, you gotta be flexible on mission design. Servers souldn't only reflect player skill (like "n00b servers", but honestly who just goes there admitting he's a loser?), but also time requirements to participate on a mission in a meaningful way.

 

So, "How Popular is Multiplayer?" - "1 in 100 does it. It's not popular."

 

Z

[SCG_Neun]

You reach the level of play in relation to the amount of time and effort you are willing to devote to the game.   And yes, a historical air battle plays out online the same as it would in real life, you need coordination with comms and people covering you.  Bombers need escort, and hitting an airbase alone would not be prudent.  So how does this relate to realism?  Of course it's not realistic, only to the level that one can simulate it.  That's why some people who do take the time and effort to setup a server, and form a squad, and fly together are setting up their parameters to emulate the history behind the game.  So is MP popular...well speaking in terms of the historical combat flight sim enthusiast...yes they are.  Speaking in terms of the player you outline Zach, your right, no  they are not.  I would argue that some of us setup our own servers not because we think we are better than anyone else but because our interest is so much more focused on the historical end of this and we don't want to fly with guys who just want kills or shootem up action or buzz airfields, ramming aircraft and the like.

 

I don't fault anyone for wanting to spend less time and fly online within their own parameters with like minded flyers.  The first steps would be to setup  your own servers and see how much more populated the servers would be with this style of gameplay.

Edited May 14, 2016 by 4./JG52_Neun

[GrendelsDad]

One factor I chalk it up too the participation ribbon culture we live in today.  Raising a bunch of whimps.  People are forgetting how to take a loss and I believe games like this hurt peoples feelings because it takes a while too get good.  I do believe this intimidates people into not flying online sometimes.  (they will say they dont like it, or say there is nothing for them, but i do think it goes beyond that for many, but not all.) 

[ZachariasX]

You reach the level of play in relation to the amount of time and effort you are willing to devote to the game.   And yes, a historical air battle plays out online the same as it would in real life, you need coordination with comms and people covering you.  Bombers need escort, and hitting an airbase alone would not be prudent.  So how does this relate to realism?  Of course it's not realistic, only to the level that one can simulate it.  That's why some people who do take the time and effort to setup a server, and form a squad, and fly together are setting up their parameters to emulate the history behind the game.  So is MP popular...well speaking in terms of the historical combat flight sim enthusiast...yes they are.  Speaking in terms of the player you outline Zach, your right, no  there are not.

 

Can we do one thing... and still keep doing the other as well?

[ZachariasX]

One factor I chalk it up too the participation ribbon culture we live in today.  Raising a bunch of whimps.  People are forgetting how to take a loss and I believe games like this hurt peoples feelings because it takes a while too get good.  I do believe this intimidates people into not flying online sometimes.  (they will say they dont like it, or say there is nothing for them, but i do think it goes beyond that for many, but not all.) 

 

Getting good is one thing, but what if you cannot join because some people simply do not have the stretch of uninterrupted time at hand to participate in a meaningful way?

 

I do agree though that most people of today are rather intolerant to anything but instant gratification.

 

But if you fly on a furbal you still require A LOT of learning to be more than a victim. The learning curve is there as well.

[GrendelsDad]

I do agree with all that Z

[SCG_Neun]

Zach, we have a guy with us that is well in his 60's and new to combat flight sims...granted he has the time, but he is constantly learning and flying with us.  I understand what you are saying about the time commitment. Heck, I have to drive to work just to fly online, because my home connection is on satellite.  I wish you would stop in our site and join us sometime.  We have all levels and you can learn so much faster with a group.  You are always welcomed there. If you are interested, send me a PM. I know you don't have much time, but at least we could shoot the bull on teamspeak.

[GrendelsDad]

Yeah some of my best times are meeting new pilots on TS.  Last night myself and IZman (his first foray into MP) and I killed him in a nice short 1 on 1 engagement...He then 20 mins later caught me chasing a Stuka and shot me down.  I was happy for him that he got his first kill so quickly. 

Edited May 14, 2016 by 6./ZG1_GrendelsDad

[curiousGamblerr]

I was happy for him that he got his first kill so quickly. 

 

True that. I don't know how many weeks I was playing before my first air kill in BoS. Fortunately I knew what to expect having grown up on 1946. I love the challenge, but I can see why it's a niche game. If I didn't love the history, I probably wouldn't have stuck with it.

 

As a kid, I was baffled you "only" needed five kills to be an ace. Arcade games like Secret Weapons Over Normandy made it seem easy to accomplish that in a single sortie. And then I started playing Il-2, and my perspective changed! 

 

I'm doing 4./JG52's Fliegerkorps now, where your persona is tracked. So there is legit tracking of your kills and you restart from zero if your pilot is killed or captured. I'm doing it for my FNBF participation and honestly I doubt I'll ever get one of my personas to become an ace in that realistic environment. Which is awesome, because if I ever do pull it off it will be quite the accomplishment!

[CUJO_1970]

I think it is important to get the community involved in development in some way. There is amazing talent out there.

 

Yes, I'm absolutely saying we need a mod community involved and developing content, of course it would need to be  controlled by the development team.

 

One way this could happen initially could be static models of buildings and ground objects that could be submitted to the development team for consideration and inclusion - starting a sub-forum for user submissions to show off what they've made could be a good start.

[Pharoah]

I love MP - always have and always will. There's things that happen in MP that don't happen in SP ie. random stuff. I also love how MP has its own ambiance created by the mission designer. 

 

Having said that, the community for IL2 is small as it is....and I totally disagree with the whole 'unlocks' concept. This is not BF4. Hell, the unlocks don't even give you any sort of edge...it just makes flying MP missions somewhat easier eg. diff bomb loads, having AA cannon for the stuka/IL2, etc. Being forced to endure a poor single player 'campaign' just to get these unlocks is just stupid. 

 

MP is where it is. Unlock all the locked stuff...and try and breathe a little life into this niche community, not screw it over through some sort of pay-to-win scenario. 

[Livai]

If I look around a lot players that I known play this game anymore or they have just no time to play it. Whatever, I have seen some new players. Normal Server seems empty with empty I am talking that are not the days that I remember where a lot players where there. Wings of Liberty seems to be the one server where 84 players play it. Follow with DED Expert with 32 players and DED Normal with 20 players. Like I said before it where much more movement before now if I calulate it looks like the player base decrease not to be critical to have still some fun online but every decrease is a decrease that not goes the righ way!

[Gambit21]

If you think that we have nothing but that kind of server, well.... I'm stunted. You should check any of the many Coop styles campaing and events that are going on every week.

 

With respect - not the same as our old CoOps - not even close.

Not belittling the effort some are putting in, but it's not like the old CoOps.

In order to have that we need a HL or similar.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Gambit21

[Pharoah]

Still though, I'm sure if the devs actually developed something with western a/c or battles, you might actually get an inc in the player base (ie. more folks will be interested). That's why the north Africa or PTO or ETO campaigns would be awesome - US and British a/c...bombers, fighters, etc.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Yes, I'm absolutely saying we need a mod community involved and developing content, of course it would need to be  controlled by the development team.

 

One way this could happen initially could be static models of buildings and ground objects that could be submitted to the development team for consideration and inclusion - starting a sub-forum for user submissions to show off what they've made could be a good start.

 

This has been brought up before. I had a conversation with Zeus when this was posted: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21353-third-party-3d-models/ and will do again when BoM is released, cus its already posible somehow. (Zeus added a Xmas tree to DeD server)

 

In order to have that we need a HL or similar.

 

A third party app?? its already there:http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12832-bos-launcher/page-3 , but I guess its not so popular. Also not exactly like HL (similar) but if there was/is not much interest on it, most probably the author stopped developing it.

[Gambit21]

A third party app?? its already there:http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12832-bos-launcher/page-3 , but I guess its not so popular. Also not exactly like HL (similar) but if there was/is not much interest on it, most probably the author stopped developing it.

Hmm...close but not quite the same as HL.

When you launch a CoOp in HL, everyone goes off to fly and it's gone from the list.

You need a "CoOp" corner/window where CoOp players can meet, and get in the habit of meeting.

Those of us that want CoOps back are after an app where we can simply have your typical rooms/maps listed, which from what I can see (didn't read the whole thread) is

what that app is.

 

I can see why this app wouldn't attract the same crowd or be as successful.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Gambit21

[Mac_Messer]

With respect - not the same as our old CoOps - not even close.

Not belittling the effort some are putting in, but it's not like the old CoOps.

In order to have that we need a HL or similar.

One of the reasons why so few ppl play this. IL2 classic coops, be it generic or online wars,  provided a very immersive experience with a dynamic, almost MMO feel to it. That is not in BoS/Bom and with all due respect, there are swarms of other titles that provide a wonderful online experience.

 

Me, besides WWII CFS I love racing games. And with them I have so much choice with mp gaming that with BoS I can`t even be bothered to try and pretend it is as fun as old IL2 coops. Like you said, not even close.

[Gambit21]

One of the reasons why so few ppl play this. IL2 classic coops, be it generic or online wars,  provided a very immersive experience with a dynamic, almost MMO feel to it. That is not in BoS/Bom and with all due respect, there are swarms of other titles that provide a wonderful online experience.

 

Me, besides WWII CFS I love racing games. And with them I have so much choice with mp gaming that with BoS I can`t even be bothered to try and pretend it is as fun as old IL2 coops. Like you said, not even close.

I'm a huge racing fan/sim fan, but my old wheel doesn't work with Windows 7 and wasn't motivated to buy a new one.

I'd invest in a new wheel I guess, but not sure there's anything out there that's up my alley.

 

I was an original GPL guy the day it was released, then all the mods that came later, then even later Power and Glory, but was waiting for the 917 that never showed up.

Now it's been a few years and I have no idea what's out there.

What'd I really love is a great GTP sim.

 

I used to cycle between racing sims and flight sims, 6 months flight sims, get my fill then move back to racing sims...

 

Not to derail the flight sim board....sorry guys.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Gambit21

[Pharoah]

There is no greater feeling as a bomber pilot to take off, circle the base, form up as a flight (around 3-4), fly to the target in nice tight formation for mutual defence, drop your bombs on target, and return safely....all the while being protected by fighters. I used to do this quite a lot in IL2 1946 and have done this twice in BOS (but only 3 bombers). Both times, the escorts shot down other enemy planes who were so hell bent on shooting down 'defenceless bombers' that they didn't even bother checking for fighter escort. Knowing every a/c is flown by people makes it much more exciting.

 

The only issue is when a bomber gets blown up through ramming. Once accidental (he apologised straight away...target fixation) and the other out of pure frustration.

 

You don't get that kind of excitement/immersion in SP.

[SCG_Neun]

If I look around a lot players that I known play this game anymore or they have just no time to play it. Whatever, I have seen some new players. Normal Server seems empty with empty I am talking that are not the days that I remember where a lot players where there. Wings of Liberty seems to be the one server where 84 players play it. Follow with DED Expert with 32 players and DED Normal with 20 players. Like I said before it where much more movement before now if I calulate it looks like the player base decrease not to be critical to have still some fun online but every decrease is a decrease that not goes the righ way!

Could it be that more players are flying offline or doing mini campaign type mission together in preparation for some of the FNBF, SNBF, Sunday Night Impromptu, Mini-Coop NA/EU, In WAR, Tactical Air War, etc.....?  Because I'm seeing more servers popping up where people want to have parameters that mean something and play with a like minded player base.  Wings of Liberty is fun...right up until some guy rams planes on the runway, or fires into friendly units, or constantly buzzes the airfield, or the offset number complaints.....and now with the cheating...well I believe more and more people will break off into smaller concentrations of players.  16 on 16 type scenarios are proving adequate for excitement and throw in some AI and you don't need clusters of aircraft in high numbers.  More servers...means it is moving the right way, in spite of the drawbacks I mentioned. Drawbacks that might be contributing to the reduction of the overall player base.  j

 

Im speaking from a North America based perspective though...I imagine it's a different ballgame altogether considering the Russia player base.  I mean if some guy can come in and just have unlimited bombs, hit percentages of 240 percent, and be indestructible in the process...I mean heck, I'm going to gather up my marbles and go home too.

Edited May 17, 2016 by 4./JG52_Neun

[Gump]

MP certainly has a dynamic that SP doesnt have, in that encounters with the enemy are more 'alive'. the fights take on a different kind of feel - certainly harder, but also less predictable. i can never sneak up behind an AI enemy, but i can with a real person. clouds work better in MP for hiding/evading. generally, MUCH more effort, skill and anxiety go into a MP than a SP/AI fight. that said, SP is much better at serving the player that has to snatch time where he can from his schedule and wants to fly with the wingmen and guaranteed engagement scenarios.

.

it is a beautiful thing to see MP players in an organized flight of escorted bombers, and to see meaningful enemy encounters with it. it is also interesting and enticing to hear the comms and watch the pilot accounts of such. not hard to understand the desire for that kind of gameplay.

.

...also not hard to understand what zach's talking about, in that some folks (i am this way a lot) just don't have the kind of schedule that enables regular participation in this stuff, even when i want to. and regular participation seems imperative to being an asset. consequently, i find myself in that 'loner' category a lot (because i just love the MP dynamic) and get shot down a lot. it's not as rewarding as the organised guys, and it gets a bit stale, for sure, but its what i have time for. while it's true that there are many complaints in MP about various ways ppl play, it doesnt bother me much. i look at it as a fact of life. if i want to go on a suicide bombing mission, i go. i dont ram on purpose, but i do it on accident occasiionally and it happens to me. no bother (IRL some pilots even trained to do this intentionally). anyways, i takes what i can gets.

.

and the Teamspeak idea doesnt necessarily solve the issue, in that many folks/squadrons seem to employ their own TS server, so they are not on the hosting server comms. in other words, TS is no help to the player just entering (i understand there are benefits to this).

 

and then there's always the "i just feel like getting into random dogfights today" mood. "i wonder where mrx is".

.

could there be some things that would enable more popularity to MP? i think so, and i think it would be very good to employ things that would enhance MP popularity. but MP will ALWAYS have different aspects (ie: furball vs coop) with different requirements. where ive noticed a big opportunity for some kind of help is in getting the time-limited player to a place where he can participate in a more organized MP experience. im not familiar with HL, so cant comment.

.

....one thing i think would help is to be able to see (assuming no TS) where all the friendlies are on the map (live icon describing type of plane and mission). it would also be nice to be able to mouse-click that icon and send a chat to that pilot/group. of course, spies would need to be prevented somehow. at least that way a pilot just spawning in will be able to group up much easier.

.

...in consideration of the time-conscious player, it would be better to have objectives/AF's closer. this is rather opposite of the coordianted group play, but the time conscious opportunist doesnt have the time (or desire) to spend on long flights with no action.

.

... i dont like those labeled icons. but i have seen the furball/dogfight servers where they do serve a purpose. i wish someone would/could make them have more customizable options. 

.

i'd hate to see MP die ever - it would diminish the game's appeal tremendously.

[KoN_]

War Thunder has no problems with people playing Multiplayer , So we are not short of people .