How Popular is Multiplayer?

[Urra]

I'm a member of a whole squad who won't play it because it hasn't got a co-op mode.

It's relatively easy to replace the starting trigger for a mission to have everything on the map start moving at the point of liftoff for the first aircraft on the runway. Is that the only reason for them not joining?

[BlitzPig_EL]

BraveSirRobin,  just a question.

 

Did you play IL2/46, ever?

Edited May 30, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[BraveSirRobin]

BraveSirRobin,  just a question.

 

Did you play IL2/46, ever?

 

What does that have to do with the fact that so many people have no clue what sort of missions that you can create with the BoS/BoM mission builder?  I played IL2 SP.  I created missions.  I've been playing RoF for years.  RoF has coop.  NO ONE flies RoF coops because coops SUCK when compared to RoF/BoS/BoM dogfight missions.  The new mission builder makes coops OBSOLETE.  

[Sokol1]

Some iL-2 COOP  "history": In 2009 in a SimHQ interview about "SoW" O.M. say:

 

Q: What new or different things will be see in BoB online compared to Il-2? Any surprises?

A: Pretty much only the Dogfight mode will remain from Il-2, and even that will be updated.

 

 

- "UBIZ00" vocals convinced O.M. that in "SoW" they should be allowed to "join in COOP missions and take any plane, at any moment" - so what the reason to maintain the "plastered" '46 COOP with START button?  

 

 

Today (12/23/2011), 12:12 PM

BlackSix ( At time PR in Banana's Drama forum)

17. Will we see the coop mission in CloD, as it was in the old "IL-2"?

Quote:
Don’t understand the question. The way we see it, CoD already has Il-2-style co-op. We are certainly not planning any major changes to online modes, GUI, or anything like that.

 

This, start the il-2 "no-COOP" drama, which continues in 2016 - even in other generation of the IL-2. 

 

But for people that understand the changes there's no problem:

 

"... fail to see what's missing as well...in my old Clod squad we played coop missions all the time. Someone hosted the mission, we all connected and after confirming we all connected via TS the host launched the mission. Worked like a charm."

 

"...I was in Xyzvkw ' Squad and we did Co-ops every week. I used to read all the complaints on bananarama how coops was impossible and then I'd go and have a great squad night flying coops....couldn't figure out what they were complaining about."

 

 

 

Of course, nothing this help there... 

Edited May 30, 2016 by Sokol1

[BlitzPig_EL]

What does that have to do with the fact that so many people have no clue what sort of missions that you can create with the BoS/BoM mission builder?  I played IL2 SP.  I created missions.  I've been playing RoF for years.  RoF has coop.  NO ONE flies RoF coops because coops SUCK when compared to RoF/BoS/BoM dogfight missions.  The new mission builder makes coops OBSOLETE.  

 

Pretty much what I suspected. You never played an original IL2 type Co-operative Mission.  Hence you don't know what we are talking about here at all.

 

But please don't let your lack of knowledge get in the way of forcing your opinion on those who do know what they are talking about, and keeping them from being the paying customers that keep this tiny genre going.

 

And there are LOTS of people that think that these types of missions don't suck.

Edited May 30, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[BraveSirRobin]

Pretty much what I suspected. You never played an original IL2 type Co-operative Mission.  Hence you don't know what we are talking about here at all.

 

That is complete and total nonsense.  I know EXACTLY what you could do with a coop mission.  You, on the other hand, clearly have absolutely no Fing clue what you can do with the BoM/BoS mission builder.

And there are LOTS of people that think that these types of missions don't suck.

 

More people who have no idea what you can do with the BoM/BoS mission builder.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

The 20th bomb group was formed in ROF and I think at least one of my guys had words with BraveSirRobin back then,about what I don't recall (sorry BSR but that's how I remembered your call sign)...But I do remember BSR there most of the time with J5? online. BSR I can agree with you that if you don't know or try to learn the ME then you don't know what you're talking about. But I think what all the guys are saying is co-op and dogfight missions are very different. In a DF server if you make a mistake and crash..no big deal go get another plane. Rinse and repeat. The co-op BlitzPig_EL and others refer to you cant do that.In 1946 I did a lot of missions with III/JG11. All they did was co-ops. No hyperlobby or server just one guy hosting on his computer and we all would join. You had one shot..if you blew it or crashed, got shot down you were done for the night... no reset if you messed up. A dead is dead before it was a thing. They were the best white knuckle,sweaty missions I ever flew, thinking the whole time "Do not spin in, blow it or auger in attacking a target"! A DF server if you auger in..just go get another plane, no big deal. Sure you can set up a DF server to go that way but if you only have one life and no chance of respawning I'm guessing it won't be that popular. Co-ops are just a different way to fly I guess.

[BraveSirRobin]

But I think what all the guys are saying is co-op and dogfight missions are very different. In a DF server if you make a mistake and crash..no big deal go get another plane. Rinse and repeat. The co-op BlitzPig_EL and others refer to you cant do that.In 1946 I did a lot of missions with III/JG11. All they did was co-ops. No hyperlobby or server just one guy hosting on his computer and we all would join. You had one shot..if you blew it or crashed, got shot down you were done for the night... no reset if you messed up. A dead is dead before it was a thing. 

 

In BoS/BoM you can include the exact same restrictions.  You can limit respawns to 0 if you want dead is dead.  There are only a few minor features that exist in RoF coop that you can't recreate in BoS/BoM dogfight.  Period.  That isn't opinion, that is fact.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Right, but can I host it from my computer without the need for a second account or a server.exe? Not being a smartass, I'm asking because I don't know. In other games I can go to the ME/FMB build what I want,open a port to my internet and launch the mission from my computer and play my co-op.

[No601_Swallow]

Right, but can I host it from my computer without the need for a second account or a server.exe? Not being a smartass, I'm asking because I don't know. In other games I can go to the ME/FMB build what I want,open a port to my internet and launch the mission from my computer and play my co-op.

 

Nope. You need to run the dServer, but seriously, it's not a big thing. The second account is free and easy to obtain. Setting up a separate email account for the second account isn't beyond the wit of man.

 

What you get is a rock steady easily configurable server that purrs away in the background on your PC, and that you can reload with your mission once you've finished tinkering with it. The only issue I've ever had is that if you've got TrackIR runnning when you first start the server, it'll "respond" to that (i.e. do nothing) instead of the game, leading to relaunching TIR in the correct order! Grrr.

 

The biggest pain in the bum about MP mission building (actually all mission building) and testing is that you have to shut down the ME before launching the game to test the mission. But that's a resource thing, as I understand it, due to the fact that the ME and the game use the same game resources (...erm... I don't know what I'm talking about...), so that makes testing a bit long drawn out compared to '46.

 

I don't really understand the fuss about the separate DServer. Maybe the devs should have put a "Launch DServer" button in the game GUI to give the illusion that it's not a separate .exe. But really? Aren't we a bit more sophisticated than worrying about all that?

Edited May 30, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Thanks Swallow, That helps me get my head around what can and can't be done in this new version of IL2. I have been away for sometime. No reason other than to little time for so many games.'46, CLOD, DCS, ROF and more. I've spent a good amount of time in the '46 FMB back in the day and CLOD's more this last month in the DCS ME. I have yet to get into the ROF/BOS ME in detail as its a lot different from what I'm used to. I guess Youtube is my friend at this point. Maybe the ones who know their way around it could host a live learn as you go walk through? As a online only type of guy I would like to build missions that tells a story as a campaign does but keep it multiplayer at the same time.

Thanks for your help.

[wtornado]

Pretty much what I suspected. You never played an original IL2 type Co-operative Mission.  Hence you don't know what we are talking about here at all.

 

But please don't let your lack of knowledge get in the way of forcing your opinion on those who do know what they are talking about, and keeping them from being the paying customers that keep this tiny genre going.

 

And there are LOTS of people that think that these types of missions don't suck.

I do not like dogfight the battles are not accurate enough especially the plane sets and conditions.

 

You  can try and coordinate dogfight missions with schedules and invites and precise hours

but not like co-ops where Fighter Squadrons would just jump in the mission on Teamspeak and

within minutes be ready to fly to support ground attacks or fly as escort with detailed briefings

and missions objectives.

 

This was any time of day,all day.

 

With co-ops I would make missions like the Kurland front just before the front collapsed

where the Russian fighters out number JG 54 =3 to 1 of course it was more but game

limits set restrictions.

 

I loved those missions getting chased  in my FW-190 against a YAK-3 and a P-39 watching all

the human bare knuckle dogfights trying to keep the VVS fighters off the HE-111's and Ju-88's.

 

You made the missions like it was in time,planes sets,squadrons objectives and you flew until

you won or you were dead and then continued watching the battle.

 

When I was shot down I sometimes had more fun watching other human pilots playing out the

mission in dogfights and bombing runs than flying myself.

 

Now you just take off in a bomber at anytime of day and hope a one fighter will cover you to

target and back or you climb at high alt to meet another fighter at some point flying all over

the place.

 

If you make time you can get into an organized battle but you have to be able to be on their schedule.

[Mac_Messer]

That is complete and total nonsense.  I know EXACTLY what you could do with a coop mission.  You, on the other hand, clearly have absolutely no Fing clue what you can do with the BoM/BoS mission builder.

Dude, you have not played IL2 1946 coops. How would you know what those were if all you know is what was 1946 mission editor capable of? You have no clue about it yet you comment. Blitzpig_EL said what many people that experienced 1946 coops think and your ramblings about what is POSSIBLE with BoS editor are irrelevant.

 

If it`s so easy, do it already.

.

..

...

Nah, still no classic coops in BoS, just BraveSirRobin ramblings.

Pretty much what I suspected. You never played an original IL2 type Co-operative Mission.  Hence you don't know what we are talking about here at all.

Yeah, I thought so too when I read his posts. Just a wiseguy who has no idea whatsoever.

[wtornado]

For those who hosted their co-ops back then remember this?

 

You would start a 24 plane co-op in the Hyperlobby and the room would be full within 15 secs

others would join in the back door and if their machines were faster they would choose a plane

and bump all the poor buggers that joined in the lobby.

 

Sometimes it got nasty and aggressive when that happened the pilots wanted to fly in co-ops so bad.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Sooooo, the issue is that in order to fly with other people you have to try and accommodate their schedule?  Because if you get your guys into TS you can hop on a campaign server like DED Expert or Tactical Air War and be flying in minutes, flying whatever kind of mission you want.  Population peaks at certain times, and they're empty on the off hours but that's just how it is.  If the off hours are when you want to be on, the only solution is to get on the server and encourage others to follow suit.  Make a post on the forums, etc.

 

 

Really, it seems the problem is much less with the game and much more with the fact that it's not 2005 anymore.  And yes I flew the original IL-2.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Silas

[wtornado]

Sooooo, the issue is that in order to fly with other people you have to try and accommodate their schedule?  Because if you get your guys into TS you can hop on a campaign server like DED Expert or Tactical Air War and be flying in minutes, flying whatever kind of mission you want.  Population peaks at certain times, and they're empty on the off hours but that's just how it is.  If the off hours are when you want to be on, the only solution is to get on the server and encourage others to follow suit.  Make a post on the forums, etc.

 

 

Really, it seems the problem is much less with the game and much more with the fact that it's not 2005 anymore.  And yes I flew the original IL-2.

I know today it is what it is and 2005 became what it was becuase of the popularity and enthusiasm behind the game itself.You could start a co-op at any time of day with at least 200 pilots in the lobby the peak hours would go up to 999 players maxing out the server.It was maxed out often.

 

The golden age of flying is obviously over.

Edited May 30, 2016 by WTornado

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Flew the original Il-2 as well, ever since the very first one, and flew a handful of coops. I didn't fly them non-stop because they just weren't all that great.

1. If you want a controlled environment like that one, create a TeamSpeak channel called "Il-2 Coop", with three different rooms - Coop 1, Coop 2, Coop 3, each with an Axis and Allied channel.
2. Set up three servers named Coop 1, Coop 2, Coop 3, and give them a password only the admin knows.
3. Once 5+ people have joined on each side, the person running the show drops the password to the people in the channel and lets them join the mission.
4. Everyone lines up, takes off, and the world is a happy place.

How hard is that?

 

Today we already have Tactical Air War when at any given times each side will have 5+ people on the same channel coordinating their actions and updating each other. The difference here is that you don't know if the enemy has just taken off or if they are returning to base, or if they are coming straight towards you at 5000m while you are struggling to meet 1000m. It's more realistic because it's dynamic - not everyone took off together. Imagine Novikov sending a telegram to Göering asking "Dear Hermann, please let me know when your bombers are ready so we can tell our fighters to take off. Yours, Sasha."

 

EDIT: And you can't compare the population of the old Il-2 which existed at a time when dozens of flight simulators were out there and being developed, and had an official development of 9 years after release, with our Il-2. Today major players like MS:FS and CFS were shut down, the 'saviour' Cliffs of Dover flopped, and many other popular titles were simply passed behind by time. This genre is kept afloat by three pillars - Il-2, DCS and War Thunder. The Il-2 team has its origins in both the original Il-2 and the old Lock On series, both from 2001-3. DCS is rooted in the very first Flanker games. War Thunder comes from a team that did Birds of Steel then Il-2: Birds of Prey. Our Il-2 was only official released in October 2014, one and a half years ago. It takes time to get there, so give them some credit for already being where they are.

Edited May 30, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[Mac_Messer]

Today we already have Tactical Air War when at any given times each side will have 5+ people on the same channel coordinating their actions and updating each other. The difference here is that you don't know if the enemy has just taken off or if they are returning to base, or if they are coming straight towards you at 5000m while you are struggling to meet 1000m. It's more realistic because it's dynamic - not everyone took off together. Imagine Novikov sending a telegram to Göering asking "Dear Hermann, please let me know when your bombers are ready so we can tell our fighters to take off. Yours, Sasha."

IL21946 coops also had mixed ground/air start...How come you don`t know that?

[Mac_Messer]

I know today it is what it is and 2005 became what it was becuase of the popularity and enthusiasm behind the game itself.You could start a co-op at any time of day with at least 200 pilots in the lobby the peak hours would go up to 999 players maxing out the server.It was maxed out often.

It was easy and simple.

 

Fire up HL/TS >>> jump in coop slot in the same room with your buddies, wait >>> select plane slot, read briefing, select loadout >>> hit Fly.

 

You can have all the advanced stuff in the world. It won`t work as planned if you don`t make it streamlined and simple.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Because in the coops I flew I always ended up on ground start, probably. And also because it still feels a little sterile that half the people will magically pop into the air without going through the ropes of taking-off, forming up and so on.

 

Also, realistically speaking it's not very authentic to know that the enemy will not send any more aircraft after landing. The BoS coops have that nicely - you might have made it alive from the encounter with 6 Bf-109s, but hey, take too long over the target and they will have sent up another 6 to say hi.l

[SYN_Mike77]

I think what everyone is forgetting or ignoring is the fact that the WWII combat flight sim community has split.  Back in the day pretty much anyone who was into it was on IL2.  There was a division though even back then between those who wanted faster game play with planes that were at all times equal in all ways vs those who wanted better historical fidelity better, more complex flight/damage models and longer more tactical missions.  

 

One group found a happy home with War Thunder and the other, a not so happy home with IL2 CloD, Bos/Bom and DCS. I (and pretty much everyone reading here) are in that 2nd group. The problem is, there is a whole lot more of them than there are of us.  Reading through this thread it is becoming clear that Bos/Bom is as coop as you want it to be.  It may be harder to set up but that is because of all that wonderful fidelity we demand.  Reinventing hyperlobby and coop aren't going to get people to quit WT.  

 

If you want massive numbers there is already a place for you and it is with WT and lower fidelity.  

It was easy and simple.

 

Fire up HL/TS >>> jump in coop slot in the same room with your buddies, wait >>> select plane slot, read briefing, select loadout >>> hit Fly.

 

You can have all the advanced stuff in the world. It won`t work as planned if you don`t make it streamlined and simple.

Mac, how is that different than what I did yesterday with Bos?  The only difference is instead of going to hyperlobby I went to teamspeak. Every other step is the same!

[Mac_Messer]

Because in the coops I flew I always ended up on ground start, probably. And also because it still feels a little sterile that half the people will magically pop into the air without going through the ropes of taking-off, forming up and so on.

 

Also, realistically speaking it's not very authentic to know that the enemy will not send any more aircraft after landing. The BoS coops have that nicely - you might have made it alive from the encounter with 6 Bf-109s, but hey, take too long over the target and they will have sent up another 6 to say hi.l

Yes, that is more realistic. What happens if you go in with 6 of your buddies, make a flight and meet no opposition?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

If you go in and meet no opposition - or better yet, sneak past the opposition - good job. Either you side did better or you got lucky. That happens

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The problem with Multiplayer/Coop is that instead of grouping up and flying as a coordinated team on a public or dedicated server people preferr to moan in the forum or fly solo sorties on WoL only to find 0 teamplay. There have been numerous attempts to drive the establishment of regular coops and yet only few participate them on regular basis.

 

The thing some don't seem to get is that there can be no movement in terms of coops without participation. It's sth that needs to be build up first and without enough participation that's not going to happen.

 

Coop-Events we have now:

 

Friday Night Bomber Flights                           - Very liberal and fun event with semi hardcore ruleset. Well suited for part time flyers.

Saturday Night Bomber Flights                       - Similar to FNBF.

ZG26 - squad coop server (wednesday)        - squadrom coop with strict rules. Well suited for coordinated flying with multiple squads.

Tactical Air War server                                   -  Semi-automatic online coop campaign open for public.  

 

With the exception of FNBF none of those currently have the number of pilots needed to offer a lot of cooperative gameplay. In many cases it's not the server misison that's lacking but the players interest.

Edited May 30, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A few more you forgot, 5tuka

 

Wednesday - 4./JG 52 Coop Campaign (timed for the Americas)

Thursday - 4./JG 52 Coop Campaign (timed for Europe/ME/Africa)

Friday - Interactive War night mission (international featuring Russian-speaking players, timed for Europe/ME/Africa)

Saturday - Interactive War day mission (international featuring Russian-speaking players, timed for Europe/ME/Africa)

[coconut]

When I played War Thunder SB a couple years ago, this is how the game looked like: You would select a plane, a server location (EU, US, Asia...) and then you would wait for the mission to start. Sometimes you would go to the in-game chat and pass the time there until the game would start. People started on the ground, and nobody could join after the round had started. All this looks a lot like what people who used HL are describing, minus the ability to pick your map.

 

This approach had a number of problems:

1. The player population playing SB was small, and because of that you might have to wait a long time before you got in a game.
2. Crashing on take-off is frustrating. Back to the waiting game you go.
3. To avoid taxiing and in-air collisions, you spawn on the runway, and collision detection between planes is disabled until you are in the air. Smart, but not realistic at all.
4. Because the player population was small, only one match-up (Ger vs Rus, Jap vs Us, Ger vs UK/US...) was available at any time. The eastern front was the most commonly used, much to the frustration of non-Russians.
5. Because the game ended once every player on one side was dead, objectives did not matter. Instead, all you ever did was really just dogfight. What changed was the scenery and the planeset. That for me is a pretty big issue and huge turn-off. Ground objectives should matter.

I wouldn't mind it if the devs made the server setup more streamlined. Having a better in-server browser, voice-coms included in the game, the ability to generate a MP mission after setting a few constraints and parameters, starting the server from within the game... All things would be good to have, and I even think it migh help bring people to the game: One player who likes the game gets his friends to buy the game and they play together. It's worth a try. But I'm also not convinced it would solve the problem. It did not solve the problem for War Thunder Sim Battles (even though it's free!), and there is a risk it would not solve the problem for IL-2.

[BraveSirRobin]

If it`s so easy, do it already.

It's already been done. That's why the people who insist that it can't be done look so silly.

[xvii-Dietrich]

I seem to have opened a can of worms here. Or vipers. However, thanks for the explanations everyone.

 

 

So if I understand this correctly now:

 

Coop : All players assemble in a virtual lobby, then the mission is launched. Once started, new players cannot join in. This synchronises everyone starting and thus encourages more cohesive tactics, albeit at the cost of flexibility.

 

Multiplayer : The mission is open, and anyone can join at any time. This gives a lot more flexibility and suits pilots coming and going as they choose, but usually results less cohesion.

 

 

Some of the posts mention "DF servers". I've no idea what this is, but I'm guessing it is like "multiplayer". (Not all of us have played IL-2:1946, so we don't necessarily know all the jargon from that bygone era)

[BraveSirRobin]

Traditionally there have been 2 mission types, dogfight and co-op. However, the new machine builder allows for both types of missions being done under the dogfight model, so co-ops are no longer needed.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

There were two main types of mission, if to simplify it:

• "Dogfight": today, the most common, most popular, most flexible. On the server side it allows you to do whatever you want to do with it. Players can join when they want, or you can control entry via password. You can add AI, moving frontlines, tanks, air starts and whatever you see fit. With the current state of affairs, the name doesn't represent this type of server properly any more. "Multiplayer" as you put it is better. Back in the old Il-2, these were more or less restricted to a "Wings of Liberty" format, without moving ground targets due to engine limitations so ships would sit still as would trucks, trains and so on.
• "Coop": So back in the day, there was the coop. The old Il-2 did not have a built-in server browser, and initially you had to connect via IP - I still do that when I play, since the most popular non-mod servers are active via direct access only. To find servers, people used this useful but clunky tool called HyperLobby (see picture below). Besides the usual servers, there were these rooms where you could host the coop mission. You would click on a slot, wait until the slots filled up, and the person running the mission would click launch. Given how limited the original Il-2's dogfight missions and mission editor were, some people preferred coop mode for organised action. Mission design in a coop allowed for AI, moving ground targets and all that stuff we have in the new Il-2 'dogfight' missions. Today, the only difference is the coordinated start, which was more of a limitation than a feature. I clearly remember waiting 15 minutes for a coop to fill up and launch, then we hit the ramp and I mess up the take-off order, accidentally hit my prop into the aircraft in front of me and half of the 17 aircraft sitting in the narrow runway in a conga line (good old Il-2 feature as well ) start raging and cursing at me and at each other. Because it was a coop, one couldn't just hit refly and start again given the aircraft was still on the ground. Think this with disconnections, and the harder ground handling in this Il-2 - it would be silly and frustrating.

 

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I wouldn't mind it if the devs made the server setup more streamlined. Having a better in-server browser, voice-coms included in the game, the ability to generate a MP mission after setting a few constraints and parameters, starting the server from within the game... All things would be good to have, and I even think it migh help bring people to the game: One player who likes the game gets his friends to buy the game and they play together. It's worth a try. But I'm also not convinced it would solve the problem. It did not solve the problem for War Thunder Sim Battles (even though it's free!), and there is a risk it would not solve the problem for IL-2.

While I remember Multiplayer Interface improvements were somewhere down the road of the devs plan to improve BoS/BoM I don't think it would change the current situation significantly.

 

WT is probably not the best example of such feautures. Chat is floated with craptalk and ban messages, ingame voice feauture is rarely used and usually deactivated by most players so even if sby is talking they can't hear it and the que que of the quick battle modes usually put you in a boring loading screen without any notification of how many players are nessecary to run the mission (it happened that you were waiting 30min with a 4 ppl squad to get into a match).

 

What probably would help a little is a ingame notification interface, where server admins could post messages like "XXX Coop Mission startng in 15 min" or sth. so people will stay informed about it even if not reading the forum. But how does that help if everybody jumps straight on to the most populated server doing lonewolfing?.

 

As devs said, it's up to the players to make great coops happen. We got some pretty good foundations to build on already and if enought people participate them regularily we can demonstrate the devs that there is a demand for feautures to improve the multiplayer mission setup and comunication.

Edited May 30, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Sokol1]

1. The player population playing SB was small, and because of that you might have to wait a long time before you got in a game.
2. Crashing on take-off is frustrating. Back to the waiting game you go.
3. To avoid taxiing and in-air collisions, you spawn on the runway, and collision detection between planes is disabled until you are in the air. Smart, but not realistic at all.

 

Commons problems of il-2'46 COOP, add to this the guy that forget to plug/calibrate their HOTAS, the one that forget start their TrackIR, the one that need feed the dog 1st... the ones that crash in takeoff, the re-starts... and sometimes you need wait half hour for il-2'46 COOP start. Perhaps is this that people are missing.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Sokol1

[Mac_Messer]

 

What probably would help a little is a ingame notification interface, where server admins could post messages like "XXX Coop Mission startng in 15 min" or sth. so people will stay informed about it even if not reading the forum. But how does that help if everybody jumps straight on to the most populated server doing lonewolfing?.

 

As devs said, it's up to the players to make great coops happen. We got some pretty good foundations to build on already and if enought people participate them regularily we can demonstrate the devs that there is a demand for feautures to improve the multiplayer mission setup and comunication.

This is where the socalled limitation of IL21946 coops was the advantage. You could fly with anyone randomly and still most people after reading the briefing and being put in formation with others went on and flew alongside focusing on objectives. Now tell me why it is a requirement, for BoS mp to work, to gather up on forums, make a pilot list, join TS, define objectives and fly at the same time? This was not required in 1946.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

But how is that different from here? Just because there are organised campaigns with sign-ups doesn't prevent you from following the mission briefing. See the DED server for example, people read the briefing and get to work, together or alone, and accomplish the mission.

[Mac_Messer]

But how is that different from here? Just because there are organised campaigns with sign-ups doesn't prevent you from following the mission briefing. See the DED server for example, people read the briefing and get to work, together or alone, and accomplish the mission.

Well if I`m not in a squad and feel like jumping in a coop, I join server alone and takeoff alone. There is hardly any action. Unless I organise with other people to join at the exact same time and do exactly the same as myself. In classic coops all this was done for me by the host, as at least one of the teams had to be complete in order for the coop to start. Nowadays it is much harder to even create a flight of 8 bombers and 4 escort fighters, because the players must organise that themselves and previously it was a matter of joining a server and hitting fly. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You can get that cohesion by just going on TS and asking people who wants to join.

 

Once 55 IAP brought four people and we met with other 7, formed up and went hunting in WoL. It's not overly complicated

[Mac_Messer]

It's already been done. That's why the people who insist that it can't be done look so silly.

This coming from a guy who didn`t fly coops in 1946. You have no material to compare to and you operate only in theory. If what you say were true, the new coop model would gather audience slowly buy surely. Almost two years and still it is half dead.

[BraveSirRobin]

This coming from a guy who didn`t fly coops in 1946..

I have no idea why you think this is significant. Me not flying co-ops in IL2 does not change the fact that you can do the same thing now that you could do in IL2 co-ops.

If what you say were true, the new coop model would gather audience slowly buy surely. Almost two years and still it is half dead.

I suspect that part of the reason it is still dead is because so many people are unaware what is possible. Some even insisting that it's not possible when they're being told, yes, it's possible . Edited May 30, 2016 by BraveSirRobin

[Mac_Messer]

Only in theory. In real life IL2 1946 still has numbers while BoS with all the fancy stuff struggles to bring in 1/10 of what 1946 once was. Great ideas don`t always work well in reality.

[SYN_Mike77]

Have I read correctly that hyperlobby was designed by a third party?  If so, how is it the devs responsibility to make a new hyperlobby for this game.  Looking at that screenshot of hyperlobby posted by Lucas (above) it shows multiple games by multiple companies.  I can see the utility of something like that and I can see where Mac is coming from in wanting something similar.  I just don't see it as a failure of this game or these devs.  Why doesn't someone whip up a new hyperlobby?

Only in theory. In real life IL2 1946 still has numbers while BoS with all the fancy stuff struggles to bring in 1/10 of what 1946 once was. Great ideas don`t always work well in reality.

and that is because of WT.  That's where the numbers went.