Single player campaign changes in the future?

[ShamrockOneFive]

So I've been doing a lot of thinking about the single player campaign. Its the thing that I'm most exposed to in the IL-2 BoS/BoM experience and its also the thing that I have the most issue with.

 

Back when they introduced the campaign system, I think it was LOFT explained why they designed it the way they did and I'm pretty much on board with it. Its easy to jump in and experience what you want across the whole front of the campaign. I think this system is cool and I appreciate the approach. It works well when you are time crunched and just want to jump in. But it also makes the experience a little flat as you don't inhabit a pilot or have any connection to a squadron or even a flight. I've seen a little bit of RoF's campaign system so I know what people love there.

 

But I want to throw it all out for a second. Clean slate. What would be the best single player experience given technological and time constraints. Could we as the community suggest something that is clean and light and fast to access but also satisfies a desire for something deeper?

 

I haven't really suggested anything in detail yet. It's more of a thought right now that I might have a chance to think about more later. It's definitely easier to suggest what is wrong than to say what could make things right.

Edited June 14, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[Pharoah]

Given technological and time constraints? The best thing to do would be to incorporate PWCG into IL2 BOS - plain and simple. For me, a SP campaign is about me the pilot...PO Pharoah or Sgt Pharoah signing up for the VVS. My ONLY choice should be whether I fly fighters or bombers. Everything else should be as it was IRL ie. junior pilots got told what to do until they were experienced enough to lead...then they became element leads, then flight leads and (if lucky), squadron leads. Missions should be GIVEN to you based on what some general 20 miles to the rear of the front wants done as part of a larger strategy. You are given an a/c and its your job to learn that a/c and learn to fight as a good wingman first. Protecting the butt of your element lead should be your first and only priority. If you die...you die. We should see a little telegram to Mr & Mrs Pharoah...proud parents of Sgt Pharoah who died for the Motherland (or Fatherland).

 

What we have currently isn't anywhere near immersive.

[Gambit21]

I want to feel like I'm part of a squadron and war effort - I'd like proper briefings, etc.

I want everything RoF brought to the table in this department, (and PWDCG) plus what we had in European Air War (if you remember those briefings)

Totally transforms immersion.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

There are changes in the works apparently, but I don't know the scope of them.

 

For starters, I like the current system as it is. That one I would leave unchanged because I appreciate the variety. What it would benefit from the most is a complementary story-mode campaign structure that allows the user to link a series of scripted missions. There are a lot of talented mission builders out there, so if they had the opportunity to make campaigns themselves it would add to the environment.

 

My cost-effective suggestion: allow the player to create 'profiles' that act like characters within the game. From the main menu, the player clicks 'Log Book'. When creating a new pilot, you choose the name, last name, gender, year, place of birth, rank. Optional data include: if this pilot is particularly affiliated with the VVS or Luftwaffe, if this pilot belongs to a particular unit available from a list (a short yet comprehensive list of units that flew fighter/attack/bomber in the theatre, even two of each kind works), if this pilot is vulnerable ('dead is dead' on/off) and if this pilot joins the front at a particular stage of the campaign or from the beginning.

 

A VVS/Luftwaffe profile can only fly for that side, a fighter/bomber/attack profile can only fly aircraft associated with that unit, and in the campaign a profile can only take off from airbases associated with that unit.

 

Once created, all activities in game, single player and multiplayer, are logged to that pilot. Air/ground victories, flights, take-offs, etc. Through successful missions, the pilot is promoted and rises through the ranks.

 

You can create a dozen of those and switch as you wish, but it gives the individual pilot idea I suppose. The old Lock On had a nice logbook section for example

[seafireliv]

Doing something as simple as adding a random modifier to the type of missions you get (escourt, intercept, ground attack, etc) would add hugely to adding some feeling of suspense per mission. Being allowed to pick your own missions is really boring. I like interceptions which means I just choose intercepts all the time- boring. That`s why I started rolling die to feel like I was being given Orders.

 

 

 

Can it truly be that hard to add an element like that just for a beginning to adding immersion to the SP campaign. I could add a lot more ideas, but i`ll stop there for now.

[Feathered_IV]

Proper briefings with an implied narrative are a must.  Certainly not the current mantra explaining what the exit point is for.

The other one that brings massive improvements to gameplay are natural and varied AI speech and voice packs.  When it's done right it can embed you in the environment and game world more effectively than any other feature. 

[Gambit21]

The other one that brings massive improvements to gameplay are natural and varied AI speech and voice packs.  When it's done right it can embed you in the environment and game world more effectively than any other feature. 

Yep

Remember the horrible Japanese scream from the old sim?

[Dutchvdm]

Just let them copy the ROF Beta Career and implement that. Improve it in certain areas. Including the extra missiontypes like photorecon and visual recon.

 

Then i will be a happy camper. 

 

Grt M

[Feathered_IV]

I agree with that.  The RoF campaign programming was brilliantly done and was only fatally let down by the tiny numbers of aircraft that would be encountered during a mission. Surely this time around with 64 bit they could do so much better.

[CheeseGromit]

There's a couple of fundamental design points that influenced how I played but I don't know that there's quick fixes for either. I'll throw them out there in the hope that some feedback is better than none.

 

Number one is the lack of a link between the missions and the actual campaign. There's no continuity between missions and no consequence of the outcome. The campaign was largely rendered a quick mission builder with unlockable story cut-scenes. Once complete the campaign isn't really something you replay. You don't start another one for a different experience. Obviously there's some limitations due to the historical story component. The start, end and key points will always be the same. I wonder though whether there is still scope to weave player performance into the system to allow variety and help replayability.

 

The other thing was the experience system. This had a number of influences over how I played. At the minor end I spammed the easy reliable missions to get the unlocks as efficiently as I could. At the more major end, once I'd got all the unlocks for the planes I wanted I was kind of lost with what to do next and the game ultimately got shelved. When the summer BoS campaign was released I decided to start that with an aircraft I had no unlocks for but after several failures and no exp. I kind of moved on and still haven't finished that campaign. Looking back I'm kind of amused at how my play became so influenced by this part of the design, mostly because I knew it would it happen. It's not just this game though, I've played quite a few f2p games with grindy progression based economies that have negatively influence how I play games.

 

I'm watching with interest to see what the future holds.

[cellinsky]

Im one from the "other side": I actually prefer the BOS/BOM approach of the campagne over the ROF one. That is, because I am more interested in flying different types of airplanes in its various roles and tactics. And get proficient at them (not that Im good anyway). I always hated to create a new pilot, with the sole purpose of flying a certain type of plane in campange-mode. Dont get me wrong, ROFs campagne-system is a masterpiece, just not my style of playing. I like RPGs but not so much in a simulator.

 

Adding more elements to the current system and refining it is the way to go IMHO: More variations in missions, eg. recce, sweeps, night-harrassing etc. Choosing an element of a flight would also be cool, eg. being the Katschmarek / Wingman. Less "actionpoint-action" and more random encounters would also help immersion.

 

Marcel

 

Edit:

Just FYI: This is also a cool approach for a campagne:

 

http://combatairpatrol2.com/

 

Reminds me on good old TAW wich I loved and played a lot. Not so much RPG rather than strategy...

Edited June 15, 2016 by cellinsky

[DD_Arthur]

So I've been doing a lot of thinking about the single player campaign. Its the thing that I'm most exposed to in the IL-2 BoS/BoM experience and its also the thing that I have the most issue with.

 

But I want to throw it all out for a second. Clean slate. What would be the best single player experience given technological and time constraints. Could we as the community suggest something that is clean and light and fast to access but also satisfies a desire for something deeper?

 

I haven't really suggested anything in detail yet. It's more of a thought right now that I might have a chance to think about more later. It's definitely easier to suggest what is wrong than to say what could make things right.

 

Interesting post and I think it goes to the heart of where we are with BoS/BoM at the moment.  Do the devs have the resources to add features and functionality that are heavily dependant on programming while not generating an income stream?  Han has shown that this team can keep to a schedule and pump out new aircraft with regularity. Some of this work can and I believe is out sourced.

 

Programming is the critical area.  We were told the DN engine was over a million and a half lines of code five years ago.  This has obviously grown in size and complexity.  It can't be easy for the team to find talented programmers who can be trained to work on this engine.

 

With that in mind, what can be done for the single player experience?  Lets just park up Loft's "campaign" for the moment.  As has been pointed out above; it's not a campaign, its a random mission generator.  If you view it as that only then it is innovative and interesting - but a campaign it ain't.

 

The RoF beta career has been mentioned as the way to go.  I have some experience with this and with PWCG in RoF.  What is really appealing about the RoF beta career is the GUI - it's an inspired piece of design and is a pleasure to use. It gives you everything that the guys above mention about being an identifiable character in a believable scenerio with a lot of really nice touches too.  Thanks to Luke_FF Its been really well researched too.

 

The actual missions it produces?  Er.. they're not very good.  For all pilots in WW1 the most welcome sound to wake up to was falling rain.  It meant you weren't flying. Not in the beta career!  Off you go you cowardly bastards!  Into rain, snow, full overcast - just like in the BoS campaign because of course thats where its origins lie - in the RoF beta career.  They also take place at a wholly unrealistic height - watch that tree! - to meet a wholly unrealistic number of enemies.

 

Or you're sent off to do something wholly bizarre.  Ever been sent off in the BoS campaign at dusk to intercept enemy bombers in a lone I-16 and be confronted by four 109E7's on ground attack?  You get the picture.  

 

Enter Pat Wilson.      

 

Its the missions Jim.  It has a purpose. It has scaleability.  The team should give much more direct support to Pat and give him a GUI and all that goes with it to the same standard as the RoF beta career.  Give him direct development support so they can work on improvements to functionality that he requests.

 

A couple more things to improve the single player experience;

 

Overall  A.I. behaviour.  In terms of both tactics and commands to A.I.  A wider range of commands that the A.I. actually obey is needed urgently.

 

The mission editor; well its a dev development tool originally and it shows.  There really are still a lot of guys out there who enjoy building missions.  They need a simple to use mission making tool that can produce online and offline content that can be mastered in not more than one month of Mr. Average's flight simming time.

 

Oh yeah; Lofts career.  Lets get it out and have another look.  Either add some more user functionality and call it what it is "Random Mission Generator - a bit more interesting than our QMB "  or....really try and turn it into a unique feature.

 

 Lets see; it puts you in the lead plane with a flight of A.I. and you all have the same mission and the same start.  You know you'll also meet some enemy A.I. and you have a flight plan with a field to land on at the end of mission?

 

 In effect it's generated a coop mission.  Give it a proper GUI and multiplayer functionality and you have a random online coop generator!  Think about it; you enter the multiplayer lobby, hit the random coop generator tab and enter the coop lobby.  You join the room where your host is - he's the guy with the Dserver - and it generates a coop for you all.  You select your side and plane, read your brief and hit Enter.  I don't know what a reasonable number of players would be.  Perhaps just a dozen to start with and a small proportion of A.I.  When everyone is in the host hits fly and off you go.

 

Oh yeah; give us a freakin' mods on mode too.  I want my airfields populated with more "stuff" and I want to straff innocent civilians rowing boats on the Volga  when I'm feeling mean!

[Cpt_Cool]

I loved watching my name climb the list of top scoring aces in the ROF career newspaper

[Scarecrow]

Doing something as simple as adding a random modifier to the type of missions you get (escourt, intercept, ground attack, etc) would add hugely to adding some feeling of suspense per mission.

I added that request in the suggestions forum a year ago. They have it for quick missions already but not for the campaign. I am confused by the decision not to make it available in the campaign mission selection.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

An easy way to do it would be to have it like they have with loadouts and skins (in winter in particular). I quite like that, since it can come up with unexpected results like green aircraft mid-winter, or strafing an enemy column with only machine guns.

 

Click airfield, select aircraft, and a random mission type will be selected for you. If you want it, click accept. If not, choose whatever you're interested in.

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

For starters I'd like to see the pilot levelling system changed so that you can have the option of restarting the campaign, or even a chapter, from scratch, at the lowest level. It can be frustrating to be part way through and not be able to continue because you've reached level X and now the missions are 'himmelbett commandos'.

 

Perhaps the devs could add the sp campaign system from the old IL2 to the game; it isn't perfect but will serve well enough.

 

I'm not a programmer so I have no idea what could work.

 

Good hunting,

=CFC=Conky

[reddog=11blueleader*]

I believe a Career mode like in ROF would just be over the top!!  However, I do like the S. P. campaign.

Edited June 21, 2016 by reddog=11blueleader*

[KoN_]

The campaign is not a campaign its a quick mission builder with cut scenes . Now if you want a campaign like BMS ..then  Wow ..!!

I find the campaign completely frustrating .

Was bought by the idea it was going to be like ROF . So many good things about ROF yet totally left out for this . ??? crazy .

[Dutchvdm]

I believe a Career mode like in ROF would just be over the top!!  However, I do like the S. P. campaign.

 

Don't get me wrong but i really think that is just what a flightsim like BOS or BOM deserves or should have. Both games emphasize on creating an immersive setting combined with realistic flightmodels and good modern graphics. It's i think there usp over DCS where you can buy planes that you like to 'study'. To create that immersion you need to create the feeling of being there. That was always the focus of flightsims. Yes multiplayer is fun, but it's just not for everyone or not for every moment. For me it's just frigging nice to create a fictional person and to to just survive to war. That's what the boys did in real life. That's what we should be able to do! Yes i know Pat made PWCG, which works great. But in the end i think it's sad that we need a third party tool to flesh out decent singleplayer mode.

 

So please just copy the career mode and ditch the mission generator.

 

BTW: I think this "If you have a MP mode, then you're fine" ethic within the gaming industry has to die really hard, really fast. MP is fun and a must nowadays, but it should never be an excuse to eliminate the SP experience.  

 

Grt Martijn

Edited June 23, 2016 by 1./ZG1_Martijnvdm

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Core of carrer mode in RoF is based od same random mission generator we have in BoS. Dynamic and cause and effect campagin are lack in RoF and BoS.

[KoN_]

All of us here ` all want the same thing , to be part of the war effort  and to be involved . 

i was looking forward to be hunting for `Hans Rudel in his stuka , or an Encounter with `Eric Hartman and his black tulip . 

Or  "Ivan the Terrible"  has been spotted near the front lines and you scramble to intercept him . 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

On my end I really, really dislike the cause/effect single player campaigns because they feel sort of unrealistic. The actions of one pilot leading a group of two-four aircraft rarely were the make or break of campaigns, but with the tactical maps set out in the campaign screen as they are you can see where and why you are flying your mission and really get the feel that you are just that - one more pilot, which can easily be replaced, fighting a war and making sure the arrows on the map go into the enemy lines. Historical context helps - I've yet to bail out of a stricken aircraft in 1941-1942 because I know the aircraft were at a premium. A lot of times I've died trying to save the airframe but that's what people did.

 

I'm holding out for the next patch, it looks like new stuff will come to the campaign.

[PatrickAWlson]

All of us here ` all want the same thing , to be part of the war effort  and to be involved . 

i was looking forward to be hunting for `Hans Rudel in his stuka , or an Encounter with `Eric Hartman and his black tulip . 

Or  "Ivan the Terrible"  has been spotted near the front lines and you scramble to intercept him . 

 

If I can get some help I can make it happen in PWCG.  It already exists in RoF and the code supports it today.  I just don't have the data in a usable format or the time to do it myself.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On my end I really, really dislike the cause/effect single player campaigns because they feel sort of unrealistic..

It's not the Rambo one man army thing i'm speaking of.

 

If you destroyed balloon at 9am and go there at 12:30 pm and it is there again ? Or when enemy destroyed all buildings on aerodrom but hour letter you find out that they all fine?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Ah, those! My bad, those are amazing indeed.

 

From a technical standpoint it is possible to get those running in this sim - Kathon did something similar for the TAW server, where after each mission the script analyses what was left standing and generates a mission moving the front lines and adapting the buildings to the latest situation. It would be nice to have those in the campaign. I wonder if it's possible to get that going on a mission generator as well, even if a 3rd party one.

[PatrickAWlson]

Ah, those! My bad, those are amazing indeed.

 

From a technical standpoint it is possible to get those running in this sim - Kathon did something similar for the TAW server, where after each mission the script analyses what was left standing and generates a mission moving the front lines and adapting the buildings to the latest situation. It would be nice to have those in the campaign. I wonder if it's possible to get that going on a mission generator as well, even if a 3rd party one.

 

A few keys:

The ability to uniquely identify each mission object in the mission file.

The ability to identify the damaged object in the logs.  

The ability to map the logs (damage to the object) to the data storage (where the object is persisted) to persist state,

 

I'm not sure what the logs provide in terms of the ability to uniquely  identify objects, but there is probably something.

 

When you create a mission you can designate the damage state of the objects in the mission.  If state could be recorded and persisted then the next mission could be built with that state in mind.  You would also need a repair algorithm to allow objects to be repaired.  

[seafireliv]

Well I`m certainly waiting in anticipation of what these campaign changes/improvements will be.

 

However, it is a restrained anticipation.

[Jade_Monkey]

Well I`m certainly waiting in anticipation of what these campaign changes/improvements will be.

 

However, it is a restrained anticipation.

 

 

Yes I wouldnt expect anything drastic. I think right now keeping the expectations low is the best strategy.

If they manage to pull of something amazing then we will all rejoice. Otherwise , there is no letdown.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Sorry to have posted and then dashed for a while. I feel neglectful for not having gotten back into the conversation - things have been too busy and the responses here are packed full with some great ideas. I think I partially posted because I was sitting playing the game the other day (campaign mode) thinking to myself that I know people don't like the current experience all that much but there are some great elements to it and just how would we make something that might be new, different, but satisfying too.

 

I think drawing on some of the ideas here and mashing it together could actually produce something great.

 

It sounds to me like just having the UI set up things where you create a pilot character and that pilot then belongs to a squadron (with associated stat boards and so forth) would be a huge advancement. Even if the missions didn't change (not that we don't want to see an evolution there), there would still be a better sense of continuity and immersion.

 

I would also be happy if we had the randomize mission type and more mission types. What we have is fine but a half dozen more types of missions would definitely add to my interest without a dramatic reprogramming. Sometimes I would like to fly a scramble or a combat air patrol or something.

 

Does anyone remember Aces of the Pacific? It was dripping with immersion but its design wasn't any more complex than BoS/BoM.

 

 

 

That stuff was cool. And it ran on a 386

[seafireliv]

Sorry to have posted and then dashed for a while. I feel neglectful for not having gotten back into the conversation - things have been too busy and the responses here are packed full with some great ideas. I think I partially posted because I was sitting playing the game the other day (campaign mode) thinking to myself that I know people don't like the current experience all that much but there are some great elements to it and just how would we make something that might be new, different, but satisfying too.

 

I think drawing on some of the ideas here and mashing it together could actually produce something great.

 

It sounds to me like just having the UI set up things where you create a pilot character and that pilot then belongs to a squadron (with associated stat boards and so forth) would be a huge advancement. Even if the missions didn't change (not that we don't want to see an evolution there), there would still be a better sense of continuity and immersion.

 

I would also be happy if we had the randomize mission type and more mission types. What we have is fine but a half dozen more types of missions would definitely add to my interest without a dramatic reprogramming. Sometimes I would like to fly a scramble or a combat air patrol or something.

 

Does anyone remember Aces of the Pacific? It was dripping with immersion but its design wasn't any more complex than BoS/BoM.

 

 

 

That stuff was cool. And it ran on a 386

 

It may not have been much better than BOS, but let`s put it in context. This game is like 20 years old at the dawn of pc gaming,

 

Compare that to the raft of sims with far better Campaigns (some even quite dynamic CFS3), then BOS is a sad step backwards in this department- Stalin would not be happy seeing he hates steps backwards!

[Feathered_IV]

It may not have been much better than BOS, but let`s put it in context. This game is like 20 years old at the dawn of pc gaming,

 

 

That really puts it into context.  God knows I love these developers, but I can't work out if the presently inadequate singleplayer experience is a result of lack of funds or lack of ability.  Are the readme-style briefings, abysmal AI voices, anti logical exit points, funlocks and other maligned features something the devs created after badly misunderstanding the principles of quality gameplay and the user experience?  Or while creating it did they know that as a piece of singleplayer entertainment software, the frontend product would not reach the baseline of what was served on a floppy disk twenty years ago, but had to go with it due to the severest constraints of time and money?

[Scarecrow]

That really puts it into context.  God knows I love these developers, but I can't work out if the presently inadequate singleplayer experience is a result of lack of funds or lack of ability.  Are the readme-style briefings, abysmal AI voices, anti logical exit points, funlocks and other maligned features something the devs created after badly misunderstanding the principles of quality gameplay and the user experience?  Or while creating it did they know that as a piece of singleplayer entertainment software, the frontend product would not reach the baseline of what was served on a floppy disk twenty years ago, but had to go with it due to the severest constraints of time and money?

 

I think the logic is that the multiplayer experience is what most customers want so you don't need to spend time and money on a really good singleplayer experience. Plus all the maps and the aircraft are far far far more work than they were in Oleg Times. Us older gamers that remember the good old days are not the target audience anymore

 

Younger flight sim enthusiasts, the target audience, will probably be migrating from WT to IL2 and they are accustomed to this standard of game content presentation.

 

That being said I'm firmly on the "next patch will make everything great" train.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It may not have been much better than BOS, but let`s put it in context. This game is like 20 years old at the dawn of pc gaming,

 

Compare that to the raft of sims with far better Campaigns (some even quite dynamic CFS3), then BOS is a sad step backwards in this department- Stalin would not be happy seeing he hates steps backwards!

 

Actually my point was that Aces of the Pacific, released in 1991, has superior single player campaign mechanics than IL-2: BoS/BoM does. Its actually a fairly similar level of complexity which is why I think Aces is not a bad baseline standard to try and reach. Its actually still quite a bit of fun if you spend a little time configuring DOSBox.

 

That really puts it into context.  God knows I love these developers, but I can't work out if the presently inadequate singleplayer experience is a result of lack of funds or lack of ability.  Are the readme-style briefings, abysmal AI voices, anti logical exit points, funlocks and other maligned features something the devs created after badly misunderstanding the principles of quality gameplay and the user experience?  Or while creating it did they know that as a piece of singleplayer entertainment software, the frontend product would not reach the baseline of what was served on a floppy disk twenty years ago, but had to go with it due to the severest constraints of time and money?

 

I do wonder and although I don't know for sure, I think the 1CGS team may have been given a very limited window of opportunity to "rescue" the previous IL-2: Battle of Moscow attempt from Maddox Games and that meant cutting some corners. If that is what happened (and I'm not saying for sure it is) then the team actually did a fairly good job of implementing some sort of single player aspect. It could easily have been left out. Some design decisions that you've pointed out don't exactly make sense to me either.

 

I'll hop on the next patch makes things better train too.

 

The teaser with the rank insignia has me hopeful that they are doing some interesting stuff behind the scenes right now that will improve single player for the current and whatever the next gen product ends up being too. 

[Force10]

I think the logic is that the multiplayer experience is what most customers want so you don't need to spend time and money on a really good singleplayer experience. .

 

 

I have to disagree with this. Oleg always said that 90% of his customers were in it for single player/campaign vs 10% for multiplayer. I think this sort of rings true when Steam Spy shows 36,000 copies of BOS sold and you see maybe .01% of that number flying online.

 

Where you might have a point, is with the arcade War Thunder type players...it seems their numbers are strong for that type of gameplay. The problem is that the IL-2 franchise has always been geared more for the simulation crowd. I think they rolled the dice trying to strike a balance between arcade and simulation. There was a chance they would have hit the "sweet spot" and struck gold...but more often than not, when you try to please 2 different types of players (simulation vs arcade)...you end up pleasing neither and numbers are bad.

 

This is just my opinion of course.  

Edited June 29, 2016 by Force10

[Feathered_IV]

 

Where you might have a point, is with the arcade War Thunder type players...it seems their numbers are strong for that type of gameplay.

 

I suspect the numbers of people playing quality singleplayer modes is so low, not through lack of interest.  But due to lack of supply. 

[seafireliv]

I have to disagree with this. Oleg always said that 90% of his customers were in it for single player/campaign vs 10% for multiplayer. I think this sort of rings true when Steam Spy shows 36,000 copies of BOS sold and you see maybe .01% of that number flying online.

I also recall Oleg mentioning this and it is indeed no secret that many people still prefer to play SP for the convenience.

I believe Online is pushed not just because a lot of people like it (whether it`s more than SP is arguable), but because...

 

a, It`s less work. No need to work on a comprehensive complex AI and immersive campaign for the SP. Saves on those resources.

b, It`s a convenient monitering tool, ie DRM.

 

This saddens me since it`s always the immersive SP campaign that suffers -the part I want most. Mp is all very well, but it does not have the convenience for me. I can`t do my work, fly the sim then back to work when I am Online Multiplayer, since I don`t want to let people down by just quitting the game on them. MP actually takes a lot more time and preparation (if you`re serious) than SP ever does.

 

But, unfortunately few games of this type work exclusively on a great SP and MP simultaneously, though there are the rare exceptions.

Edited June 29, 2016 by seafireliv

[CheeseGromit]

For interest and as a test of my memory, dev diary 15 includes the following question and answer. Bolding is mine to highlight the bit of interest. The dev diary is from April 2013 so it may be out of date.

 

"2) Could you imagine an online game type like "capture the airfield" or something like that which will make it possible to overtake enemy airfields by destroying a certain percentage of its AA and ground objects to use it afterwards for your own team?
 
This or any other game mode you will be able to make without assistance. BoS will be created primarily as a game for a single player. We'll closely monitor everything and develop precisely those elements that will be most popular. But we don't plan anything complex for the multiplayer at launch."

[Feathered_IV]

I remember that too.  Singleplayer seemed to be primarily dropped shortly afterwards however, in favour of an e-sport philosophy.

[Picchio]

Comrades, I'll ask here since my question was buried in the 2.002 discussion thread and no one cared to reply.

It's a hopeless question, but I'm still curious...

Does this new rank system imply that if my pilot is of a lower rank, I'll be assigned to the appropriate position in the flight formation? Or will I still be always the leader... ?

Edited June 29, 2016 by Picchio

[LLv24_Zami]

Comrades, I'll ask here since my question was buried in the 2.002 discussion thread and no one cared to reply.

It's a hopeless question, but I'm still curious...

Does this new rank system imply that if my pilot is of a lower rank, I'll be assigned to the appropriate position in the flight formation? Or will I still be always the leader... ?

Always the leader.