Regarding Multiplayer Modes

[danjama]

Hi everyone who knows me, great to see we have a new place to congregate, without the poison that seemed to seep through the very code of the banana forum.

 

First of all, thanks to Jason and the team for giving us this place to have discussions. Secondly, I would just like to express my excitement about this new venture, and one that I believe was concieved in my own head, a long time ago. Well done. I enjoy Rise of Flight very much (although WW1 is not my cup of tea all the time) and really think the RoF model would be great for IL2.

 

The topic of my post is simple. I consider myself a IL2 and general aircraft simulation enthusiast. I spent thousands of hours playing il2 online. The majority of those were in co-op mode.

 

Co-op in IL2 worked because it had a clear structure and plan, a briefing, a friendly atmosphere, several ways to communicate, and a clear goal. Nine times out of ten, this meant you had a better crowd to fly with. You made friends. You had something to fight for. Co-op was the essense of multiplayer air combat.

 

I can't stress the importance of having co-op mode in this new series. It's the blood of any air combat simulation, IMO.

 

I know, I know. It's early days. But this should be said now, so that history will show it was said.

 

Some may disagree, and that's fine, but myself and thousands of others dedicated a lot of time to il2 online, and it wasn't for the dogfight servers!

 

Just to be clear, i'm not expecting a response from any officials on this matter, as I know it is too early to know exactly what online modes we will have. But I just wanted this to be put out there, in the interest of gauging the opinion of the population here.

 

As a hello, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year token, here is a photograph of my favourite aircraft.

 

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Couldn't agree more +1

 

I hope the devs take notice...

[danjama]

Couldn't agree more +1

 

I hope the devs take notice...

 

Thanks Furbs, glad you agree

[Bearcat]

Hi jama good to see yo here.. I agree as well..

[danjama]

Hi jama good to see yo here.. I agree as well..

 

Good to see you too mate!

 

Maybe there's less of us than I thought

[Black-Hussar]

Fully agree your point of view and hope that the developers will note your kind suggestion. A coop mode is really the blood of any air combat simulation. IL2 Cliffs of Dover was the sad proof for this proposition.

 

And, as we are close to christmas; I'm still dreaming of a dynamic coop campaign....... 

[PrvtSNAFU]

And, as we are close to christmas; I'm still dreaming of a dynamic coop campaign....... 

 

The RoF Beta Career with online/mulitplayer options, that would make me jump and shout. They should start with testing this in RoF btw...

[fodwunwinglo]

at last someone talking sense,well done DANJAMA.........i have posted somewhere on this forum my views on the development online of IL2  and ROF.

when IL2  was at its peak 5 years or more ago surely we were flying on the peaks.

now i hardly go there online as it surely is in a deep trough.....V4.1.1M is not enough one needs hsfx v god knows what or some other add on thing far too complicated its got see the numbers falling!

people there are different,things happen i just cant believe possible,is it me getting very old or is it something else?

still i have those memories of friends i flew with and corresponded with often ,now gone like the dinosaurs.....wish we could go back to the good old days oh yes the were very good ones.

ROF needs a system like HYPERLOBBY imho........

FOD WUNWINGLO  [iL2]

FLAPPING BROWN[ROF]

[danjama]

I'd like to bring this topic back to the topic, as it's more relevant with the launch date looming over us.

 

wunwinglo above has touched on an important point.

 

Will there be a lobby system built in to BoS? That would be fantastic. Half of the fun of the il2 days was sitting on HL with your mates waiting for a game to fill up and launch!

 

And the debates etc...great fun!

Edited August 23, 2014 by danjama

[39bn_pavig]

One of the most critical elements of cooperative missions is the lobby system. It is critical that the game start when either the server is full or the game gods deem it so. Without such a limitation it is difficult to keep cohesion in mission structure. I would be encourages to see this as an option once multiplayer had developed further.

[BraveSirRobin]

One of the most critical elements of cooperative missions is the lobby system. It is critical that the game start when either the server is full or the game gods deem it so. Without such a limitation it is difficult to keep cohesion in mission structure. I would be encourages to see this as an option once multiplayer had developed further.

 

Cohesion is really easy if you're all on Teamspeak.  No lobby needed.

[No601_Swallow]

Cohesion is really easy if you're all on Teamspeak.  No lobby needed.

 

Ah no! There is a need of a lobby if the mission is so designed, with coordinated starts, complicated timing for AI, large numbers of participants starting from different airfields, etc.

 

Granted, much of this can be accomplished through triggers and scripts, but - having suffered through years of trying to bludgeon CloD into doing what my squadron wants it to do (IL2-style coops), why not have a lobby, mission "slots" and a "Start Battle" button that can be activated by the host after everyone's settled in? The "Coops-are-sooo-2001" crowd can ignore it and host DF-type servers as much as they want!

 

Surely more choice is always better!

[BraveSirRobin]

Ah no! There is a need of a lobby if the mission is so designed, with coordinated starts, complicated timing for AI, large numbers of participants starting from different airfields, etc.

 

 

All of which can be coordinated through teamspeak. 

[No601_Swallow]

All of which can be coordinated through teamspeak. 

 

I think you've glossed over the bit where I wrote "if the mission is so designed" .

 

Here's the thing: my own squadron has a cadre of very talented mission designers. With the IL2 FMB, they were artists. They were able to paint the bleedin' Sistine Chapel in the skies over Finland/Kursk/The Slot/Cannon's Chanel (Matron!), etc. They could judge timings for AI just so and make missions infinitely unpredictable while still able to model actual historical events. Amazing stuff, every week.

 

So when we "transitioned" to CloD, there was consternation and gnashing of teeth that their skill set just wouldn't work with the new game.For "ops", just getting twenty or twenty four pilots up in the air meant faffing about for twenty minutes spawning, exploding, respawning, trying to work out where you are on the airfield, taxiing, colliding, respawning, finally getting up, blowing the engine because they've forgotten the rad, respawning, exploding, respawning, etc. Nothing to do with coordination. Everything to do with limitations about the way you can kick off a mission.

 

Not only that. To fully exploit the CloD FMB, people discovered they had to start learning a computer programming language. Quite apart from all the triggers and other aspects of that FMB that were broken, suddenly our mission designers were looking at lines of code (bloody sodding computer code!) like: "base.OnTrigger(missionNumber, shortName, active);" and weeping silently into their keyboards.

 

Luckily we have a bona fide RoF boffin in our squadron ranks (he's done the wonderful "Flying Fury" and "Spider Web" campaigns) who assures us the RoF FMB, while needing a bit of acclimatisation, does actually work fine and allows you to do almost anything you might want to achieve in mission design. So I'm confident that BoS will avoid all of CloD's pratfalls. I just hope the devs allow us to launch MP missions as coops!

 

It's not a lot to ask! 

[Rama]

Luckily we have a bona fide RoF boffin in our squadron ranks (he's done the wonderful "Flying Fury" and "Spider Web" campaigns) who assures us the RoF FMB, while needing a bit of acclimatisation, does actually work fine and allows you to do almost anything you might want to achieve in mission design. So I'm confident that BoS will avoid all of CloD's pratfalls. I just hope the devs allow us to launch MP missions as coops!

 

Good to know that your squad have mission designers that can use the RoF FMB. If they get more confident with, they will discover that triggers are easier to manage, and that they offer much more possibilities on dogfight mode than on coop mode.... and that everything you can do on coop mode (who has specific triggers) with the RoF FMB, you can also do on dogfight mode (and more).

That's why all the complex missions and online wars (SEOW and others) for RoF were running on dogfight mode.

[Mac_Messer]

So I'm confident that BoS will avoid all of CloD's pratfalls. I just hope the devs allow us to launch MP missions as coops!

 

It's not a lot to ask! 

Yup. That and the lobby system is needed for BoS if it wants to cater to a wider public. Unfortunately the community can`t do all this without the willingness and effort of the dev team.

[FuriousMeow]

It's amazing how so many titles work so very well in a perpetual coop fashion without a lobby. Dumbfoundingly ridiculous considering how so many here simply can't fathom how to function without both a lobby and a dedicated "coop" mode.

 

ArmaIII "King of the Hill." Three sides fight to control an area. Each side has it's own base (spawn area). Most vehicles spawn from there (aside from Jets that require a runway). Within seconds of a helicopter spawning there, the helo is typically full. Individuals that are on TS together manage to work their way through the chaotic mess within seconds and move in unison to capture, and hold, their points. Eventually the map is won, just like a coop mode, and if you get disoced - you can rejoin. That is just one example, but it is an amazing environment and is the direction MP is heading.

 

The only need for a lobby is so people can sit around and spin yarns. The only need for a "coop" system is to force people to play according to a specific mission plan, just a single player mission that is occupied by human players. It's amazing how easily the "coop" mission format can be operated in a real time server that cycles players in and out without the whole "sit and wait until mission launch and hope you aren't one of the people that the mission craps out on loading, or the host goes down so you wasted 30 minutes waiting for everyone to fill the slots" pain in the freaking ass that "coop" was in the old Il-2.

 

There are few that go "we need the coop mode of old Il-2," and they are the few that can't see that is fully capable here - you just don't have to wait around for all 20+ slots to be filled, and you aren't screwed when half your side gets discoed.

 

The old coop mode is just that, old and dated. It had so many short comings, so many failures, and so many terrible design flaws that to bring it back is going backwards in multiplayer design to the days of IPX emulation.

 

RoF already has a great persistant "coop" design running, and that is what most want here. Most want a Ju52, and coop mode has zero reasons for one. It has zero enticement to fill that slot, but there will be the slots - there will be tons of slots and no one will ever want them. You throw in a persistent war, mission templates within that war that have flights of Ju52s dropping off cargo/troops or ferrying fuel, and those successful missions not only net massive points for the player(s) that took that mission but also allow those fields to have a littany of weaponry or be able to fuel up their 109s beyond 12% and many will be willing to purchase a Ju52, and fly it, if it rewarded them. Coop missions have zero reward, they are an old dated multiplayer format. They aren't even a basic requirement for onilne wars in RoF, and they won't be in BoS either. There is zero need for them for the only thing they were necessary for with the old Il-2 series - onilne wars.

 

Persistant online war servers, that have missions which reward players for fulfilling the variety of missions, and provide a true purpose for aircraft everyone would rather just log off for the night than take a slot for (Li2, Storch, Ju52, etc), and then we start to see where multiplayer should be heading - not desperately grasping for an old, tired, outdated and no longer viable MP format that should just die with things like the old IPX emulators, that were necessary in the dial up days of internet with a great history but that belong there - in the history.

 

Persistant online war servers - that is the way MP should be heading, and works very well in RoF - so it'll work very well in BoS, not taking a complete 180 back to a stop-gap MP format that was only put in place because the old Il-2 series couldn't handle a fully persistant online war format when it was developed due to technological limits from standalone servers not being even developed for Il-2 series until several years after Il-2's initial release, to the internet being still mostly dial-up, and the end user hardware being very weak to handle a large online environment for what the Il-2 series had graphically back then compared to other massively multiplayer onilne only titles of that era - such as Aces High or WB.

Edited August 25, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Pharoah]

Agreed.

 

What BOS really needs is a proper structured system that resembles an actual war scenario....which isn't purely about combat, but about supply and logistics. An army can't fight without bullets and on an empty stomach. The Scorched Earth campaign for IL2 1946 was excellent at this ie. you were given strategic and tactical targets which impacted the overall war eg. destroying an important bridge results in logistical problems for supply (re-routing, cargo piling up, etc); attacking trains delivering troops/vehicles behind the lines results in shortages at the front...in turn directly impacting the battles at the front. Combine this with some sort of moving front line on the map and you have yourself a winner!! Add to this the impact on your own forces eg. if your supplies get destroyed, your front line could potentially come back such that you then lose your airfield and have to fly from further afield or your bombs are limited or your a/c (and pilots) are limited, etc. Having this going 24/7 would be great.

 

I pretty much fly bombers because I enjoy blowing stuff up (and because I can't dogfight for crap) and always hated having to play on dogfight servers where I end up being cannon fodder as there's nothing else to bomb except the enemy airfield (thereby getting the attention of every enemy fighter pilot). Having missions like this where there are multiple targets (and secondary targets) results in the enemy splitting up their forces and even resulting in bombing raids going unmolested. That would be an awesome experience. 

[Mac_Messer]

It's amazing how so many titles work so very well in a perpetual coop fashion without a lobby. Dumbfoundingly ridiculous considering how so many here simply can't fathom how to function without both a lobby and a dedicated "coop" mode.

Simple. People tend to copy good, proven ideas. Because it is most likely they will work. How a RoF system works with a WWII sim, it is not yet known for sure, we will be able to tell that few months from the first war starts at earliest. 

 

 

The only need for a lobby is so people can sit around and spin yarns. The only need for a "coop" system is to force people to play according to a specific mission plan, just a single player mission that is occupied by human players. It's amazing how easily the "coop" mission format can be operated in a real time server that cycles players in and out without the whole "sit and wait until mission launch and hope you aren't one of the people that the mission craps out on loading, or the host goes down so you wasted 30 minutes waiting for everyone to fill the slots" pain in the freaking ass that "coop" was in the old Il-2.

Not quite. It was internal squad planning and squad-squad planning. Even singular players could easily take part in that planning. Everyone knew who did what and when. And the "single player mission" was actually a mission generated in an indepenent manner by both sides, depending on a number of different factors ie. supply, offensive, defensive and so on - whichever of them was the most apropriate at a certain moment. A dynamic war where appointed commanders made decisions every hour.  Reading this stuff makes me question if you flew any online wars at all.

Yes, it had its drawbacks yet nothing ever came close to it.

 

 

There are few that go "we need the coop mode of old Il-2," and they are the few that can't see that is fully capable here - you just don't have to wait around for all 20+ slots to be filled, and you aren't screwed when half your side gets discoed.

 

The old coop mode is just that, old and dated. It had so many short comings, so many failures, and so many terrible design flaws that to bring it back is going backwards in multiplayer design to the days of IPX emulation.

Yes, it sounds wonderfull. All of the cool stuff, none of the drawbacks. Most of it in theory though. The truth is that the dated system as you call it worked. Maybe not 100% perfect but it did its job well enough to gather few hundred ppl every day. So why not combine those two systems? Considering the info and experience we have with the old one, we`d be already halfway home.

 

 

 

RoF already has a great persistant "coop" design running, and that is what most want here. Most want a Ju52, and coop mode has zero reasons for one. It has zero enticement to fill that slot, but there will be the slots - there will be tons of slots and no one will ever want them. You throw in a persistent war, mission templates within that war that have flights of Ju52s dropping off cargo/troops or ferrying fuel, and those successful missions not only net massive points for the player(s) that took that mission but also allow those fields to have a littany of weaponry or be able to fuel up their 109s beyond 12% and many will be willing to purchase a Ju52, and fly it, if it rewarded them. Coop missions have zero reward, they are an old dated multiplayer format. They aren't even a basic requirement for onilne wars in RoF, and they won't be in BoS either. There is zero need for them for the only thing they were necessary for with the old Il-2 series - onilne wars.

 

Persistant online war servers, that have missions which reward players for fulfilling the variety of missions, and provide a true purpose for aircraft everyone would rather just log off for the night than take a slot for (Li2, Storch, Ju52, etc), and then we start to see where multiplayer should be heading - not desperately grasping for an old, tired, outdated and no longer viable MP format that should just die with things like the old IPX emulators, that were necessary in the dial up days of internet with a great history but that belong there - in the history.

Not true. In IL2, every online war mission had its influence not only what happened on the frontline, but everything that made either of the sides continue the war. If your airfield got bombed beyond repair, it could not be used. If aircraft got bombed, you`d have less fighters/bombers to choose from. Same with tanks. The commanders had to make choices when and where to send supplies, by air or ground and would they collide with other side`s offensive run.The worse your side did, the less aircraft/tanks/available supply runs you had. At the end of most online wars, the losing side often was left only with obsolete aircraft and tanks. Sometimes, depending on a campaign, a limited experimental aircraft would arrive, for example 4xMe262 with fuel limited to 25%. There was nothing more rewarding to a bomber squad than to cripple an airfield closest to the frontline, destroying a hastily prepared last chance supply convoy. Or other missions such as those, you name it.

 

The slots thing with planes such as Li2, Ju52 etc. is rubbish. We didn`t have those planes. We don`t know what popularity would those have in online wars. Both supply and recon missions took place and decided on the turn of events on a map. I know what popularity the bombers had - minimal. All of them had its purpose and meaning, just not many people wanted to fly them. It was irrelevant of what the mission system was. 

 

What IL2 online wars did not recreate was lack of experienced pilots at the end. Will the perfect RoF system recreate that aswell?

Also, the IL2 online war system did a bad job in the PTO, as the distances were just too great, the missions durated even for 3 hours. Not to mention the horrible battleship flak that stuttered the whole map. Along with lots of ppl not being able to seek out let alone land on an aircraft carrier. Will RoF system take care of that that aswell?

 

 

Persistant online war servers - that is the way MP should be heading, and works very well in RoF - so it'll work very well in BoS, not taking a complete 180 back to a stop-gap MP format that was only put in place because the old Il-2 series couldn't handle a fully persistant online war format when it was developed due to technological limits from standalone servers not being even developed for Il-2 series until several years after Il-2's initial release, to the internet being still mostly dial-up, and the end user hardware being very weak to handle a large online environment for what the Il-2 series had graphically back then compared to other massively multiplayer onilne only titles of that era - such as Aces High or WB.

It`s complicated. In 2005 the IL2 system worked pretty well. 16v16 fights happened regularly, though the Brasilian/Russian servers were not the best quality and so they often ruined online missions. The ground battles were flawed because of the vast inaccuracies in modelling tanks, in extension the whole ground fights. It is entirely true that IL2 coop system was based around those limitations and it did a good job when it functioned.

It will be interesting to see if a system based entirely around WWI will work in a WWII environment. I hope you`re right, because I see you fail to realise that not all people are so sure about that. Not too many of them share your zeal.

More than few know when and what worked for real - it was the old IL2 system. It would be foolish to dump it in the trashcan when there are not yet a system that would make everything the old one made and make it better. Your post didn`t show why an even basic "lobby" function should not be implemented. It certainly had its purpose in a way I described it and I`m sure it would have its purpose nowadays.

It`s easy to just throw it all out the window. Though it isn`t necessary the best way possible.

Agreed.

 

What BOS really needs is a proper structured system that resembles an actual war scenario....which isn't purely about combat, but about supply and logistics. An army can't fight without bullets and on an empty stomach. The Scorched Earth campaign for IL2 1946 was excellent at this ie. you were given strategic and tactical targets which impacted the overall war eg. destroying an important bridge results in logistical problems for supply (re-routing, cargo piling up, etc); attacking trains delivering troops/vehicles behind the lines results in shortages at the front...in turn directly impacting the battles at the front. Combine this with some sort of moving front line on the map and you have yourself a winner!! Add to this the impact on your own forces eg. if your supplies get destroyed, your front line could potentially come back such that you then lose your airfield and have to fly from further afield or your bombs are limited or your a/c (and pilots) are limited, etc. Having this going 24/7 would be great.

Uhuh, most if not all of those features where in IL2 online wars.

[Dakpilot]

Like it or not BoS IS NOT old IL-2, maybe in 5 years time it could be compared to old IL-2 in 2005, but the constant demand to do what  "we used to" seems pointless... BoS is a different animal and people need to embrace the future or continue to live in the past...

 

Apart from DCS WWII (Great but even more of a different animal) BoS is the only future we have, it has a lot of differences to old IL-2....but a LOT more to offer ultimately, my take is to look forward rather than trying to re-create the past.

 

Am not having a dig at anyone simply voicing a personal opinion

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Pharoah]

Like it or not BoS IS NOT old IL-2, maybe in 5 years time it could be compared to old IL-2 in 2005, but the constant demand to do what  "we used to" seems pointless... BoS is a different animal and people need to embrace the future or continue to live in the past...

 

Apart from DCS WWII (Great but even more of a different animal) BoS is the only future we have, it has a lot of differences to old IL-2....but a LOT more to offer ultimately, my take is to look forward rather than trying to re-create the past.

 

Am not having a dig at anyone simply voicing a personal opinion

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I think its more 'what we enjoyed' rather than 'what we used to do'. IL2 1946 was popular for 10 years or so because it gave online flyers what they wanted (well, most of the time). We can't ignore the fact that IL2 had a lot of stuff right as well, esp with the online wars and stuff. Having a 24/7 online war is perfect because of the differing timezones around the world. I live in Aust, so when I'm online, most of Europe/US is at work I think. 

[malcheus]

This has been discussed a bit in an other topic as well, but in my oppinion we need a role for bombers and other heavy planes; 

-Some people are not good at dogfighting but they still want to fulfill a role other than getting shot up.

-There needs to be a reason for all the beautiful planes that are not meant for dogfighting; if dogfighting is the only viable/useful activity in multiplayer, in the end we will see 3 or 4 of the 10 planes modeled in this sim in multiplayer, the rest will be fodder (or worse, scolded by their teammates for taking up a spot an choosing a plane that can never contribute anything).

-There needs to be a reason for fighters to protect bombers. If bombers have no influence on the outcome of a battle. No fighter will wait while a bomber slowly climbes to a high altitude and then escort it to its target, if in the same time he could have been dogfighting and contributing to the score of the team. 

[Dakpilot]

Look to 69GIAP BOSWAR and Syndicate "active Front" server and points in the the above 2 posts are met...look to what is possible and new, (and maybe even better  ) and not try to re-create old IL-2 online war in BoS which is not the same engine...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Shadylurker]

I think some of you are missing the point of the old il2 coops.  There were servers where you could come and go and effect a mission, those were fun, but mostly just single pilots doing what ever they wanted to do to effect the mission.  Co-ops are just that, and that is what people are asking for. Yes that does require a lobby, with a briefing.  Even if it is or is not part of an online campaign (which were awesome).  Co-ops allowed pilots, in a squad or not, to form up and fly (semi)historical missions the way they are supposed to be, played against (semi)realistic numbers.  It wasn't 1-2 aircraft meeting randomly over a target, it was gaggles of them, pilots in fighters,bombers, attack craft, ect.  All trying their hardest to carry out their own specific mission as a squad...even if they just met in the lobby.

 

It is/was awesome. And sits with me still to this day as one of the most amazing things I have participated in, in flight sims.

 

You don't get that with online always on missions... 

 

 

As a side note, if IL2BOS could run an online campaign ala falcon 4.0  where the dynamic front generates the missions/tasks, WPs, and briefings. And it could allow users to que for future missions, fill vacancies in the tasked squadrons or take AI wingmates if players aren't available. Then you really do have an online COOP and mission system, in a persistent campaign.  Then I wouldn't have  a problem if the old style of COOP is gone. 

Edited August 25, 2014 by Shadylurker

[39bn_pavig]

I wasn't suggesting that a lobby is the best way to run multi-player, but that a simultaneous launch lobby is a useful tool for certain types of coop missions. This is particularly the case when multi-player missions are designed as complete scripted scenarios. For casual play it usually does more harm than good, but for squadron based play a simultaneous launch lobby system is an advantage. This can be seen with other milsims such as Arma3, where dynamically generated, join in progress missions coexist well with squad based scripted campaign style missions. A flexible multi-player system should be able to support both mission styles. 

[Meteor2]

This has been discussed a bit in an other topic as well, but in my oppinion we need a role for bombers and other heavy planes; 

-Some people are not good at dogfighting but they still want to fulfill a role other than getting shot up.

-There needs to be a reason for all the beautiful planes that are not meant for dogfighting; if dogfighting is the only viable/useful activity in multiplayer, in the end we will see 3 or 4 of the 10 planes modeled in this sim in multiplayer, the rest will be fodder (or worse, scolded by their teammates for taking up a spot an choosing a plane that can never contribute anything).

-There needs to be a reason for fighters to protect bombers. If bombers have no influence on the outcome of a battle. No fighter will wait while a bomber slowly climbes to a high altitude and then escort it to its target, if in the same time he could have been dogfighting and contributing to the score of the team.

 

Yes, well said.

[Rama]

I think some of you are missing the point of the old il2 coops.  There were servers where you could come and go and effect a mission, those were fun, but mostly just single pilots doing what ever they wanted to do to effect the mission.  Co-ops are just that, and that is what people are asking for. Yes that does require a lobby, with a briefing.  Even if it is or is not part of an online campaign (which were awesome).  Co-ops allowed pilots, in a squad or not, to form up and fly (semi)historical missions the way they are supposed to be, played against (semi)realistic numbers.  It wasn't 1-2 aircraft meeting randomly over a target, it was gaggles of them, pilots in fighters,bombers, attack craft, ect.  All trying their hardest to carry out their own specific mission as a squad...even if they just met in the lobby. 

HL gives no briefings. Briefings are either in-game or on a WEB site. TS allows people to meet, to go in different sub-rooms related to a specific mission or a specific online-war (sub-rooms for each side), to discuss about the mission, to read the the web-briefing together (if any... but there are allways in online wars), and to jumb in the dogfight mission in the allowed short time to do so to take a flight in a specific airbase, etc...  Everything you could do on HL can be done on TS, except TS will not launch the game (but the game server will). The ME triggers will allow to force players to enter the game during a limited time period, exactly as IL2 coops do. 

Also...  an Il2 style coop system never forced the players to fly together and never avoided the players to do what they want, alone or in small groups... I remember myriad of coops that, after take off (if the squad wasn't all killed by a noob slaming the throttle on the runway...) turned into lone bombers going their ways, small groups of 2/3/4 players from same squadrons going for kills or to fullfill their own objectives, etc... in fact in was the case in the vast majority of coops (online wars included.. and maybe even more in online wars when often the may player objective was to upgradre his own campaign score)

 

What makes the players play together in a coordinate mission isn't the coop/dog system... it's the appeal of the online war developped on a specific site, long discussions on forums, préparations on the same forums for the future missions... and having only matured dedicated squad (with a strong philosophy of organized play) virtual pilots in mission, playing with squadmates. against other squads with same kind of philosophy.

No system will replace that, even a very nice scripted, event triggered system like RoF has.

 

You don't get that with online always on missions... 

Yes you can have that. And that was the cas with RoF online wars (SEOW and others).... But again, that were mainly online wars between organized squads, preparing missions in advance on the campaign site, etc...

 

A flexible multi-player system should be able to support both mission styles. 

Again... that's exactly what a RoF dogfight server does: allow both type of mission styles.

[Brano]

To be honest,I dont feel comfortable talking to strangers with weird nicknames on TS.

[Pharoah]

Whatever happens, something needs to be added to MP modes to make it more interesting for bomber pilots. I flew the PE-2 online last night looking to bomb something, however the only thing available to bomb was the enemy airfield. So I amble over to the airfield only to find the airfield empty other than an airstrip. By the time I got there, 4 fighters had spawned and taken off. Needless to say I didn't last very long. 

 

I know this is only beta, but there should be something added like a defined target or something. Its almost impossible to identify targets with a bomber like the He-111 - these a/c didn't do armed recon like say the JU87 or IL2

[Shadylurker]

HL gives no briefings. Briefings are either in-game or on a WEB site. TS allows people to meet, to go in different sub-rooms related to a specific mission or a specific online-war (sub-rooms for each side), to discuss about the mission, to read the the web-briefing together (if any... but there are allways in online wars), and to jumb in the dogfight mission in the allowed short time to do so to take a flight in a specific airbase, etc...  Everything you could do on HL can be done on TS, except TS will not launch the game (but the game server will). The ME triggers will allow to force players to enter the game during a limited time period, exactly as IL2 coops do. 

Also...  an Il2 style coop system never forced the players to fly together and never avoided the players to do what they want, alone or in small groups... I remember myriad of coops that, after take off (if the squad wasn't all killed by a noob slaming the throttle on the runway...) turned into lone bombers going their ways, small groups of 2/3/4 players from same squadrons going for kills or to fullfill their own objectives, etc... in fact in was the case in the vast majority of coops (online wars included.. and maybe even more in online wars when often the may player objective was to upgradre his own campaign score)

 

What makes the players play together in a coordinate mission isn't the coop/dog system... it's the appeal of the online war developped on a specific site, long discussions on forums, préparations on the same forums for the future missions... and having only matured dedicated squad (with a strong philosophy of organized play) virtual pilots in mission, playing with squadmates. against other squads with same kind of philosophy.

No system will replace that, even a very nice scripted, event triggered system like RoF has.

 

Yes you can have that. And that was the cas with RoF online wars (SEOW and others).... But again, that were mainly online wars between organized squads, preparing missions in advance on the campaign site, etc...

 

Again... that's exactly what a RoF dogfight server does: allow both type of mission styles.

 

 

 

mmmm you seem to be just picking and choosing here.  I never did online wars  but I participated randomly in HL coops and they are vastly different from any always on drop/in/out mission rotation.  The point trying to be made here is that people shouldn't have to go through all the extra hoops, such as join a TS, join a squadron, or read a web page to play some actual missions.  I don't even care if it's different from old IL2 coop method.  I just want to log in, select a server and find a tasked flight and read it's briefing. Then execute the mission either with AI or fellow players as my wingmen, fellow airforce pilots, and enemy.

 

As it is now It's me reading the generalized briefing and I take off alone in some weird historical aircraft flown in the least historical manner possible, alone.  I can fix that yes, but that's 100% on the individual, there is nothing in game to facilitate it. A coop function does.

 

Sim devs need to understand having a framework for proper usage is required. Microprose figured it out back in the 90's.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Shadylurker

[Pharoah]

Also, are we able to have more targets in multiplayer? I'm talking:

 

1. more trains

2. more vehicles on the road

3. tanks/artillery either deployed or undeployed

4. buildings

5. fuel depots

6. ammo storage

7. marshalling yards for infantry/vehicles/artillery/trains/etc

8. more stationary objects at airfields (aircraft, vehicles, fuel, ammo, etc)

9. infantry positions

 

I know its early days but lets get these maps filled out with targets. Its nice to fly past the burning city but there's nothing to bomb in there!

Edited August 26, 2014 by TOGPharoah

[No601_Swallow]

Speaking personally, I simply cannot understand people who tear their hair out saying "coops are old" and "coops are unnecessary" so no one should have that option. But having players fill slots, chatting, reading an ingame briefing before the host launches a mission is something that I want. I'm not bothered that other players want something else. Good for them! And I wouldn't criticise them for that preference. 

 

But in terms of the way I want to play the multiplayer aspect of this sim, I would much prefer a robust "cooperative" mode. That's all! Leave me alone! 

 

But as I think about gameplay and the way my squadron enjoyed its historically based campaigns in IL2 for - what? - a decade, I think the attraction was everyone spawning on a runway (or sometimes together at altitude all facing the same way, etc). Obviously this is more or less impossible to implement in rolling DF servers. RoF works OK, since everyone spawns in in a line ready for a crossfield take-off, so a player who's a few seconds too late won't cause an enormous pile-up on the runway. CloD on the other hand (and why do I always end up invoking the Clod-pocalypse?) was - in theory - so clever, with its automatic runway boards, etc, but such a pain and a bore and restrictive in what it forced you to do.

 

Anyway, if it can be implemented, I do hope old-fashioned coops will be implemented.

Edited August 26, 2014 by No601_Swallow

[Rama]

mmmm you seem to be just picking and choosing here.  I never did online wars

If you did online wars you would know I'm not just picking and choosing...

BTW: when the online wars started, they quickly represented more and more of the coop played on HL, up to 99% at the end. "Standard" coop almost disapeared.

 

 but I participated randomly in HL coops and they are vastly different from any always on drop/in/out mission rotation.

I did to, a lot.... And in the very begining of IL2 (The 2/3 first years), most the players "played the game" in coops (and most of them belongued to virtual squadrons anyway)... then it changed.

In any case, your impression are based on Il2 coops vs Il2 dogs. There's no way to build a "coop like" game with Il2 dogfigth system... when there's no problem to do it with RoF dogfight system. The only thing you need is good mission creators (but you also needed good mission creators to have potential good coop missions in Il2... so no changes there)

 

As it is now It's me reading the generalized briefing and I take off alone in some weird historical aircraft flown in the least historical manner possible, alone.  I can fix that yes, but that's 100% on the individual, there is nothing in game to facilitate it. A coop function does.

So you need good mission creators able to use fully all editor possibilities.... this isn't related to "dodfight mode" or "coop" mode (at least with RoF).

A coop fonction don't create and don't replace good mission creators.

 

Sim devs need to understand having a framework for proper usage is required. Microprose figured it out back in the 90's.

RoF devs have understood it... that why you had some nice "coop style" dogfights, and interesting online wars (SEOW or others) with RoF.

BoS devs are the same devs.

[Brano]

All I need is easy setup of private online server just for me and few of my friends.As I prefer to fly with people,not against

And we must admit,that discipline is with AI,not people = formation flying and realistic execution of mission.

[Hellfire257]

I think some of you are missing the point of the old il2 coops.  There were servers where you could come and go and effect a mission, those were fun, but mostly just single pilots doing what ever they wanted to do to effect the mission.  Co-ops are just that, and that is what people are asking for. Yes that does require a lobby, with a briefing.  Even if it is or is not part of an online campaign (which were awesome).  Co-ops allowed pilots, in a squad or not, to form up and fly (semi)historical missions the way they are supposed to be, played against (semi)realistic numbers.  It wasn't 1-2 aircraft meeting randomly over a target, it was gaggles of them, pilots in fighters,bombers, attack craft, ect.  All trying their hardest to carry out their own specific mission as a squad...even if they just met in the lobby.

 

It is/was awesome. And sits with me still to this day as one of the most amazing things I have participated in, in flight sims.

 

You don't get that with online always on missions... 

 

 

As a side note, if IL2BOS could run an online campaign ala falcon 4.0  where the dynamic front generates the missions/tasks, WPs, and briefings. And it could allow users to que for future missions, fill vacancies in the tasked squadrons or take AI wingmates if players aren't available. Then you really do have an online COOP and mission system, in a persistent campaign.  Then I wouldn't have  a problem if the old style of COOP is gone. 

 

 

This is exactly how I feel. The old COOPs had structure  and the furballs were amazingly fun.

[Shadylurker]

If you did online wars you would know I'm not just picking and choosing...

BTW: when the online wars started, they quickly represented more and more of the coop played on HL, up to 99% at the end. "Standard" coop almost disapeared.

 

I did to, a lot.... And in the very begining of IL2 (The 2/3 first years), most the players "played the game" in coops (and most of them belongued to virtual squadrons anyway)... then it changed.

In any case, your impression are based on Il2 coops vs Il2 dogs. There's no way to build a "coop like" game with Il2 dogfigth system... when there's no problem to do it with RoF dogfight system. The only thing you need is good mission creators (but you also needed good mission creators to have potential good coop missions in Il2... so no changes there)

 

So you need good mission creators able to use fully all editor possibilities.... this isn't related to "dodfight mode" or "coop" mode (at least with RoF).

A coop fonction don't create and don't replace good mission creators.

 

RoF devs have understood it... that why you had some nice "coop style" dogfights, and interesting online wars (SEOW or others) with RoF.

BoS devs are the same devs.

 

 

 

So if I jump into these COOP style ROF servers, will I be able to choose an aircraft and read it's briefing, then take off at a specified time leading an AI squadron while 5 other player flights on both sides do the same thing, each flying it's own mission?  Or do I have to join a squadron and team speak and log in at 1300GMT then hop on the server and wait for the server operator to start the mission?

 

You keep bringing up online wars, I don't care about that.  I want to be able to start a lobby and wait for 5 random players then select a mission we can all play together once the lobby is full.  Like old time Rainbow6

Edited August 26, 2014 by Shadylurker

[Rama]

So if I jump into these COOP style ROF servers, will I be able to choose an aircraft and read it's briefing, then take off at a specified time leading an AI squadron while 5 other player flights on both sides do the same thing, each flying it's own mission?  Or do I have to join a squadron and team speak and log in at 1300GMT then hop on the server and wait for the server operator to start the mission?

Both are possible if designed for. Again, mission creators are designing missions, using the tools they have. Il2 "coop style" tool is just a tool, that mission designers may use to build interesting (or not missions). They can do the same with other tools.

You focus on tools, when the important part in mission design is the designer.

 

You keep bringing up online wars, I don't care about that.

You keep bringing on coop. Il2 wars were designed with coop style missions.

[FuriousMeow]

Understood Mac_Messer. Carbon copy something because some think it works the best, and is the epitome of multiplayer despite the fact that there are better methods of play for organizing wars and organizing scenarios - and even those that were better at it in the past should be ignored because change is scary and should never occur.

 

Scenarios have been played for almost a decade before the coop play of Il-2, and continue to play well after it - and they work way better not to mention those coop styles have hundreds of players and not 32 or 48.

 

Change is scary, and when you have arrived at one method of gameplay that is terribly outdated but does what you want it to - force players to play a particular scenario with limited numbers with a small area and no chance of any dynamic gameplay outside of what the mission designers intended - its scary, because its out of the element that a few expect. "We take off at this time, we fly together to this point, we intercept at this point, and whoever lives gets to RTB." - but that last part never follows the waypoints. Il-2's coop is a dinosaur. There are far better methods to achieve a coop scenario, and they have been realised in RoF, and they will work even better with BoS.

 

How can anyone want dynamic scenarios, dynamic singleplayer campaigns, any form of dynamic gameplay and still desire coop style gameplay? That is the exact representation of static, single way to play, mission design and is boring.

Edited August 27, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[No601_Swallow]

 

 

How can anyone want dynamic scenarios, dynamic singleplayer campaigns, any form of dynamic gameplay and still desire coop style gameplay? That is the exact representation of static, single way to play, mission design and is boring.

 

Says you. 

 

There should be many ways to enjoy this sim, and it should matter to you not a jot if other simmers want something structured and organised from time to time. I understand that you don't "get it" about coops, but I don't understand why you think you are entitled to tell others that the way they happen to play the game is "boring".

 

Now, I do like the provision for coop-style flying in RoF. It works very well.

 

But I'm concerned that it works well because there are no runways. Everyone spawns line abreast, so there's no chance of people spawning in in front of each other and causing a pile-up. I suppose having everybody on comms and coordinating spawning and engine start very carefully would help with that. But comms can go wrong. Third party applications can fail. And how might "guests" who don't have comms join in? And should BoS be dependant on a separate comms program in any case?

 

Just as with the "Cliffs..." fiasco, I don't see what's to be gained by restricting players from being able to do what some of us plainly want to do.

Edited August 27, 2014 by No601_Swallow

[Elbows]

Add a big +4 to the co-op enthusiasm here.  My buddies and I routinely fly co-op missions in RoF...heck my gaming group met via an old Xbox game ---- playing co-op missions.  We almost never go into public lobbies because they're almost always dogfights only and have some astoundingly bad behavior/griefing etc.

 

If the mission build is like RoF I think we'd actually venture into some other servers.  If not, we'll continue to plod on just the four of us against the computer etc.  Co-op gaming is absolutely 10x more intriguing to us than casual single player stuff.  Hell I haven't purchased a single player game in...10 years?