Jump to content
II./JG77_motoadve

What Single player is lacking and what MP is lacking.

Recommended Posts

MP need organized events, long time ago like 20 years ago I used to play Warbirds scenarios I think it was 2 times per week.

In advance you signed up and knew you where going to be in which squadron and which position.

Very immersive.

I have played Friday Bombing and its kind of the same, just need more of those.

 

Playing in WOL is a lone wulf game, and not too immersive actually, its just like a gaming arena, good to have but more scenarios would be great.

 

Single player PWCG is great but the AI will destroy you , its viciuos.

 

Regular campaign, useless.

Scripted Campaign , good, we need more.

And to help single player we need AI improvements, element of surprise is not there, AI will know when you sneak behind them.

Also too much of the turning and turning fight.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singleplayer needs to have the AI radio chatter rebuilt from the ground up. Having the player character deliver monologues while the squad mates parrot the same phrase over and over again is just bad design. Do the chatter right. Make it immersive, varied and interesting and it will enhance everything, from the paid campaigns right through to the simplest QMB mission.

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MP needs better votekick/voteban support, in-game administration support isn't needed but would be nice (ability to change maps, kick players, etc. all from within the game i.e. no need to give your sub-admins access to the server console), a better browser with chat, more configurable server options like icons, etc., and better DServer performance.

 

We need one MP server like RoF's Wargrounds. 

 

What's that server like?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simply fantastic. Everyone is on that server. You have fighters, recon & bombers. Lots of bombers are AI so you have about 100 planes flying all the time. Perfect. Try it. It's still working though I think most players migrated to BoX. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right☺ large AI bomber formations :D WOL is really good. RoF Wargrounds was/is absolutly great.

Edited by indiaciki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All. I think SP  experience is Crucial to BOS .  SP leads to MP. No new Customer to Flight Sims is going straight to MP. He is going to have to learn to fly and fight first. He will do this in SP and move to MP (if he desires) when he feels confident.

SP needs something that MP doesn't !  SP needs AI.. I think the AI needs some "Serious Attention" in BOS. There is not much Point in having QMB/ Missions/ Campaigns if the AI is going to wreck the SP experience. 

I believe if the AI can be improved, it will enhance the SP experience (BTW the vast majority of BOS Pilots) and will flow on to MP.

~S~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm......... maybe, when AI gets too good, people don't see a reason to go to MP? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiplayer desperately needs a queuing system. It also needs to change the way it checks, verifies and joins servers. Currently it downloads the mission, loads the map, then checks whether you can join or not.

 

This is very similar to the joining method SQUAD used but they since rolled out a 2 stage development:

  1. Server checks were done prior to any loading or connecting
  2. A queue system was introduced

I hope IL2 can implement something similar.

 

Also I notice that multiple people can't join at once, again very frustrating, I'm sure a robust queuing system would fix all these issues.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm......... maybe, when AI gets too good, people don't see a reason to go to MP? :P

I think it's safe to say it doesn't get that good :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singleplayer needs to have the AI radio chatter rebuilt from the ground up. Having the player character deliver monologues while the squad mates parrot the same phrase over and over again is just bad design. Do the chatter right. Make it immersive, varied and interesting and it will enhance everything, from the paid campaigns right through to the simplest QMB mission.

+1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singleplayer needs to have the AI radio chatter rebuilt from the ground up. Having the player character deliver monologues while the squad mates parrot the same phrase over and over again is just bad design. Do the chatter right. Make it immersive, varied and interesting and it will enhance everything, from the paid campaigns right through to the simplest QMB mission.

 

Oh how I would love for you to be the lead for single player development. You get it (referencing your previous posts on the subject too). Jason???!!! 

Edited by FlyingNutcase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiplayer desperately needs a queuing system. It also needs to change the way it checks, verifies and joins servers. Currently it downloads the mission, loads the map, then checks whether you can join or not.

 

This is very similar to the joining method SQUAD used but they since rolled out a 2 stage development:

  • Server checks were done prior to any loading or connecting
  • A queue system was introduced
I hope IL2 can implement something similar.

 

Also I notice that multiple people can't join at once, again very frustrating, I'm sure a robust queuing system would fix all these issues.

This.

 

Loading before checking doesn't make much sense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single player is lacking replayability, it needs hundreds of sortie types and targets, as well as a random chance of enemy planes and friendly planes doing stuff no matter what mission you are on. Also, there needs to be more activity on the ground. Rear areas need troops walking or running along the roads, and more trucks heading too and from the front. It needs more battles between ground troops, especially during the offensives. If we fly a sortie in the period of the German counterattack toward Stalingrad, whenever our Yaks cross the front there should be a few separate battles at different parts of the front below us. Just take the basic tanks attack AT guns from the ground support missions, add MGs to the defenders and armour cars and halftracks to the attackers. Increase the number of tanks attacking, and stick them into almost every mission during a period of high activity, or make them rare and a treat to see during periods of low activity. For example, playing the Moscow campaign as a German Stuka pilot, we should at first be asked to help our tanks advance, and every time we cross the front we should see many battlegroups attacking the Soviets along the front. As the campaign wears on, we get less and less activity along the front, then suddenly the Soviets counterattack. Then, we will see many groups of Soviet tanks attacking our infantry across the line, supported by rocket launchers and artillery. The single player is great in terms of interception missions, but it needs much more ground activity. The air war over the Eastern Front was mostly a low level war of ground support, and currently things seem way too quiet on the ground. I mean, at night there would rarely be attacks, but during the day, during an offensive, you would have multiple engagements every day around the clock along the line. Things are just too peaceful down there. Flying over the Kessel, I have no sense of the German army being trapped there, only knowing that I better watch out for AA positions. More random chatter would be nice. From pilots cracking lame jokes to them discussing the course of the war. Or them looking down at the ground and being relieved that they are not infantrymen or tankers. Maybe the German wingmen could proclaim the glory of the Reich as their panzers push forward during the Blitzs of 1941 and 1942, and be more depressed as the Soviets launch their counterattacks later in the year. Maybe at the end of the Kessel, they would be given a mission to fly out, and they will comment as they cross the front at how close it has gotten to their airfield, and how their poor infantry are still fighting to the end. The Soviets could talk about politically correct stuff, warn each other about Commissionars, anything really. Perhaps their fighter pilots can talk about how they need to shoot down enemy bombers before they drop their load, to save their comrades on the ground. Scrambles, with enemy bombers crossing the front and us having to down at least one, although they have a major headstart. Even an occasional mission where we spawn in just as enemy fighters make it to our airfield and start shooting things up, while we try and race to get airborne. Just make it interesting and replayable and not drab and boring.

Edited by hames123
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually quite impressed with some of the diversity available in MP.

Tactical air War feels like an event, because of the downtime between campaigns, as the admins continue to strive to improve it. I like it's persistence, and how it encourages you to fly aircraft, you might otherwise choose not to fly. Team work is definitely encouraged.

 

Finnish Dynamic 

Random Expert

 

are both very nice too. Finnish lets you fly whatever you want, whenever you want. where as RE you have to earn AC and upgrades.

I've only briefly tried Coconuts Expert but it looked pretty good from what I saw, need to spend more time there though to figure out whats going on.

Guess I'm just trying to point out that while WoL can be fun, and is usually highly populated, that there are other popular options out there to choose from. Some of which you really would benefit from flying with your friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hames is onto something with SP, lack of ground activity given we are talking million + strong adversaries facing off against each other.  Also agree SP comms need rework and it would be great to see some dynamic campaign elements in MP with maybe human led ai groups formations taking part.  Also, inbuilt MP comms with team channels and flight channels.

 

Not sure if we need individual language channels as I think a mix of main languages would be fine i.e. Russian/German/English but something that doesn't require 3rd party apps to fill the void.

 

Aside from waiting for maybe *8k* 200degree FOV headset for myself ))

Can't think of anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 MP and single player needs improvement, and are the most important factor for longevity of BOX series, more than new maps or new planes.

 

You can have great scenery/planes/weather and its great and at the beginning you are enjoying it, but longer term if the gaming experience is not immersive and exciting, it wears off, and kind of makes you loose interest.

 

And not all is the developer's responsability, community and lack of scenarios for MP ? Those cannot be blamed on the developers.

Seems to be lack of interest and just go fly in an arena shooting down enemies , no formation, escort,planning or nothing.

 

Here is the history on how online WWII scenarios started back in the 1990s.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/simhistory/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh how I would love for you to be the lead for single player development. You get it (referencing your previous posts on the subject too). Jason???!!! 

 

I wish I could!  I spend a lot of time thinking of how to do more with less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MP need organized events, long time ago like 20 years ago I used to play Warbirds scenarios I think it was 2 times per week.

In advance you signed up and knew you where going to be in which squadron and which position.

Very immersive.

I have played Friday Bombing and its kind of the same, just need more of those.

 

Playing in WOL is a lone wulf game, and not too immersive actually, its just like a gaming arena, good to have but more scenarios would be great.

 

 

 

Lots of people who feel the way you do about MP have found a role-playing structure and sense of organization by joining a squad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Feathered on the need to rework the chatter but it needs to be done right in historical details to prevent it from looking like a carnival. Hames' suggestion for example, was written with the best intentions but it doesn't match the historical accuracy the game strives for:

 

The Soviets could talk about politically correct stuff, warn each other about Commissionars, anything really. Perhaps their fighter pilots can talk about how they need to shoot down enemy bombers before they drop their load, to save their comrades on the ground.

To anyone who is vaguely versed in it, Soviet pilots were a colourful, joking and often foul-mouthed bunch. That "watch out for the evil commissar" is Call of Duty drivel for kids. The pilots who actually did shout patriotic slogans on the radio were usually seen as ass-kissing clowns begging for promotions and medals. If to rework this it needs to be done right.

 

I may extend myself too much over this but let me try to get something together here.

 

1. For 1941 Soviet aircraft, unless proved otherwise, there should be no communications between aircraft or ground control. Almost no aircraft of the period had transmitter or receiver sets, and all signals need to be transmitted by rocking wings. In game this could keep the commands existent but they'd be transmitted silently and without subtitles. If AI is the one giving order, wing rock, good luck figuring out what it means. If player, command is given with a two second delay wherein the pilot can rock wings for immersion. Hand gestures are performed by both AI and player aircraft to specify. Control tower will communicate using flares.

 

2. For 1942 Soviet aircraft, unless proved otherwise, there should only be communications from the flight leader to the wingmen. Aircraft produced in the summer and autumn of 1942 either had transmitting sets or receiving sets, and these were distributed accordingly to leaders and wingmen. Flight leader transmits instructions to wingmen, subtitles are shown, wingmen comply but cannot reply. Flight leader should transmit warnings, congratulations and tactical instructions to wingmen. Once the flight leader is shot down, the radio goes silent. Control tower will communicate using flares.

 

3. For 1943 Soviet aircraft, and lend-lease aircraft in general, unless proved otherwise, pilot, wingmen and ground commanders can communicate freely among each other. In addition to communications outlined in point 2, wingmen can acknowledge orders, give out warnings, congratulations, call for help and assume the leader role should the leader be shot down. Flight leaders will acknowledge to be on station to the ground control, which in turns directs them on how to proceed and gives out situational updates. Control tower uses radios to communicate.

 

OBS: Radios were tuned to the specific frequency of the mission group, so there were no ambient communications happening since those clog up the frequency.

 

Now if you've noticed, half the functions are already there (flares, ground control, leader to wingman comms). If the developers could add some of the emotion and sense of urgency, specifically during combat situations, that communications had in the old Il-2 things would improve greatly. Calls for help, countdowns to target, pilots saying they're going down desperately, warnings on incoming bandit groups or enemies attacking the player or AI aircraft, that sort of stuff.

 

Add to that the historical nuances of it and it's all perfect - flying out to intercept bombers in complete silence has its own tension to it too!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scripted Campaign , good, we need more.

 

 

There is at least  seven scripted campaigns out there, on top of two payware ones, easily more than 100 missions. 

 

Edit: make it eight free and two payware campaigns  :cool: , we just got another one.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31233-sirens-death-iistg-2-over-stalingrad/

Edited by LsV_Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely, More focus needs to be paid to game polish. Even simple things matter but they have been dismissed out of hand by the Devs. I remember people asking for the multi-player chat that Enter for All chat and Cntrl Enter for Team chat be reversed. A perfectly reasonable request which would address the common screwup of giving info to the opposing team by accident and the response was that it was "too complicated." Another example was a request I made to have the default skin set to a winter skin on winter maps. Simple, yet this too was dismissed as "too complicated". Yet from a usability standpoint it saves players time when they spawn in on a winter map and don't have to futz around switching to a winter skin. It doesn't take much time, but if you forget to switch you have to spawn out , back in, and go through engine startup all over again. if you are flying in a group mission you basically delayed the whole group by 30 seconds ( or 2 hours in a P40 ).

 

The dev team has done some amazing technical feats with new planes, Flight modeling, Direct-X, Kuban map etc. However to completely discard these small "low hanging fruit" suggestions that improve gameplay means that the underlying glue that holds these element together is not as strong as it could be.

 

Maybe it's a cultural thing I don't know. Undoubtedly the Devs are world class programmers and sim designers. However, they need focus more on what could make the game enjoyable and that is something that we as customers know something about. I am afraid that their heavy day to day interaction with the program at the deepest technical levels means they can't step back and look at things simply objectively from an end-user point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this post by Jason.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31213-constant-negative-steam-reviews-are-driving-me-nuts/?p=510727

 

It's not a cultural thing. It's a money and time thing.

Switching Enter and Control Enter for multiplayer chat and making the default skin on winter maps a winter skin are not a time and money thing. The first can be done in two lines of code. The second is not much harder. His post referenced training materials and scenarios which is not the very low hanging fruit I referred to. Edited by NO_SQDeriku777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switching Enter and Control Enter for multiplayer chat and making the default skin on winter maps a winter skin are not a time and money thing. The first can be done in two lines of code. The second is not much harder. His post referenced training materials and scenarios which is not the very low hanging fruit I referred to

 

Just about everyone who plays this game has ideas that they feel are "low hanging fruit".  I have a bunch of them.  I'm also well aware that it's unlikely that any of them will make it into the game.  Time and money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about everyone who plays this game has ideas that they feel are "low hanging fruit". I have a bunch of them. I'm also well aware that it's unlikely that any of them will make it into the game. Time and money.

Fixing Control Enter versus Enter is so breathtakingly simple from a programming standpoint that I do feel that ithere was more than a "time and money" factor in the initial negative response to the suggestion which was made a very long time ago. It seems to me like it was dismissed because it did not merit the VERY minimal effort to implement because it wasn't "important." And I do think that this might be cultural. I don't see a Western game company dismissing an easily implemented suggestion like that.

Edited by NO_SQDeriku777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I don't see a Western game company dismissing an easily implemented suggestion like that..

 

I do.  In fact, I have.  Stuff like that gets rejected all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Feathered on the need to rework the chatter but it needs to be done right in historical details to prevent it from looking like a carnival. Hames' suggestion for example, was written with the best intentions but it doesn't match the historical accuracy the game strives for:

 

 

To anyone who is vaguely versed in it, Soviet pilots were a colourful, joking and often foul-mouthed bunch. That "watch out for the evil commissar" is Call of Duty drivel for kids. The pilots who actually did shout patriotic slogans on the radio were usually seen as ass-kissing clowns begging for promotions and medals. If to rework this it needs to be done right.

 

I may extend myself too much over this but let me try to get something together here.

 

1. For 1941 Soviet aircraft, unless proved otherwise, there should be no communications between aircraft or ground control. Almost no aircraft of the period had transmitter or receiver sets, and all signals need to be transmitted by rocking wings. In game this could keep the commands existent but they'd be transmitted silently and without subtitles. If AI is the one giving order, wing rock, good luck figuring out what it means. If player, command is given with a two second delay wherein the pilot can rock wings for immersion. Hand gestures are performed by both AI and player aircraft to specify. Control tower will communicate using flares.

 

2. For 1942 Soviet aircraft, unless proved otherwise, there should only be communications from the flight leader to the wingmen. Aircraft produced in the summer and autumn of 1942 either had transmitting sets or receiving sets, and these were distributed accordingly to leaders and wingmen. Flight leader transmits instructions to wingmen, subtitles are shown, wingmen comply but cannot reply. Flight leader should transmit warnings, congratulations and tactical instructions to wingmen. Once the flight leader is shot down, the radio goes silent. Control tower will communicate using flares.

 

3. For 1943 Soviet aircraft, and lend-lease aircraft in general, unless proved otherwise, pilot, wingmen and ground commanders can communicate freely among each other. In addition to communications outlined in point 2, wingmen can acknowledge orders, give out warnings, congratulations, call for help and assume the leader role should the leader be shot down. Flight leaders will acknowledge to be on station to the ground control, which in turns directs them on how to proceed and gives out situational updates. Control tower uses radios to communicate.

 

OBS: Radios were tuned to the specific frequency of the mission group, so there were no ambient communications happening since those clog up the frequency.

 

Now if you've noticed, half the functions are already there (flares, ground control, leader to wingman comms). If the developers could add some of the emotion and sense of urgency, specifically during combat situations, that communications had in the old Il-2 things would improve greatly. Calls for help, countdowns to target, pilots saying they're going down desperately, warnings on incoming bandit groups or enemies attacking the player or AI aircraft, that sort of stuff.

 

Add to that the historical nuances of it and it's all perfect - flying out to intercept bombers in complete silence has its own tension to it too!

About the Soviet pilots thing, I was joking. I know that obviously they are normal people who would probably do the same as their German counterparts. They would probably warn each other to look out for Germans, tell jokes(some about Commissionars, since they were mostly universally hated for their job, though some were well-liked). They might report battles along the frontline, or sigh when the bombers they are chasing drop their loads onto a Soviet supply dump or factory. Speaking of factories and supply dunps, they should always have a bunch of vehicles parked around them, all over them. Train stations should have trucks nearby, and stationary trains unloading on side tracks. Hospitals should have lots of ambulances parked around the complex. All of the above would be targets for bombers from both sides, and should appear as targets for bombers. About the flights though, while there will definately be 3-6 He 111s heading to bomb something friendly in an intercept mission, there shouls be a chance that we see the same sort of group doing the same mission even if we are flying an Il-2. There should be loads of battles all along the front, to allow our pilots to become tank busting aces and the like. Hopefully, the ground attack planes attack patterns are better, and they will be more efficient. Edited by hames123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for MP, what would make a world of difference, promoting MUCH more realistic behavior on players, would be a very simple feature:

 

 

a server option, that when enabled would make any victories in a sortie (spawn) count only if the pilot makes it back to friendly territory

 

 

 

 

this could be crudely done directly with kills... but ideally, score should be kept as a more abstract value

 

for now, only kill count is shown and to many, it is thus the only thing that matters. in consequence of this, a number of players exhibit a well known habit of treating their airplanes as disposable munitions, never bothering to return to base, as it is faster to bail out or crash-land, and rearming is not an option*

 

*having no means to rearm increases the sense that returning to base is a futile endeavour - the psychological experience of "unspawning" is no different from that of having been shot down and needing to respawn.  it makes the return trip feel absolutely pointless

 

 

while keeping tally of kills makes sense, many games (Battlefield, Red Orchestra, you name it...) have an additional count for "points" - these are awarded from kills, but also from other achievements, which are thuswise validated and therefore encouraged.

 

in our case, it would make perfect sense to have "points" and award them for achievements such as landing back at base, or safely ditching in an emergency, and all of the things that are currently neglected by the game, but should be considered victories in their own rights by any proper pilot

 

these points should be then subjected to the proposed system that would only grant them once a player has returned to base,   or safely crashlanded on friendly grounds (with 50% payout, same as the SP campaign has it)  

 

 

and these "good airmanship points" should be the default sorting method for the player list,  putting on top him who makes the best all-round pilot, not just him who racks up the largest death toll

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is really nothing new...  most multiplayer shooters have such a system in place, as to encourage actions besides running and gunning (healing buddies, capturing bases and whatnot)  -- this is the same thing, but with "making it back home" and "surviving", and all them things a pilot should be proud of

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixing Control Enter versus Enter is so breathtakingly simple from a programming standpoint that I do feel that ithere was more than a "time and money" factor in the initial negative response to the suggestion which was made a very long time ago.

 

By the way, this fruit is so "low hanging" that you can do it yourself.  Just go into your control settings and change it.  That is probably why they didn't make this change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for MP, what would make a world of difference, promoting MUCH more realistic behavior on players, would be a very simple feature:

 

 

a server option, that when enabled would make any victories in a sortie (spawn) count only if the pilot makes it back to friendly territory

 

 

 

 

this could be crudely done directly with kills... but ideally, score should be kept as a more abstract value

 

for now, only kill count is shown and to many, it is thus the only thing that matters. in consequence of this, a number of players exhibit a well known habit of treating their airplanes as disposable munitions, never bothering to return to base, as it is faster to bail out or crash-land, and rearming is not an option*

 

*having no means to rearm increases the sense that returning to base is a futile endeavour - the psychological experience of "unspawning" is no different from that of having been shot down and needing to respawn. it makes the return trip feel absolutely pointless

 

 

while keeping tally of kills makes sense, many games (Battlefield, Red Orchestra, you name it...) have an additional count for "points" - these are awarded from kills, but also from other achievements, which are thuswise validated and therefore encouraged.

 

in our case, it would make perfect sense to have "points" and award them for achievements such as landing back at base, or safely ditching in an emergency, and all of the things that are currently neglected by the game, but should be considered victories in their own rights by any proper pilot

 

these points should be then subjected to the proposed system that would only grant them once a player has returned to base, or safely crashlanded on friendly grounds (with 50% payout, same as the SP campaign has it)

 

 

and these "good airmanship points" should be the default sorting method for the player list, putting on top him who makes the best all-round pilot, not just him who racks up the largest death toll

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is really nothing new... most multiplayer shooters have such a system in place, as to encourage actions besides running and gunning (healing buddies, capturing bases and whatnot) -- this is the same thing, but with "making it back home" and "surviving", and all them things a pilot should be proud of

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SP needs meat added to the QMB. Most of all it needs airfields with some action going on, both enemy for attacking and friendly for player immersion.

 

The maps are outstanding, but the ghost town airfields leave the maps feeling empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, this fruit is so "low hanging" that you can do it yourself. Just go into your control settings and change it. That is probably why they didn't make this change.

I did not know that. Thank you for pointing that out. It's weird the Devs never mentioned it when the original request was made. Was that setting always there? BTW, switching the two key bindings in the game interface did not quite work. It made my Enter disappear as a valid input. I had to edit to config file by hand to fix it. No biggie, but maybe a pain for non-technical user.

Edited by NO_SQDeriku777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for MP, what would make a world of difference, promoting MUCH more realistic behavior on players, would be a very simple feature:

 

 

a server option, that when enabled would make any victories in a sortie (spawn) count only if the pilot makes it back to friendly territory

 

 

 

 

this could be crudely done directly with kills... but ideally, score should be kept as a more abstract value

 

for now, only kill count is shown and to many, it is thus the only thing that matters. in consequence of this, a number of players exhibit a well known habit of treating their airplanes as disposable munitions, never bothering to return to base, as it is faster to bail out or crash-land, and rearming is not an option*

 

*having no means to rearm increases the sense that returning to base is a futile endeavour - the psychological experience of "unspawning" is no different from that of having been shot down and needing to respawn. it makes the return trip feel absolutely pointless

 

 

while keeping tally of kills makes sense, many games (Battlefield, Red Orchestra, you name it...) have an additional count for "points" - these are awarded from kills, but also from other achievements, which are thuswise validated and therefore encouraged.

 

in our case, it would make perfect sense to have "points" and award them for achievements such as landing back at base, or safely ditching in an emergency, and all of the things that are currently neglected by the game, but should be considered victories in their own rights by any proper pilot

 

these points should be then subjected to the proposed system that would only grant them once a player has returned to base, or safely crashlanded on friendly grounds (with 50% payout, same as the SP campaign has it)

 

 

and these "good airmanship points" should be the default sorting method for the player list, putting on top him who makes the best all-round pilot, not just him who racks up the largest death toll

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is really nothing new... most multiplayer shooters have such a system in place, as to encourage actions besides running and gunning (healing buddies, capturing bases and whatnot) -- this is the same thing, but with "making it back home" and "surviving", and all them things a pilot should be proud of

Amen to that! It really breaks immersion to see these repeated stupid suicide attacks on airfields, not to mention the ramming and bailing.

 

Also, there really needs to be some sort of scoring modification that doesn't punish people putting in the heroic effort required to get a plane home when HEAVILY damaged and/or wounded. This is a flight sim, after all. If someone can land a smoking plane full of holes without a rudder or aileron while bleeding that is real display of skill that should be acknowledged by the game. Incentivize it by not awarding the kill to the opponent if you make it back even if you prang the prop or collapse the gear. Cause right now the only rational thing from a scoring standpoint is to just bail so you can save the time and re-spawn. Some vet simmers rise to the challenge anyway but it would be really good to incentivize new players to fly realistically.

Edited by NO_SQDeriku777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know that. Thank you for pointing that out. It's weird the Devs never mentioned it when the original request was made. 

 

Do you have a link to the dev response post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...