Server Preferences

[BFsbonehead]

Hi

I'm doing some forward planning for the Battle-fields.com servers. We are currently still running 3 IL2 servers and as many of you know they have been incredibly well supported and flown on for years.

 

However I am never one to think we cant do things better, so with that in mind what kind of settings do you guys think you would like on our servers when we eventually get the BoS sim released?

 

Obviously We wont know what options we have until we have the sim and the dedicated server software but do you have a wish list?

 

For me I would like to run 1 server for complete novices who are new to the flight sim genre or at least IL2. My thouhgts being I know it can sometimes be very confusing so maybe an out and out dogfight server with simple settings to ease pilots into the game before they might move on to something more realistic.

 

Cheers

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Been thinking about this too. I'm not sure exactly what Battle of Stalingrad will provide for us but my understanding is that Rise of Flight (and someone can correct me here) offers a multiplayer mode that is somewhere between an IL-2 coop style mission and a IL-2 moving dogfight server type of setup. Something in between. So the idea would be you would run somewhat shorter missions with definitive beginnings and ends, however, you could jump into the battle at any point and fly an aircraft available.

 

I'm not sure if that's all true exactly... but we could, if resources allowed, run two types of servers. One would be a fairly quick action (faster than BF1 is) type of straight up dogfight scenario using more relaxed settings (as you suggest Bone) and then a second server with perhaps more realistic settings and more objective style missions.

 

I'm also not sure if we'll have a long list of checkboxes like we get with IL-2 or if we'll have a smaller list of Normal and Realistic settings as it is in the Alpha. Realistic involves a manual start of the engine, warming up the engines to get the oil and radiator temperatures stabilized, and so forth before you even think of getting off the ground. I like the realism from the flight modelling and armament options point of view but I find things like the start up process on the engine less desirable.

 

Lots of speculation on my part. I'm really not sure how difficult mission building is, what our options are, what multiplayer structures are in place, etc.

 

Interested to know what the community thinks!

Edited March 16, 2014 by IceFire

[johncage]

i don't mind flight settings, just please enable padlock because i don't have trackir/occulus rift. thank you.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Reminds me... I need to try padlock out. Good idea.

[Little_Finger]

In my opinion a BF1 type should be in full real settings (without warm up only).

[Capt_Hook]

In my opinion a BF1 type should be in full real settings (without warm up only).

Yeah, since this isn't a 'study sim' like CloD, with magneto selections, fuel cock levers for main/reserve tanks, etc., I'd find the warm-up thing to be out of place. It wouldn't be a deal breaker, though, and it would even be relevant if the scenario involved one side or the other tasked to vulch the others airbase. Historically this sounded like a fairly common occurrence. In that situation the warm-up time would be an important tactical issue.

 

i don't mind flight settings, just please enable padlock because i don't have trackir/occulus rift. thank you.

In the IL2 world there are servers with very few locked options that allow WW view, padlock, etc., and servers locked to 'full real'. There's a bit of variation here and there... some Full Real servers allowed a few concessions like a live map or a very limited HUD (owing to the fact that the original IL2 engine didn't allow 6DoF and that some instruments in some pits were permanently obscured by things you couldn't look around.) But most generally followed those two patterns.

 

I'd be surprised if the same thing didn't happen here. You'll find a selection of servers that allow padlock, but they'll also probably have other aids enabled. For a more serious sim environment, I'd imagine padlock will be one of the first things to go. Kind of hard to get your immersion on when your F-4 has an APG-68 in the nose. ;-) Maneuvering to deny your opponent a look at your planes heading and position at crucial times is critical.

[Feathered_IV]

The main thing is that mission objectives and the rolling of a map be dependent on bombing and ground attack achievements. Time-limits-only make everything a player does irrelevant. Kill-scores-only do nothing to reflect the realities of the eastern front or promote good habits among players.

[Finkeren]

I think for a start, until people get used to spotting, it might be nice to have an almost full switch server with only warmed up engine, externals and padlock enabled.

 

As for missions, I agree with Feathered.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Finkeren

[II./JG27_Rich]

Full Real.

[HansHansen]

Please not "full real". As regular BF1 pilot i suggest you use about the same setting like in Il-2 1946 BF1 server, which is the most popular one (after all you want people flying on your servers don't you ). Normal difficulty should be quite sufficient for the beginning. Then gameplay should reveal possible weaknesses and difficulty can be adjusted accordingly.

[Bearcat]

At this point in my life even with TIR I need some kind of padlock.. so I will know which general direction to look in because my CSS gets worse and worse each year it seems.. I don't think I am alone..

[Panzerlang]

Full real.

[Capt_Hook]

Full Real.

I don't think BF servers run full real. I've never flown on them, so I assume they run with various aids on such as padlock or WW. Look over at warbirds of prey, as they'll almost certainly be running a full switch server.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

I think it is the missions and the server rules, not the settings specifically, that will make a good server.  Good objective missions which inspire teamwork.

 

IMHO I think vulching should not be allowed at all airbases.  There can be airfields with static planes used as objectives to provide this historical strike aspect.  There is no need however to encourage human players to pick off other human players on the ground.  It is a game and players should be able to get airborne and have a fighting chance if they want.  In some servers however they place airfields where vulching is allowed and spawning is optional with the knowledge you could be strafed there.  I think this is a good compromise and have even enjoyed taking the chance to get airborne at these from time to time.

 

As far as settings for the "full real" server, I would prefer the warm engine on, I think this represents having a plane prepped by the ground crew.  No issue with having padlock on, although I never use it.  Pretty much everything else off.

[BFsbonehead]

I think we should be able to run 3 servers again the same as we do now. As always it will depend on how busy they all get.

 

Im with you on teamwork. I think the whole working together thing creates a better atmosphere on the servers. It is why we run the Teamspeak server too. It all goes towards creating a more realistic feel.

 

It sounds like to keep everyone happy we would be looking at a nice easy server where you can jump in hit the throttle and launch off for some mainly dogfighting fun, then a full real server and then maybe (and this is always the difficult one to sort out) something in the middle.

 

I always prefered flying with icons on as I could never spot the bad guys otherwise!

 

I might run a poll on our forums to see how many people have track IR as it does make a difference to how the sims play. I never managed to get the hang of the hat switch.

[=LG/F=Kathon]

Full Real.

 

The fastest way to learn FR is to fly on FR servers.

[BFsSmurfy]

I don't think BF servers run full real. I've never flown on them, so I assume they run with various aids on such as padlock or WW. Look over at warbirds of prey, as they'll almost certainly be running a full switch server.

We did run one for at least 3 years and for about 6 months it was fully populated for about 3 of those. We used one of the mod packs and it proved really popular. BFs have always tried to promote mission based flying and teamwork and we certainly have enough servers and capacity to run different difficult levels when the time cometh.

[Feathered_IV]

I prefer full switch settings too. I don't mind if subtitles and pre heated engine are allowed though.

[Little_Finger]

Kill-scores-only do nothing to reflect the realities of the eastern front or promote good habits among players.

Agree and promote an unhealthy atmosphere among players.

 

 

It all goes towards creating a more realistic feel.

 

I always prefered flying with icons on as I could never spot the bad guys otherwise!

 

I might run a poll on our forums to see how many people have track IR as it does make a difference to how the sims play

This sim is becoming really amazing concerning imersion. Flying these planes are great. I never tought that i could have so much fun only trying to land these crates. Padlock and icons kill that realistic feel and the tactical aproach to the environment! Teamwork is about tactics.

About spotting i found it much easier than 1946 or even CLOD (except for those glass reflections). 

Right now almost everyone has or could have (or build) a motion track device if you cant master the hat switch (i cant).

[AbortedMan]

My biggest peeve with difficulty settings in sim servers I see today (across multiple games) is the ease of views and padlocking.

 

I understand people don't have any headtracking (though, there really isn't an excuse to not have it these days with the sub-$10 alternatives to TrackIR...FaceTrackNoIR, some LEDs and duct tape,. Also, a HAT switch is still a great alternative for looking around)...but the enabling of padlocking on a server pushes sneak attack/bounces and/or escapes/evasion into the realm of the impossible as it acts like a super effective and infallible radar system for anyone attentive enough to push the "padlock to enemy aircraft" button every 10 seconds. It greatly affects gameplay in the worst ways, imo.

 

I haven't seen a game properly implement a padlock system that relies on the user to actually consciously know an aircraft is approaching...having it limited to 1km or whatever isn't an acceptable alternative either.

[Phant0m]

I haven't seen a game properly implement a padlock system that relies on the user to actually consciously know an aircraft is approaching...having it limited to 1km or whatever isn't an acceptable alternative either.

 

The external padlock in il21946 was ridiculous but I don't think the internal one was too bad. It has been a while since I played/used it but IIRC you had to be looking in the correct direction, it had to be within 3km and if they were hidden behind the cockpit struts or dead 6oc (or even clouds I believe) for more than 3sec or so you would lose them.

 

I hope BOS gives servers the ability to pick and choose individual views that they would like to be allowed in the server - rather than the generic all or nothing.

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

Hi

I'm doing some forward planning for the Battle-fields.com servers. We are currently still running 3 IL2 servers and as many of you know they have been incredibly well supported and flown on for years.

 

However I am never one to think we cant do things better, so with that in mind what kind of settings do you guys think you would like on our servers when we eventually get the BoS sim released?

 

Obviously We wont know what options we have until we have the sim and the dedicated server software but do you have a wish list?

 

For me I would like to run 1 server for complete novices who are new to the flight sim genre or at least IL2. My thouhgts being I know it can sometimes be very confusing so maybe an out and out dogfight server with simple settings to ease pilots into the game before they might move on to something more realistic.

 

Cheers

I must agree with the concept of a multiplayer server which is dedicated to the novice pilot. If BoS is to be a financial success it must be important that it appeals to and attracts a wider audience, these fledgling pilots can then be introduced to the exciting world of the combat flight simulation.

 

You the combat flight fraternity are the great innovators and the input of some of the most experienced is invaluable, but sometime we can be a bit smug !  

 

A post sometime ago mentioned the word " Renaissance "  well if we are to experience the new birth of the combat flight simulation and a retention of the personal computer then it is accentual that we welcome and accommodate this new blood.

 

 

Long live Battle of Stalingrad and all who come after her.

 

Cheers.   JM.

[Potenz]

Full real, even no warmed up engines, and NO PADLOCK.

[Streiff]

Maby servers, they are here to help the developers for now,  should focus on getting people to fly and make sure everything works etc. Leave the FR vs noob settings for now, there is always time for that later down the road.

 

Something in between should do, cockpit on, limited icons and maby external views.

 

Imo of course.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Baron

[DD_fruitbat]

I like full switch. Not sure what full real is, does it mean you keep some petrol by your side, and if your engine catches fire, douse yourself and set yourself on fire, for that 'full real' feeling?

Edited March 18, 2014 by fruitbat

[Emgy]

^

 

For me I would like to run 1 server for complete novices who are new to the flight sim genre or at least IL2. My thouhgts being I know it can sometimes be very confusing so maybe an out and out dogfight server with simple settings to ease pilots into the game before they might move on to something more realistic.

 

Cheers

Good idea!

[SYN_Speck]

First I want to say Salute! to the BFs community, some of your regulars helped me get oriented to the online IL2 scene back when I first was getting into it, and I still appreciate that. I always enjoyed the missions on your servers, although I have not been active in IL2/46 for a couple years. I've been flying a lot of ROF since it came out, though.

 

IMHO regarding this topic, my advice would be to be very wary of thinking that "pilot aids" such as external views, padlock, etc, will help assist new pilots getting in to online flying. The problem is that they end up being of much greater assistance to those with some more experience, who are more interested in winning than actually enjoying a simulation, and who will soon figure out how to use them to "game the game."

 

In my experience, the big frustrations to the new online flyer are 1: it's too hard to find enemy aircraft, and 2: I get shot down before I even figure out what's going on. So it's tempting to enable padlock and external views - but the thing is, the guys who know how to use them well will just use them to find and kill the noobs that much more quickly.

 

As stated above, we don't know what options will be available when the time comes for us to set up servers. My advice would be to make the maps pretty small, so it's easy to navigate, and consider allowing aids like map icons for self, and close icons for others or maybe friendly icons only. But think very carefully about allowing any aids that could help experienced players find targets. Those servers seem to end up as fast-action furballs, which can be fun, but maybe not a great learning environment for new players.

 

Cheers

[Fodder]

I haven't used padlock in BoS but generally I'm against it - it plays right into the hands of the boom & zoomers.

[Panzerlang]

I haven't used padlock in BoS but generally I'm against it - it plays right into the hands of the boom & zoomers.

 

It's needed by those who cannot afford Track-IR. Better than hat-switch, not as good as TiR. I don't think it's a good idea to cripple people with the hat-switch.

[Zoring]

External views and no padlock is my preference, hate not being able to admire my plane as i fly around.

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

Because I don't use padlock, I never thought about using it as a "radar".  Its use should only be allowed if the distance can be controlled by the server admins, e.g., 1km.

[Potenz]

KILL THE PADLOCK!!! 

[DD_fruitbat]

Anyone remember the f5 aces of il2 1946?

[=LG/F=Kathon]

It's needed by those who cannot afford Track-IR.

They can use FreeTrack.

[Feathered_IV]

It's needed by those who cannot afford Track-IR. Better than hat-switch, not as good as TiR. I don't think it's a good idea to cripple people with the hat-switch.

Use the mouse in the left hand to look around. With practice it is superb.

[Nil]

But what if you have the throttle, controlling flaps, throttle and elevator trim, in your left hand?

Then you use the right hand! :D I used that way in IL2 before I bought a TIR4 (and now a TIR5) works better then you imagine! but doesn't beat the real thing.

[Bando]

Pffff, me neither.

I really hope the OC. rift announced today will come into some sort of production for end users anytime soon.

Would love to try the "next step".

TIR for the moment saves the day.

Even in youtube films from BOS I'm turning my head and get a bit annoyed when the view does not follow  :-)

[Feathered_IV]

But what if you have the throttle, controlling flaps, throttle and elevator trim, in your left hand?

Having the throttle mapped to the mousewheel works really well and allows more precise inputs than the slider. Especially for formation keeping.

If you get a mouse with a few extra buttons like the MX518 you can use the depress mousewheel for dropping bombs, forward side button for recentering trackir, forward and back buttons for trim etc and one left over for opening canopy. Works great.

[AbortedMan]

It's needed by those who cannot afford Track-IR. Better than hat-switch, not as good as TiR. I don't think it's a good idea to cripple people with the hat-switch.

Because I don't use padlock, I never thought about using it as a "radar".  Its use should only be allowed if the distance can be controlled by the server admins, e.g., 1km.

There's no reason those without headtracking should be able to magically detect an approaching, possibly bouncing, enemy from 1km at their high 6 just by occasionally pressing a button. That eliminates a huge aspect of what could be extremely fun gameplay.

 

If anything, padlock should be limited to 1km max range and only usable on a target that has already caused damage to you or that you've deliberately used head movement controls to put them in your viewing space for a significant amount of time or "locked on" via your own volition.

 

I'm all for accessibility to the masses, but not at the significant cost of eliminating an extremely important aspect of gameplay. Padlock at far ranges, or ranges that are beyond the "hey doofus, there's an enemy aircraft literally in your ass" range is overkill for a problem that can easily be solved in a multitude of ways (TrackIR, FaceTrackNoIR, joystick HAT, keyboard/numpad, mouse) with very little cost and effort from the user.

Edited March 20, 2014 by AbortedMan

[ShamrockOneFive]

I figure you should be able to padlock something you're looking at and can see fairly easily. It shouldn't snap around behind your shoulder but padlocking is a useful tool.

 

I don't have Track IR, I don't have anything fancy setup... its not likely to happen any time soon. So a combination of the hat switch on my stick and padlocking will have to do.