Jump to content

A Wise Man, Once Said, "Quantity has a Quality all its own". And I think it's time we began to look into that


Jamisco

Sacrifice Quality for Quantity? How far(or not) are you willing to go?  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you Sacrifice Quality for Quantity?

    • Sacrifice A lot of Quality for Quantity
      1
    • Sacrifice A moderate amount of Quality for Quantity
      7
    • I think it is something to look at, but I have my reservations
      9
    • Sacrifice A bit of Quality for Quantity
      11
    • Leave things as they are
      81
  2. 2. On a Scale of (0 - 100), 0 being the worst possible quality, and 90 being the quality of current aircrafts in the game, 100 being the best possible quality the game could offer. Which Quality Range would you like to have implemented in the game

    • 90+
      82
    • (80 - 90)
      23
    • (60 - 80)
      4
    • (40 - 60)
      0
    • (20 - 40) -- Jesus Christ, dont choose this
      0
    • (0 - 20) -- Just play War Thunder
      0


Recommended Posts

Gentlemen, As we all know, IL 2 stands as the token for one of the greatest WW2 Flight(now Tank) simulators out there. It is the hallmark of Realistic WW2 Air(and Ground) combat. With a great assortment of planes(and now Tanks), The game is truly a masterpiece of art. But as a moderately new player to the game(6 months and counting), I raise the question.

 

All this Quality, But At what Cost?

 

First off, it's important that I state that when I use the word "Quality", I'm referring to the time of content creation and the Attention to detail the developers give to each and every Aircraft and tank they add into the game. Make no mistake, I'm not complaining but I believe there are a lot of things us as players would like to see added/changed in the game, for example I think Aircraft explosions when planes crash into the ground could look a bit better that the devs dont have enough time to address because of their dedication to quality. You see, the Point I am trying to make is, I believe the developers efforts could be adjusted in a much better manner. 

 

For example, Let's take the much Anticipated Battle of Normandy. It has been over a year since it's announcement.

It has the following Aircrafts

Spitfire Mk.XIV				Ar 234
P-51B/C					Bf 109 G-6 “Late”
P-47D “Razorback”			Fw 190 A-6
Typhoon Mk.Ib				Ju 88 C-6a
Mosquito F.B. Mk.VI			Me 410

 

Now we have 10 aircraft in total. But of these, only 4 Unique/New Aircraft being added to the game. Now, for the newer aircraft, I'm 100% for getting every detail right and trying to maximize their quality and flight characteristic as much as possible,  and I understand such things take time and for that, I am willing to wait and pay because on the basic level that is what the game is all about.

 

But for other aircrafts? I mean let's be realistic, There isn't much difference from say the A-5 to the A-6, or from the A-8 to the A-9. And this is what Im hoping we can have a discussion about and hopefully change.

I feel as though for every plane model, the devs start a WHOLE NEW RESEARCH project in order to get every single detail right. Like I appreciate the effort and all, but damn. This is not the way.

 

For example, lets assume the difference between the A-5 and A-6 is, engine performance, A-6 is heavier, carries more ammo,  has more guns and maybe it's speed indicator and altitude indicator positions are switched in the cockpit. Simply re-program in those values(granted you have to account for other things), update some visuals here and there, sell the new model as a collector plane and call it a day. The change in performance might be small, but since it's a collector plane, no one is forcing you to buy it and only those who really want it have to get it, and it is not as though a player would be necessarily be gaining an advantage over other players for buying said plane. 

 

And this is the point I'm trying to make, The devs dont have to go out all on every single plane(especially with models that have little changes from their predecessors or successors). I think over time they can change or update said models if new information arises or they intentionally left something out. 

 

I feel like this way, The devs, can pump out more content albeit, perhaps a slight but very tolerable reduction in quality/accuracy. 

 

A problem one might bring up is well, who is gonna buy these planes, or how should these planes be sold. You dont want to have to force players to buy these planes. Well it's quite simple. 

 

Let's use the Fw 190 as an example.

Thus far, the Fw 190 has three models in the game The Fw 190 A-3, Fw 190 A-5, Fw 190 A-8. Historically speaking and even performance wise, these models signify the development phase on the plane, the A-3 is in a sense the beginner, the A-5 the intermediate and the A-8 the advanced phase of the Fw 190 Anton series.

 

Now assume, for whatever reason, there is a huge demand in say the A-4, A-6, A-9 models. Well I believe the Devs can simply make said changes respectively, put them in their own Collectors DLC, called the Fw 190 Collectors Planes, charge an amount they believe is fair, and for all FW 190 enthusiast out there, who would like to fly these models, it is up to them to buy them. And since the Models arent really offering an "advantage" per se, players dont feel as though they need these DLC to excel.

 

This process/method can be used for every single plane in this game. 

  • DLC's are not cluttered with planes people dont want to buy/fly
  • Enthusiasts are free to buy additional planes at their will and expense with absolutely no negative drawbacks to others
  • The Devs can better focus on a single plane at a time, stream lining content addition
  • And since the game has more content, it attracts more players and more players makes then game better
  • The devs can also begin to think about adding newer/more unique planes (cough cough **The Pacific** cough cough**)
  • Lastly, it makes the game more fun and exciting, your not flying the same planes over and over. You have more options to attack and to defend, you can kill people in much cooler methods

 

Anyways, that is my take on the matter. As always, I am open to all criticism, and if there are problems or ideas you think I glanced over, I'm happy to hear them out .

Additionally, in no way, do I mean what I say in a mean/rude and tried to be as objective and respectful as possible, so If I said something mean, I apologize that was not my intention

 

Edited by Jamisco
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_motoadve

I rather have less content (Planes) but  even more detailed (hydraulic damage, fuel management etc.) and realistic G forces FM and DM, (which are great now)  than a ton of airplanes not detailed and simplified , there is War Thunder for that, please DO NOT go that route.

I would not play this sim if it goes the simplified route.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question would be more interesting if it talked about the type of quality... for instance - whether it would be acceptable to make educated guesses to fill in the gaps from a missing cockpit photo? That is very different from accepting lower quality flight models...

 

I do like the idea of them making collector planes which are cheaper to develop and selling them at the same price (e.g. rare field mods)... and then using that to fund more map details or an AI aircraft (for instance).

 

55 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

Take this elsewhere please. 

 

Jason

 

Where?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Enceladus

I also think it depends on how many people the team has as well. 

Jason stated a while back that if the same number of people who bought IL-2 Sturmovik (2001) bought BoS, then 1CGS would have given the community everything that they wanted. If that was the case then they could have hired more developers, but since that wasn't the case and that Combat flight sims have nowadays become a niche, they can't afford to hire more developers and train them. Perhaps they could, but if there is no large increase in sales, then they have to increase the sale price, which no one really wants.

 

Overall, I like what 1CGS has given us. We may not be getting as much content that one would get in a game such as Desert Wings-Tobruk, but at least we're getting these planes, instead of not getting them at all.

With Normandy and Bodenplatte, there are many planes that many people would be familiar with such as the P-51, P-47, P-38, Spitfire, Me-262, Mosquito, Tempest, Typhoon, Arado 234, V-1s, C-47, and B-26.

I am really looking forward to the Me-410 as a flyable aircraft because I don't know any other game that has a Me-410, even as AI. 

As well, in what other game other than CFS3 has a B-26?

 

In other installments, it has just been 10 planes, in Bodenplatte it was 11 planes (10 flyable, 1 AI), in Normandy we're getting 13 planes (10 flyable, 3 AI), so perhaps just be glad that we're getting 3 more planes for an extra $10 here.

 

Cheers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG51_Beazil
2 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Take this elsewhere please. 

 

Jason

Lol!  

Omg!

 

"Dear Diary, today I went to a developer's site to let them know how I would do things if I was in charge..."

 

Looks like that went well.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
DD_Arthur
Just now, JG51_Beazil said:

Lol!  

Omg!

 

"Dear Diary, today I went to a developer's site to let them know how I would do things if I was in charge..."

 

Looks like that went well.

Yeah, this is essentially another “why don’t they do what I want them to do?” thread.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest

'I have neither the experience that the developers have, nor the information they have access to. So I'm going to tell them how they are doing it all wrong'.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG51_Beazil

It was well written, and I assume it was well thought out... Except for the part about how it may be received.

 

Lesson learned, I'm sure.  

I do like how the poll shows (at this point) that folks support the current development track as is, even when provided some choices.  That is noteworthy.  :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to see what uncompromising quality looks like go play DCS and realize what a mess it is. The only way that game can make new content is by having 3rd party developers do it and now that game has no viable path forward because every patch breaks something with something with the third party developers.

 

Things are fine now, we just need better multiplayer things to grow the community.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
=FEW=fernando11

I belive this was written  with good intentions, and being thoughtful.

That being said, to the OP, I would advise you to first read through all the DDs, anouncments and most of all the comments Made by Jason and the Developers throuout all this years, all your concerns have been adresed or hinted at one point or another un all  this years.

To me it is very clear they must have tough and probably still do think about this things, and are doing what they think it's best for their proyect and to realize their vision.

And even then, they have been open to change, IF the arguments in favor of change are well made and solid.

I have nothing but respect and faith on this team of developers, even if I dont agree on every single desicion, every single time. The results speak for themselves.

Edited by =FEW=fernando11
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
INVADER_WARHAWK

I am against sacrificing quality for quantity in this occation, but I think that for ai controlled planes, it can be done to improve preformance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ruby_monkey

The poll suggests that we're players with a taste for quality.

 

Quote

 The devs, can pump out more content 

This mentality is what often kills a project.

Edited by ruby_monkey
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the current approach, with one exception: the big-ass bombers. I would be happy if we can have some roughly modelled B17s and such. That would at least give us some scenarios where it makes sense to dogfight really high up. Now I keep reading about how this and that fighter has an advantage at higher altitudes and that a lot of real combat was up there. But in IL2 fights always end up ground level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DD_Perfesser
Quote

A Wise Man, Once Said, "Quantity has a Quality all its own".

 

Actually it was Joseph Stalin ... he also said

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
“When there's a person, there's a problem. When there's no person, there's no problem.
“Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.”
 
Not my kind of wise man.
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understood correctly, by quantity we are talking about having more planes, then I think the devs should stay with quality for the Il-2 Series. In first place, I like to feel that each plane is different. I'm also a begginer in this and I tried to play chronologically with the B. of Moscu and that was enough for me to notice difference with other games. Learn to correctly pilot the I-16 was a challenge for me, because I'm used to more "arcade" sims. And then, the jump from the I-16 to the MiG-3 was huge, I found they were completely different aircraft and I was still struggling just to make a proper landing with the MiG-3 when I jumped to the P-40 and again, a shocking difference, a completely different way to manage the engine but easier to fly on other aspects.

 

Now, comparasions have to be done. With WT, I felt planes similar, just faster, better armed and better turns but basically the same and they have more planes for one nation than Il-2 for the whole game, but that's ok for me, but I think it will take me months and months of flying to master them all, if I had 40, I would never fly several of them ever. (That happened me with Il-2-1946). Other comparasion are the ED planes, they are also great and cool, but to buy one of their latest planes (and several of the old ones) I would have to pay what I have payed for 3 modules of Great Battles and still have spare change to buy Elite Dangerous on sale.

 

This takes me to the second point. As the flight sim is niche, commercial decisions have to be made, do you cater to that niche or do you try to spread out? I think that compared to the other examples that I mentioned, Il-2 stands in the middle ground and that's fine for me but I don't know if it is for the devs.

 

Now, if by quality with talk about more maps (I would love to make a Moscu to Berlin career), more AI planes (I would love to shoot down gliders) and more mission types (the U-2 worked as an ambulance sometimes, wasn't?) then I would totally go for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DD_Perfesser said:

 

Actually it was Joseph Stalin ... he also said

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
“When there's a person, there's a problem. When there's no person, there's no problem.
“Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.”
 
Not my kind of wise man.

 

Well, he is not a wrong

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DD_Perfesser said:

 

Actually it was Joseph Stalin ... he also said

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
“When there's a person, there's a problem. When there's no person, there's no problem.
“Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem.”
 
Not my kind of wise man.

 

Ah... but do any of these quotes actually go back to Stalin?

 

The original quote about quality and quantity is often attributed to Napoleon (also not my kind of wise man)... or the defence contractor Thomas A. Callaghan Jr. in the ~1979? That said - it is such an obvious statement that I'm not sure Thomas A. Callaghan Jr. deserves credit. I would doubt attributing it to Stalin without any written evidence - and it fits too well with the 'Red horde' myth.

 

I'd actually be surprised if more than one of those quotes actually originated with Stalin...

 

P.S. Smooth-bores were legal in the Soviet Union for civilians, just not rifles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest

Stalin very rarely said anything worth repeating. In fact it was unwise to do so, in case he'd said something contradictory since. 

 

As George Washington so helpfully pointed out in the Gettysburg Address:

Quote

Most quotes you see on the internet were actually made by someone else.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cybermat47

 

On 12/9/2020 at 8:58 AM, Jamisco said:

DLC's are not cluttered with planes people dont want to buy/fly

 

I've seen this point come up a fair bit, but what people need to remember is that every "DLC" can be bought as a standalone game. So someone who only has BoN still needs to have a Bf-109 and Fw-190 for an experience that properly represents the air war over Normandy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bremspropeller
On 12/8/2020 at 10:58 PM, Jamisco said:

There isn't much difference from say the A-5 to the A-6

 

...other than the new, significantly improved wing...

 

On 12/8/2020 at 10:58 PM, Jamisco said:

or from the A-8 to the A-9.

 

...other than the different, more powerful motor...

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_FeuerFliegen
On 12/8/2020 at 4:58 PM, Jamisco said:

But for other aircrafts? I mean let's be realistic, There isn't much difference from say the A-5 to the A-6, or from the A-8 to the A-9. And this is what Im hoping we can have a discussion about and hopefully change.

I feel as though for every plane model, the devs start a WHOLE NEW RESEARCH project in order to get every single detail right. Like I appreciate the effort and all, but damn. This is not the way.

 

Are you saying that with the Fw190 A-6, the Devs are going to start a whole new research project, and not use any information they have on the Fw190A3/A5/A8?  Because they definitely don't.  Are you saying that when they created the Bf109 F-2, they started completely over from scratch and didn't re-use any of the Bf109 F-4 info they had?

 

In my opinion, at least from what I can see, by giving us planes that take relatively little work compared to a brand new one, it gives them more time to work on planes that take 4x as long, such as Mosquito, Me410, etc.

 

I do agree that I would prefer some of these would be collector planes; like I would love for them to be able to do a relatively small amount of work and convert the A-20B in the sim to the A-20G, so we could get the benefits of that plane.  There would be no drop in quality; simply maximizing and combining work so that we could get more planes than if every one were built from scratch.  That being said, the only way I thought they'd pull off the Bf109 G-6 'Late' was if they included brand new modifications never seen before in a 109 in this sim, such as GM-1 nitrous, Mk108 gondolas, etc.  In this case, the only thing new that was developed, was skins.  I'm hoping for the same thing with the Fw190 A-6, such as new options like Mk103 gunpods, but after seeing the Bf109 G-6 'Late', my expectations have been lowered.

 

Aside from what I just said, I really do love how it was done with BoS and BoM, as nearly every plane was brand new... I think 16 out of the 20 planes in those first two packages are completely original and don't share any parts from other planes; in BoK it was 5/10 were original, BoBP it was 6/10, and now BoN is 4/10 original planes. it makes it feel like BoN isn't as good of a value; but I can't say that with any certainty because they might be putting equal amount of effort into the entire package, and simply not as much effort on half of the planes as much of the work has already been done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way.

 

The devs are giving us what they can with the resources they have under the design and concept that they wished to deliver. Suggesting them to change direction or that they accept lower quality products is kinda insulting...

 

 

This speed of delivery can likely expanded based on sales, if sales are good they can obviously do more. If sales are so so, then they work with that they have. 

 

 

So the real question is, from my perspective is..

 

What can we do to help them sell more games? 

 

With FS2020 out, it may have reignited our hobby in a big way. I'm not sure if you've tried to buy a joystick lately but good luck. They're sold out everywhere! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DenumPenguin
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_FeuerFliegen
14 hours ago, DenumPenguin said:

With FS2020 out, it may have reignited our hobby in a big way.

 

That's exactly what I'm hoping as well.  Nice to know that joysticks are sold out everywhere!  Imagine if the market for joysticks was as big as the market for PC racing wheels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@210880

In before the lock!

 

No option for decreasing quantity for improved quality (of systems and gameplay). Which would be my preference.

Edited by deleted@210880
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_motoadve
2 minutes ago, John_Yossarian said:

In before the lock!

 

No option for decreasing quantity for improved quality (of systems and gameplay). Which would be my preference.

Agreed, that would be my preference also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gambit21
On 12/8/2020 at 4:39 PM, JG51_Beazil said:

It was well written, and I assume it was well thought out...

 

Was it though? 🤔

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_FeuerFliegen

Maybe this is too much of a different option to be in this thread, but I also would like to know how many of us would be willing to pay double to increase the quality substantially but without any loss of quantity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way quantity should become a thing with this generation of IL-2 is with AI bombers. If the gunner AI is changed so that bombers are feasible, large bombers should be added as AI planes. The current quality of the flyable aircraft should stay the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Dogbert1953

There is far more drivel on the forum than this poll.

 

So no idea why it was necessary for the OP to be told, to take it elsewhere.

 

Not really in the true spirit, of the meaning of forum.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kramer

The reason i would't sacrifice even a bit of quality for quantity is simple: The only thing which makes me excited about every single new contetn in IL-2 is it's quality. 

 

Whatever they would add for WT, even Space Shuttle, will not make me excited at all because of how generic and low quality it will be. I simply love to discover flight characteristics, quirks, VR cockpit, limitations, systems of any new plane in IL-2 serie but ONLY because of IL-2's high quality and the amount of work they put in every single plane (or tank). If quality would be secrified, even for some ungodly amount of content, i woudn't care.

Edited by kramer
  • Upvote 1
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...