Developer Diary, Part XXIII

[BraveSirRobin]

(hi gav)

 

Actually ... did anyone think why the devs want to use a SP feature also for MP? It could very well mean something along these lines, tighter integration of SP campaign with MP campaigns/coops.

 

Yes, I did think about it, and I can't come up with a single good reason why you would force online-only players to fly in a SP campaign.

[gavagai]

If people refrained from making the same or similar point as has already been expressed it may be incorrectly interpreted that only one or two people shared that same opinion.

The more people expressing the same the better and clearer the message to the developers.

 

The very fact that people are posting the same concern over and over, simply ratifies the consensus that, amongst those of us that visit these forums, there is strong opposition to the idea that the developer revealed: this isn't something we have misinterpreted; the developer revealed the plan in enough detail to cause alarm amongst the onliners.

 

Exactly.  Thank you for putting it so clearly.

[StG2_Manfred]

If people refrained from making the same or similar point as has already been expressed it may be incorrectly interpreted that only one or two people shared that same opinion.

The more people expressing the same the better and clearer the message to the developers.

 

The very fact that people are posting the same concern over and over, simply ratifies the consensus that, amongst those of us that visit these forums, there is strong opposition to the idea that the developer revealed: this isn't something we have misinterpreted; the developer revealed the plan in enough detail to cause alarm amongst the onliners.

 

+1      You got it to the point!

[FlatSpinMan]

That is how you should express your opinion - be it for or against.

[Bearcat]

That's why I said that the Falcon 4 campaign system should be studied.  Have you ever tried a Falcon 4 campaign?  You can invite your friends to fly coop in the same campaign that you've been flying singleplayer.  I've never seen anything else that comes close.

 

 

So the F4 campaign system functions sort of like the MDS does... in a way? That sounds very good. I think we will be surprised ... I know everyone won't be totally happy.. but I just hope that both offliners and onliners can find a lot to cheer about in BoS and I do hope that the system for skins is less ... cumbersome than in RoF.. All this talk of people with neon skins etc that I sometimes here when the issue of skins comes up is IMO a minor potential for cheating when compared to the community building potential that being able to easily use personal skins offers..

[csThor]

I, personally, can't really understand the drooling over the Falcon 4 campaign. Yes, the basic engine was and still is the best dynamic campaign engine ever produced but to me the campaign experience was sterile, technocratic and devoid of any soul. The user interface was IMO totally bland and was pretty much limited to the conflict running and the user could cherry-pick missions he wanted to fly. This ain't a campaign system in my book - to me a campaign is about the experiences of a single pilot within a unit and, at least in the case of historical sims, all of that embedded into the historical facts and developments. Falcon 4, with all of its sophistication in the campaign module, never managed to capture my attention as the very simple but immersive campaign of Red Baron II did. That wasn't particularly dynamic but it created a believable environment and immersion for me to really enjoy the campaign missions (and the stuff in between).

Edited July 10, 2013 by csThor

[I/JG27_Zimmi]

 I'm kinda sceptical about the announcement of "un-lockable rewards". Certainly this kind of gameplay has become popular within the last years but in my eyes you have to very carefully think about the environment in which you implement it.

I???

[falstaff]

Extreme_One said:

 

The developer needs to know the opinion of his customer-base.

 

Yes, and it would be a mistake IMO to assume that it is represented adequately here.

 

I think the percentage of people on forums such as this, who favour online-multiplayer, is disproportinately high, and does not represent the wider reality. You have many people in long-standing squads, with cutting edge equipment, and a high understanding of the internet, and good connections. They also have a high forum profile, and tend to formation-fly over a given cause.

 

The online-flyers are *part* of the customer base. How much...is open to question. Personally I think it is far smaller than those online flyers believe.

Of course, it is not the best public-relations move for developers to say this, for a whole variety of reasons.

 

With the single-player off-line folks...there is a more varied idea of what makes a good game, and so we tend to be less vocal...because there isn;t such a concensus borne out of collective experience. Or if there is, it is harder to arrive at....

[StG2_Manfred]

Extreme_One said:

 

 

Yes, and it would be a mistake IMO to assume that it is represented adequately here.

 

I think the percentage of people on forums such as this, who favour online-multiplayer, is disproportinately high, and does not represent the wider reality. You have many people in long-standing squads, with cutting edge equipment, and a high understanding of the internet, and good connections. They also have a high forum profile, and tend to formation-fly over a given cause.

 

The online-flyers are *part* of the customer base. How much...is open to question. Personally I think it is far smaller than those online flyers believe.

Of course, it is not the best public-relations move for developers to say this, for a whole variety of reasons.

 

With the single-player off-line folks...there is a more varied idea of what makes a good game, and so we tend to be less vocal...because there isn;t such a concensus borne out of collective experience. Or if there is, it is harder to arrive at....

 

I agree with passage 1 and 2, not really with 3.

 

But I guess the potential of multiplayer fans to keep a good (single and multiplayer) simulator alive and in people's mindis significant higher. Furthermore in terms of business it's probably best to satisfy all of them and become a simulator legend...

[Rama]

I don't see any reason to oppose SP and MP crowds here. I see nobody advocating to remove the unlockable mods feature for the SP career. Adding more features, gameplay and attention to the SP mode will benefit to everybody at the end.

AND, advocating to have MP players not obliged to play SP and so not bound by the SP unlockable mods isn't detrimental to the SP experience.

 

So please, don't oppose MP and SP when there's absolutely no reason to do so. The "MP vs SP" debate is completely out of topic here.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Rama

[FlatSpinMan]

Exactly exactly.

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

I don't see any reason to oppose SP and MP crowds here. I see nobody advocating to remove the unlockable mods feature for the SP career. Adding more features, gameplay and attention to the SP mode will benefit to everybody at the end.

AND, advocating to have MP players not obliged to play SP and so not bound by the SP unlockable mods isn't detrimental to the SP experience.

 

So please, don't oppose MP and SP when there's absolutely no reason to do so. The "MP vs SP" debate is completely out of topic here.

 

Exactly exactly exactly. That concludes the thread!   

[FlatSpinMan]

Wait! Where did

the first 'exactly' go? This thread is lost without it.

[theOden]

I have it in my basement.

YOU'LL NEVER FIND US!

[FlatSpinMan]

Lol

[I/JG27_Rollo]

I bet it's the last crypt on the left under the Storkyrkan.

The nearest moderator has been informed and will momentarily be coming for you!

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Did Zak just say "soon you will get to touch it?"

 

Beta testing coming soon?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mastiff

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Did Zak just say "soon you will get to touch it?"

 

Beta testing coming soon?

"ZAK"

 

"Sir, it won't take long until you'll be offered an opportunity to try it out. I know it's best to evaluate something when you can actually touch it, so I perfectly understand a bit of scepticism you or any other experienced virtual pilot may have."

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

It's how the developer handles the feedback that's important.

 

Wise words.

[Heywooood]

exactly

[theOden]

and they handle the feedback correctly if they do as we the vocal part says?

[DD_bongodriver]

and they handle the feedback correctly if they do as we the vocal part says?

 

is feedback handled correctly if they do nothing?

 

Just because the vocal part are a minority it does not mean the views given are not representative of the entire user base, it simply means the majority of the user base don't use forums........so let's just get rid of forums.

[von_Tom]

is feedback handled correctly if they do nothing?

 

Just because the vocal part are a minority it does not mean the views given are not representative of the entire user base, it simply means the majority of the user base don't use forums........so let's just get rid of forums.

 

Not really (though i'm only making idle conversation out of a sense of ennui and lack of coffee this morning). 

 

It does appear that the vocal part are a minority in a literal sense - there are only a few posters compared to the numbers of registered users *assumption*.  The vocal part is simply the vocal part.  It is not possible to extrapolate any real data purely from the numbers of those that are vocal compared with those that are not.  There may be a huge non-vocal population that are non-vocal because their views are already expressed, they have no specific view, they wish to avoid commenting or they simply do not want to post anything.  The majority of the user base may in fact use forums but passively i.e. reading posts but not interacting with other members via messages, posts or PMs.

 

It may be that the vocal part do reflect the majority view of the entire user base but there is no way of telling if this is correct.  If it does then this may reflect that some of the entire user base are critical of some ideas whereas others (a lesser part) are not. The part of the vocal part that is criticial of the developer's proposals (and this may be the majority of the minority vocal part of the entire user base) may be incorrect in their view given that full information is not available yet (hence the "wait and see" view expressed by the minority part of the vocal (minority) part of the entire user base).

 

It is also possible that the silent majority of the entire user base does in fact reflect the true majority position, which is that a lack of posts from a majority of the entire user base suggests that the views of those not happy with the suggestions (the majority of the minority vocal part) only reflect a very minority view as the proposals are not important enough to stress about or they want to wait and see before making their mind up.  This is a dangerous assumption though as the majority of forum posts appear to be created by a vocal minority and it cannot be established what the vast silent majority of the entire user base thinks because they do not engage in forum discussions.

 

I've actually succeeded in boring myself, so I won't continue with this....

 

 

Anyways....  feedback is handled correctly if it is assessed and factored into the overall strategy and tactics of the planned development.  This does not mean that feedback can alter decisions as any final decision may be limited by other constraints such as development time, game engine limits, need for revenue streams or other financial consideratons etc etc.  In other words, good feedback that is handled correctly is unlikely to result in everyone being happy.

 

Hugs to all

 

Hood

 

 

Edit:  I got so bored I didn't even bother checking my sentence structure or whatever.  Feel free to critique it .

 

Edit 2:  I'm off to Duxford - neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww tak-a-tak-a-tak-a-tak-a-tak

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hood

[theOden]

Haha nice going Hood to bore yourself

I just couldn't put in the effort to type all that so, thank you.

 

In reality I think the only way to verify if one did the correct as a developer/publisher is by sales.

1C/Maddox combo knows today that they did way wrong, with or without banjo's.

[FlatSpinMan]

Enjoy the show, Hood. Pay close attention to engine sounds and LODs.

[DD_Arthur]

Not really (though i'm only making idle conversation out of a sense of ennui and lack of coffee this morning). 

 

Hugs to all

 

Hood

 

 

Edit:  I got so bored I didn't even bother checking my sentence structure or whatever.  Feel free to critique it .

 

Edit 2:  I'm off to Duxford - neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww tak-a-tak-a-tak-a-tak-a-tak

 

 

Lol, Hood.  Thank you for an absorbing five minutes whilst I await departure time for Duxford.  Apparently Ilya Shevchenko (aka Luthier) will be attending this year in order to hand out refunds to the faithful!

[von_Tom]

Apparently Ilya Shevchenko (aka Luthier) will be attending this year in order to hand out refunds to the faithful!

 

 

And maybe to discuss the DCS collaboration.

 

I'm still bored though.  Come on Loft get today's update up!

 

Just joking. 

 

Hood

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hood

[Sokol1]

arthursmedley, on 05 Jul 2013 - 15:37, said:

 

"Tell the story"? So this is a flight sim by Dorling-Kindersley?  Can some one give me a historical example of how pilots were "rewarded" with an "upgrade"  or even a monetary reward, lol.?

 

 

 

Normandie Niemen pilots was rewarded with money for air victorys, so was AVG pilots in China. That's 2 from the top of my head.

More skilled pilots had more say in how their aircraft was equipped in at least Luftwaffe judging from memoirs.

 

 

I am reading the book  "Over Fields of Fire: Flying the Sturmovik in Action on the Eastern Front 1942-45"  about the il-2 pilot Egoruska Anna Alexandrovna, he talk about "(unpaid) bonuses for combat sorties successfully carried out from de Air Force."

 

Sokol1

 

 

 

ORDER ON THE ORDER OF AWARDS Number 0299 ???

[FlatSpinMan]

Interesting post, Sokol.

[IbisWTE_Ibis]

If people refrained from making the same or similar point as has already been expressed it may be incorrectly interpreted that only one or two people shared that same opinion.

The more people expressing the same the better and clearer the message to the developers.

 

The very fact that people are posting the same concern over and over, simply ratifies the consensus that, amongst those of us that visit these forums, there is strong opposition to the idea that the developer revealed: this isn't something we have misinterpreted; the developer revealed the plan in enough detail to cause alarm amongst the onliners.

 

Getting this kind of feedback is good and must not be discouraged.  The developer needs to know the opinion of his customer-base.

Even if it initially sounds like the kind of feedback he really doesn't want to hear!

 

It's how the developer handles the feedback that's important.

 

He needs to know so that he can either change his idea or change the way he delivers the message.

 

I'm an offline flyer and I was instantly dismayed at what I read, because I knew that for those that fly online only, this idea would be unacceptable, even though I do imagine enjoying the feature myself.

 

 Agree 100%

[LukeFF]

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER ON THE ORDER OF AWARDS Number 0299 ???

[leitmotiv]

This unlocking/earning is not as bad as it may seem at first in my opinion, i have no problems playing SP to unlock a airplane if its good campaign (if i like the how airplanes are made in game ill enjoy playing with most of them even in SP to unlock more if todays game market demands it, small compromise from my side i guess), and like some of you if this has to be in game i would like to see it work in MP

 

I remember playing AirDominationWar (ADW) before on old il2 (dont know if its still running). 

 

This to me looked like offline single player campaigne in il2, where you select branch of airplane 109s FWs, Yaks and so on to play from start of war till the end (east front war), 1941 to 1945 same maps like in offline campaigns just for multiplayer. 

 

So when you register and selected side you started with baisic airplane (109E4 or so) and you had to collect some amount of points/kills/tanks and so on to get (unlock/earn) your main airplane (109F or so) and if you lost all of them you had to play agin with basic airplanes to get your main airplane back. This was also some kined of unlock/earn system in multiplayer server and it had loot of players not just from russian comunity although server was russian.

And players actions on maps moved the front and won/switch  the maps and war continued untill Berlin. 

 

Dont know how the guys made this but was fun to see this offline old il2 concept work online and with some kined of earn and unlock thing going on, some times if your squadron was good it had ability to earn bonus airplanes, this looked so cool, like they are elit and new airplanes were sent to them first before rest can have it on next map

Edited July 29, 2013 by Yaklover