Suggested upgrades, updates and improvements

[Jackfraser24]

There should be a full mission builder, like there was in IL-2 1946 since It encourages imagination. Then you will be able to create conditions that are as realistic or as ridiculous as you want, save it, or submit it as a multiplayer server.

[Asgar]

?

[Zooropa_Fly]

I think there is ! 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

There should be a full mission builder, like there was in IL-2 1946 since It encourages imagination. Then you will be able to create conditions that are as realistic or as ridiculous as you want, save it, or submit it as a multiplayer server.

I wonder what this "Mission Editor" from the Mission Making and Mission Editor forum could be??

 

 

EDIT: All joking aside, there has been a mission editor for ages. While it's not inside the game like in 1946 but inside a separate .exe file, it's also *much* more powerful. If you want to learn more about it, you can read some of the threads in the above forum. Especially JimTM's Mission Editor Manual is a real treasure trove. If you want to play some user-made missions instead, check out the Scripted Campaigns forum. I can especially recommend the free Hürtgenwald campaign by yours truly ?

Edited August 13, 2022 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Jackfraser24]

Question.

 

How likely is it that there will be a major overhaul to the existing command menu? I wonder because the command menu really needs to be improved massively. 
 

For starters there should be a command that calls a wingman or a fellow squad member that will come to your aid if an enemy plane is on your six. 
 

Ground control is a must. There doesn’t seem to be anyway to contact ground control at an airfield that gives you takeoff of landing clearance. However, if this is done and you are attacking an enemy airfield the control tower will be a valuable target to destroy or protect if you are defending your air field from enemy planes. 

 

If you are a squadron leader then you should have more command options available instead of just the seven. You should be able to give them more specific commands like 

• Attack fighters 
• Attack bombers
• Attack my target
• Break formation
• Rejoin formation

Command options for ground targets should also be more numerous and specific rather than just ‘Attack nearest ground target.’ That way you know the mission you set out to do would be completed. 

• Attack all
• attack tanks
• attack flak
• attack vehicles
• attack train
• attack bridge
• attack ships
• drop bombs on my command
• drop bombs at will

[Jackfraser24]

Does anyone think that multiplayer needs to change? If so, how?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

18 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Does anyone think that multiplayer needs to change? If so, how?

Yes, like on most servers, too many targets, too far from one another, for too few players.

It often takes too long before you find some action, that's not to say I'd like to play air quake but flying around for hours without meeting any other plane is quite frustrating.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Other than general improvements like to the DM or whatever, I think what needs to change is the lack of change. Every populated server is doing some variation of the same format of a symmetrical ground war (often ignored) with infinite lives, with planes balanced to the same philosophy and I think the 3 main drivers of that are:

1. The stats - When the same things are being rewarded across every server, it's not surprising to see sameness across servers. Mission editors should be able to customize the stats to encourage the gameplay they designed for on their server.

2. ME/engine limitations - There's only so much you can do in the ME, and only so much of it without tanking framerates. An easier to use ME with expanded capabilities, and a stronger/more efficient engine would really help improve variety.

3. The player base - Very subjective and probably controversial, but a large chunk of the player base enjoys doing the same(ish) thing in the same(ish) plane every time. If that's what you like it's obviously not a problem, but for those who like variety or something different it's very limiting, because in a small population environment it tends to lead to a tyranny of the majority. I wouldn't advocate kicking them out and replacing them, but if player numbers were expanded, we would be more likely to also have more players of different tastes to fill diverse servers.

I don't have much hope any of this would change in BoX though, but I think Korea could mix things up.

[Jackfraser24]

Iv’e thought of a few improvements that could be done for multiplayer.

• We should be able to choose the any of the maps that has been made for single player when we set up our servers. Right now we can’t choose every map. Im not one to encourage restrictions but if the map was Stalingrad then it should only allow players to fly planes that were actually there in real history. Otherwise they will have an unrealistic advantage. We should be able to choose the time of day as well when setting up our multiplayer servers. 
• Since we don’t get 64 players on our private servers, I think that AI controlled planes should be assigned to fill in the vacant slots until more human players arrive. The AI planes should also be able to fly in organised squadron formations, each with an assigned mission to it.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 5/14/2024 at 1:18 PM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

1. The stats - When the same things are being rewarded across every server, it's not surprising to see sameness across servers. Mission editors should be able to customize the stats to encourage the gameplay they designed for on their server.

Not 100% sure, but I think servers are already able to adjust the number of points given for certain things like shooting down an enemy, getting killed or taking out a ground target? I think this is server-based rather than mission based (which IMO it should be since how exactly the scoring is determined is not connected to the mission itself - a shot down aircraft is still a shot down aircraft irrespective if that gains you 0 or 1000 points).

 

On 5/14/2024 at 1:18 PM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

2. ME/engine limitations - There's only so much you can do in the ME, and only so much of it without tanking framerates. An easier to use ME with expanded capabilities, and a stronger/more efficient engine would really help improve variety.

Now I beg to differ here - the amount of things you can do in the ME is ginormous. While not unlimited, it does get close if you're an experienced mission creator with a bit of creativity. In my experience, there's no issue with the ME's capabilities at all . Although framerates are always an issue yes; perhaps even more so for multiplayer missions since you cannot optimise as much as you can a singleplayer mission. But that's an engine rather than editor issue.

 

I agree that the ME has a very steep learning curve, but if you've got some prior experience with event-based programming it's doable. I don't think an easier to use ME would be able to offer the same capabilities as the current ME is. I would however wholeheartedly support a second, user-friendly editor à la 1946 - but only if we still have access to a "full" mission editor providing all capabilities of the mission system.

 

On 5/14/2024 at 1:18 PM, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

3. The player base - Very subjective and probably controversial, but a large chunk of the player base enjoys doing the same(ish) thing in the same(ish) plane every time. If that's what you like it's obviously not a problem, but for those who like variety or something different it's very limiting, because in a small population environment it tends to lead to a tyranny of the majority. I wouldn't advocate kicking them out and replacing them, but if player numbers were expanded, we would be more likely to also have more players of different tastes to fill diverse servers.

I agree. The main reason I stopped playing multiplayer is that I don't like the massive fighter vs. fighter shootfests out there. I like ground attacking most; perhaps an occasional bombing mission. With so many fighters around, these missions are darn near suicidal unless you team up with some kind of virtual squadron/clan - which I have no interest in doing.

 

3 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

• We should be able to choose the any of the maps that has been made for single player when we set up our servers. Right now we can’t choose every map. Im not one to encourage restrictions but if the map was Stalingrad then it should only allow players to fly planes that were actually there in real history. Otherwise they will have an unrealistic advantage. We should be able to choose the time of day as well when setting up our multiplayer servers. 
• Since we don’t get 64 players on our private servers, I think that AI controlled planes should be assigned to fill in the vacant slots until more human players arrive. The AI planes should also be able to fly in organised squadron formations, each with an assigned mission to it.

What do you mean? When I still flew multiplayer, I'm pretty sure I saw every released map back then. Whatever map is chosen is determined by the mission, which is determined by the server. Likewise for any restrictions on which planes/modifications are available as well as the time of day and the presence of AI planes. If you're unhappy with some of the settings out there, I suggest you take it up with the owners of the relevant servers - some of the more popular ones have their own forums here https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/83-multiplayer-servers-and-hosting/

Edited May 15, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Not 100% sure, but I think servers are already able to adjust the number of points given for certain things like shooting down an enemy, getting killed or taking out a ground target? I think this is server-based rather than mission based (which IMO it should be since how exactly the scoring is determined is not connected to the mission itself - a shot down aircraft is still a shot down aircraft irrespective if that gains you 0 or 1000 points).

I don't think the points are customizable but I could be wrong, but it's the raw kill count that motivates alot of players, and its too simple and leads to weird motivations. If there are 3 tents that would do 5 points of objective damage each vs 1 factory worth 100, the personal stats would motivate the player to go for the 3 tent kills worth 15, vs the 1 factory kill worth 100. For fighters the raw plane kill count doesn't motivate successful escorts or intercepts, just kill anyone anyway. I've seen it pitched before that fighters should have to assign themselves to an escort group, or objective(s) to defend and they'd get their points based on how well they did that.

 

Depending on the game mode I'd remove the raw kill counts (even if its historical) and replace it with just a raw point value instead thats customizable by the mission editor. In a vacuum the raw kill count might be historical, but if in the big picture it leads to weird player motivations, then I think there should be the option for alternatives. I wouldn't delete the option entirely because it is a valid stat on some game modes, but it should be toggleable.

 

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Now I beg to differ here - the amount of things you can do in the ME is ginormous. While not unlimited, it does get close if you're an experienced mission creator with a bit of creativity. In my experience, there's no issue with the ME's capabilities at all . Although framerates are always an issue yes; perhaps even more so for multiplayer missions since you cannot optimise as much as you can a singleplayer mission. But that's an engine rather than editor issue.

 

I agree that the ME has a very steep learning curve, but if you've got some prior experience with event-based programming it's doable. I don't think an easier to use ME would be able to offer the same capabilities as the current ME is. I would however wholeheartedly support a second, user-friendly editor à la 1946 - but only if we still have access to a "full" mission editor providing all capabilities of the mission system.

 

I was thinking more on the lines of different type of game modes. I just pitched a one-life per round Counter-Strike style format that I think would fit flight sims well. I know a lot of people will rush to bleach their eyes after seeing the word Counter-Strike on a holy sim forum, but we're currently doing Call of Duty style infinite respawns, so copying things from arcade games is something we're already doing, and people should be open minded to it. You could make the rounds historical or not, it's neutral.

 

An easy mode ME option would be very helpful, and could spawn lots of creativity with more people making missions.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I don't think the points are customizable but I could be wrong, but it's the raw kill count that motivates alot of players, and its too simple and leads to weird motivations. If there are 3 tents that would do 5 points of objective damage each vs 1 factory worth 100, the personal stats would motivate the player to go for the 3 tent kills worth 15, vs the 1 factory kill worth 100. For fighters the raw plane kill count doesn't motivate successful escorts or intercepts, just kill anyone anyway. I've seen it pitched before that fighters should have to assign themselves to an escort group, or objective(s) to defend and they'd get their points based on how well they did that.

 

Depending on the game mode I'd remove the raw kill counts (even if its historical) and replace it with just a raw point value instead thats customizable by the mission editor. In a vacuum the raw kill count might be historical, but if in the big picture it leads to weird player motivations, then I think there should be the option for alternatives. I wouldn't delete the option entirely because it is a valid stat on some game modes, but it should be toggleable.

 

 

I was thinking more on the lines of different type of game modes. I just pitched a one-life per round Counter-Strike style format that I think would fit flight sims well. I know a lot of people will rush to bleach their eyes after seeing the word Counter-Strike on a holy sim forum, but we're currently doing Call of Duty style infinite respawns, so copying things from arcade games is something we're already doing, and people should be open minded to it. You could make the rounds historical or not, it's neutral.

 

An easy mode ME option would be very helpful, and could spawn lots of creativity with more people making missions.

I agree with much of what you just said. Yes, awarding points according to just a raw kill count is wrong. However, I still think that awarding points should be server-based (the status quo) instead of delegated to the Mission Editor. "Points" is an abstract concept that has absolutely nothing to do with the mission itself. As you say, the ME is pretty complex already - why complicate it even more by delegating things such as the scoring system to it?

 

A "one life per round" system could work - however I see a couple of problems with it:

- It does nothing to solve the problem that I noted, namely that multiplayer heavily favours fighter vs fighter combat, and that in itself is putting some people off.

- Especially if you want to feature other things than mere fighter vs fighter combat, missions might take a long time. There's no way to do a proper bombing mission from beginning to end within let's say an hour or so. Are people going to wait for that long if they're killed within the first couple of minutes?

- It'll only upset the already existing unbalance even further where there's a small amount of aces getting all the kills. Back in the day when I played Call of Duty (it did actually have a one life per round game mode!) I was often able to sneak in a kill against people who theoretically were much better than me, and even got to be the last man standing a couple of times on servers with 30-50-ish people. But shooters are easy to learn and much more dependent on sheer luck, IMHO. I don't think I would stand the slightest chance against the average IL2 multiplayer fighter pilot.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

The points are abstract, but since its not a real war, we don't have the motivations that we would have in a real mission. So silly as it is, its still a game, and people do play for the points, and games flow best when everyone is playing the same game, and points can help motivate people to be on the same page. Difficulty of assigning them depends on how its set up though, it could be just as simple as typing a value in like the durability, and ideally having a way to mass assign them. I don't have hope for BoX, but It'd be nice to have an alternative to the status quo, maybe in Korea.

 

I'd do the mode with asymmetric objectives, and the two teams alternating between attack and defense to try and force the action. Round times would be up to the mission editor, and how close he puts everything. I'd let the dead dogfight each other in a deathmatch arena while they wait to prevent boredom. It wouldn't be for everyone, but I think it could be a fun alternative to try out, like an esport version of fighter missions.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

The points are abstract, but since its not a real war, we don't have the motivations that we would have in a real mission. So silly as it is, its still a game, and people do play for the points, and games flow best when everyone is playing the same game, and points can help motivate people to be on the same page. Difficulty of assigning them depends on how its set up though, it could be just as simple as typing a value in like the durability, and ideally having a way to mass assign them. I don't have hope for BoX, but It'd be nice to have an alternative to the status quo, maybe in Korea.

 

I'd do the mode with asymmetric objectives, and the two teams alternating between attack and defense to try and force the action. Round times would be up to the mission editor, and how close he puts everything. I'd let the dead dogfight each other in a deathmatch arena while they wait to prevent boredom. It wouldn't be for everyone, but I think it could be a fun alternative to try out, like an esport version of fighter missions.

I think there may be a slight misunderstanding - I do fully agree with your point about assigning "points" however I think it should be left to the server instead of the Mission Editor. With "Mission Editor" I mean the program, not the guy whom I prefer to refer to as "mission creator".

[357th_KW]

I think many of us building stuff on the MP side are already managing team wins/losses through the mission editor.  I would love to have a capability to make changes to the in-game scoreboard either through the mission editor, through Dserver, or through some other application.

 

Being able to customize the scoreboard (including turning it off completely) would be hugely helpful, as it's the most immediate feedback players get, and as a result provides a lot of motivation - often far more then whatever the actual mission objectives are or whats written in the mission briefing.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I think there may be a slight misunderstanding - I do fully agree with your point about assigning "points" however I think it should be left to the server instead of the Mission Editor. With "Mission Editor" I mean the program, not the guy whom I prefer to refer to as "mission creator".

I am wording things poorly, I'm using "mission editor" as both the guy and the program.

[Jackfraser24]

One way or another I think that Great Battles Multiplayer needs a complete overhaul in the way we are able to set our private servers up. To name a few ways private servers could be improved upon:

1. We should be able to select whatever map is in single player to be our battlefield.
2. We should be able to select what time of day we want.
3. We should be able to select whatever air field is on the map.
4. The AI controlled planes for multiplayer fly around aimlessly. Why don't they give them a mission to do rather than go around in circles?
5. The multiplayer limit is 64 players at a time, however on private servers not all of the 64 available slots are used up, maybe only two or three. I suggest that the remaining slots not taken should be filled in by AI planes so you have more planes to shoot at or work with you to defeat your enemy.

Sorry if I am repeating myself here. I just thought I could put what I said previously into better words.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 5/17/2024 at 10:35 PM, Jackfraser24 said:

One way or another I think that Great Battles Multiplayer needs a complete overhaul in the way we are able to set our private servers up. To name a few ways private servers could be improved upon:

1. We should be able to select whatever map is in single player to be our battlefield.
2. We should be able to select what time of day we want.
3. We should be able to select whatever air field is on the map.
4. The AI controlled planes for multiplayer fly around aimlessly. Why don't they give them a mission to do rather than go around in circles?
5. The multiplayer limit is 64 players at a time, however on private servers not all of the 64 available slots are used up, maybe only two or three. I suggest that the remaining slots not taken should be filled in by AI planes so you have more planes to shoot at or work with you to defeat your enemy.

Sorry if I am repeating myself here. I just thought I could put what I said previously into better words.

Please correct me if I'm wrong since I have no experience writing multiplayer missions, but...

 

...isn't literally all of this possible already?

[Jackfraser24]

44 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong since I have no experience writing multiplayer missions, but...

 

...isn't literally all of this possible already?

No. Not how my senses interpreted it.

[CountZero]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong since I have no experience writing multiplayer missions, but...

 

...isn't literally all of this possible already?

Your not wrong, all his points are posible now and were for long time ago, they are basic things in MP, i play host and make missions for MP coop or DF.

[Jackfraser24]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Your not wrong, all his points are posible now and were for long time ago, they are basic things in MP, i play host and make missions for MP coop or DF.

Question. In what ways do you think that multiplayer should change?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

7 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

No. Not how my senses interpreted it.

AFAIK, you just load a mission if you start a server. In a mission file, you can:

- Select any map you like.

- Select any time of day you want.

- Add airfields wherever you want, even outside the actual airfields.

- Add AI aircraft and have them do whatever you like.

- Use the OnSpawned event (and probably the OnPlaneSpawned event) to keep track of how many player-controlled planes have spawned and use that to spawn or delete additional AI.

 

Now, I can imagine that you haven't figured out to do it yet since the Mission Editor has a steep learning curve. But that's different from it not being possible at all

If you want to learn how to edit missions in order to do all these things, I can recommend JimTM's excellent manual:

[Jackfraser24]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

AFAIK, you just load a mission if you start a server. In a mission file, you can:

- Select any map you like.

- Select any time of day you want.

- Add airfields wherever you want, even outside the actual airfields.

- Add AI aircraft and have them do whatever you like.

- Use the OnSpawned event (and probably the OnPlaneSpawned event) to keep track of how many player-controlled planes have spawned and use that to spawn or delete additional AI.

 

Now, I can imagine that you haven't figured out to do it yet since the Mission Editor has a steep learning curve. But that's different from it not being possible at all

If you want to learn how to edit missions in order to do all these things, I can recommend JimTM's excellent manual:

Thank you very much. I didn’t know that. 

[Jackfraser24]

On 5/25/2024 at 1:25 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

AFAIK, you just load a mission if you start a server. In a mission file, you can:

- Select any map you like.

- Select any time of day you want.

- Add airfields wherever you want, even outside the actual airfields.

- Add AI aircraft and have them do whatever you like.

- Use the OnSpawned event (and probably the OnPlaneSpawned event) to keep track of how many player-controlled planes have spawned and use that to spawn or delete additional AI.

 

Now, I can imagine that you haven't figured out to do it yet since the Mission Editor has a steep learning curve. But that's different from it not being possible at all

If you want to learn how to edit missions in order to do all these things, I can recommend JimTM's excellent manual:

Thank you for all that information but it seems to be a long and complicated process for someone who just wants to set their server up quickly. What I was suggesting was that they should change the way they allow you to customize your private server while making it quick and easy. 

 

I think that common settings and mission rotation list should be replaced with one section I'll just call "Server Settings."

1. Select Map
2. Select Planes/Tanks
3. Select Time of Day
4. Select Weather
5. Select Time Limit/No Time Limit
6. Select Player Limit (any vacant spots will be operated by AI)

[Jackfraser24]

Does anyone think that the AI needs an upgrade? If so, how?

[Jackfraser24]

What some upgrades are there that people want for Great Battles?

[Jackfraser24]

Question. Is it in anyway possible to have a more advanced radio communication command menu in IL-2 Great Battles like there was in IL-2 1946 or is it impossible to do it now? I know that the way they made the game is based on that of Rise of Flight, in WWI there was no radio communication between planes, so having it in RoF would be inaccurate. But in Great Battles it is mainly focused on WWII rather than WWI, and I think the game cannot be left without giving players a proper detailed command list like there was in IL-2 1946. I have say that I have asked this before but I do not know where I asked it. Could someone please give me an answer for this thread? Cheers!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Question. Is it in anyway possible to have a more advanced radio communication command menu in IL-2 Great Battles like there was in IL-2 1946 or is it impossible to do it now? I know that the way they made the game is based on that of Rise of Flight, in WWI there was no radio communication between planes, so having it in RoF would be inaccurate. But in Great Battles it is mainly focused on WWII rather than WWI, and I think the game cannot be left without giving players a proper detailed command list like there was in IL-2 1946. I have say that I have asked this before but I do not know where I asked it. Could someone please give me an answer for this thread? Cheers!

Il2 GB is no longer a platform for  enhancement. Il2 Korea and what follows can have those. Yes it can and be left without stuff you ask.

Edited October 25, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Jackfraser24]

9 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Il2 GB is no longer a platform for  enhancement. Il2 Korea and what follows can have those. Yes it can and be left without stuff you ask.

I find that a bit disappointing but I also understand that they must move on. But if they really wanted to could they enhance our ability to radio communicate with other planes?

[LukeFF]

25 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

But if they really wanted to could they enhance our ability to radio communicate with other planes?

 

Not without considerable time and expense.

 

And with that, I think this topic has served its purpose.