PDA

View Full Version : Online campaign?



Stingray-65
10-07-2005, 02:05 PM
Has anyone developed an online multiplayer campaign for SHIII? In IL-2 there are online wars like Bellum, Virtual Fronts, Czechwar, etc. in which a 3rd-party program keeps up with player stats & mission results. The outcome of a particular mission determines the nature of the next and thus effects how a battle progresses. Frontlines can move back and forth, etc. This is done by accomplishing certain objectives: destroying supply lines (ship, truck, rail, etc) airbase attacks, destroying bridges, factories, attacking ground troops, and so forth. Mission results are reported by the game hosts (1 Allied & 1 Axis). Reports are checked to make sure they match (taken from text event log files generated in the game folder). If both sets of reports match, then they're entered into the program which updates the maps on the website. New missions are then generated accordingly.

Hawggy
10-07-2005, 02:39 PM
This would be great in premise and theory, but I can't imagine even two computers sharing such info on the scale of the Atlantic Ocean's traffic, and then expecting them to hold sync during and after time compression sessions up to x1024. The IL-2 and SH3 scale differ by so much, it's laughably comparable. I mean, the Normandy map for Forgotten Battles is about 1/700th of SH3's playing area. It would be nice though: To truly have wolfpacks..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Stingray-65
10-07-2005, 03:51 PM
I think you misunderstood the concept. I wasn't referring to IL-2's scripted dogfight servers, but rather online co-op missions. I've not seen or heard about anything for SHIII thats like a dedicated server running a continous game where players can join & leave at their leisure like those for IL-2 Forgotten Battles at HyperLobby. But that's besides the point...

This would be done through multiplayer mode, which from what I've seen are just co-op or quick missions. All the online wars in IL-2 are simply a series of co-op missions. You can build custom co-op missions in SHIII, right? I thought I read that somewhere in the manual. And being online multiplayer, time compression isn't an issue since it's disabled.

You mentioned that you couldn't imagine 2 computers sharing such info. How do you explain mulitiplayer games for up to 8 players then? That's 8 computers sharing the same info, right? Everything else is just a numerical value notating an object's identity, location, heading, speed & current status.

Scale shouldn't be an issue in co-ops if everyone spawns in the same general area of the map. These quick missions I've done online with other players automatically places us in the same area.

Hawggy
10-07-2005, 04:34 PM
Oh - you want to string together co-op scenarios to yield dynamic campaign results? Sure - that's easy. I'm referring to the single player campaign containing multiple players in the ever changing world. Falcon 4.0 does it - Forgotten Battles and LOMAC do not. I can understand why SH3 doesn't do it - you'd need servers to handle those MMO-like proportions (Atlantic Ocean traffic, ports). I guess what I'm saying here is that SH3 in that aspect wouldn't be a viable choice, but in your terms of conjoining different co-op missions, IMHO, wouldn't "feel" like a campaign - in the sense of the word, but frankly just tracking scores from mission to mission:

In a nutshell - The Dynamic Campaign Generator, or Scorched Earth, or whatever folks are using to try to create an ongoing battlefield within Forgotten Battles would be worth a shot to create for SH3, but would be lacking in many untangible areas.... I'm just saying - the world around you in SH3 is so much more involving than the world in FB. Docking, port raiding, going through the strait of Gibralter: There's SOO much more to do in SH3 - confining it to that sort of play style would hinder the dev's true meaning behind it's (the campaign) creation.


Originally posted by Stingray-65:
You mentioned that you couldn't imagine 2 computers sharing such info. How do you explain mulitiplayer games for up to 8 players then? That's 8 computers sharing the same info, right? Everything else is just a numerical value notating an object's identity, location, heading, speed & current status.

Sure - when what you see is what you get: Imagine a game w/ 8 players with each one in different sectors (I mean one in the Med, one near Spain, one in the middle of the Atlantic - I mean spread out!!) - there's no PC that you can afford that can track all that, and hand it out to each of the 8 players - especially if convoys were involved, and maintain a playable stream of packet flow when changing the time scale from x1 up to x1024.

So, there you go - you & I have different meanings of "online campigns" - that's all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kaleun1961
10-07-2005, 04:45 PM
I guess the closest you can get right now is to join one of those flotillas that track war tonnage. Not quite what you are hoping for, I know, but still a form of collective playing.

Hawggy
10-07-2005, 04:57 PM
True - but the real meaning of "online campaign", at least to me, would be missed, and therefore, you rightfully couldn't call it that, due to the fact that it would hardly compare to the career mode with eight players - but don't think I'm saying the incarnation of EITHER style of gameplay wouldn't be great; I would welcome and DO WISH FOR IT!!! Just being realistic though - the real way I dream of playing this game with multiple players is a bit far fetched considering most folks don't have server horsepower that can handle that amount of world info.

One day we'll have an MMO that'll cover all those bases in WWII, and do them RIGHT. Til then, we're stuck with the next best thing: Mods..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Stingray-65
10-08-2005, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Hawggy:
in your terms of conjoining different co-op missions, IMHO, wouldn't "feel" like a campaign - in the sense of the word, but frankly just tracking scores from mission to mission:

Hmmm I'm starting to see your point. Kinda hard to have front-lines on an ocean. You don't really capture/lose territory or dominate "sea-space" here like airforces do airspace. Plus its not like sinking X amount of tonnage is going to cripple any of the enemy naval bases I'll encounter the way we in IL-2 cripple airfields and cut off advancing enemy troops by helping our ground forces to surround them & by cutting off their supplies either by destroying them directly or by destroying bridges enroute to their sector.


Originally posted by Hawggy:
In a nutshell - The Dynamic Campaign Generator, or Scorched Earth, or whatever folks are using to try to create an ongoing battlefield within Forgotten Battles would be worth a shot to create for SH3, but would be lacking in many untangible areas.... I'm just saying - the world around you in SH3 is so much more involving than the world in FB. Docking, port raiding, going through the strait of Gibralter: There's SOO much more to do in SH3 - confining it to that sort of play style would hinder the dev's true meaning behind it's (the campaign) creation.


I guess I've yet to experience SHIII to its fullest. (I mean that truthfully, not sarcastically. Remember, I'm a newbie.) I just thought that FB was pretty involving (online war-wise); ground attack, ground support, flying recon, bomber escort, bomber intercept, anti-shipping, pure dogfight (fighter vs fighter), bombing (airfields, factories, bridges, ships, divisions, you name it)... you can get wounded, bail out, then captured, then escape, and then get rescued by a fellow pilot from your side... all in the same sorty. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif You can takeoff, & then when you RTB you might find that your home base was overrun & captured while you were gone. Etc. etc. So when all this stuff is going on, especially when flying with 15 of your buddies against 16 enemies (all of whom are human) plus there being tons of AI aircraft in the same mission too, there can be a whole lot of drama. And you can fight tooth and nail with varying results on a day to day basis. One day the front lines might not move an inch. The next they might move only a little. Then next day somebody might capture a huge sector. Later that day it might be retaken. Etc. etc. Personally, I don't find FB to be lacking in the immersion department. Quite the opposite. Or at least not yet anyway. SHIII may soon change how I see that.


Originally posted by Hawggy:
Sure - when what you see is what you get: Imagine a game w/ 8 players with each one in different sectors (I mean one in the Med, one near Spain, one in the middle of the Atlantic - I mean spread out!!) - there's no PC that you can afford that can track all that, and hand it out to each of the 8 players - especially if convoys were involved, and maintain a playable stream of packet flow when changing the time scale from x1 up to x1024.

Rgrt. I follow you on this. I somehow suspected this might be what you thought I meant. It wasn't. I meant that in the missions everyone would be in the same general location, not spread out all over the globe.


Originally posted by Hawggy:
So, there you go - you & I have different meanings of "online campigns" - that's all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Rgrt. Like there's a big difference between "offline" and "online" but if there was only 1 word used to describe both, it would be really confusing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Yeah, we just had a misinterpretation that led to a miscommunication. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hawggy
10-08-2005, 01:12 PM
But believe me - WE WANT THE SAME THING: A More involving & rewarding multiplayer aspect. Gosh - SH4 would be the R0x0r5 if any of our ideas mentioned here were employed! Til then, I'm subscribing to WWII Online! All this talk of Multiplayer goodness has me psyked!!!!