View Full Version : HI there Oleg... few questions about PF and the future...

10-01-2004, 07:56 AM
Hia Oleg

Im a big WW2 flight sim fan, well fan of anything that I can fly really be it planes or space ships. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I know alot of my questions have propably been answered and if you feel you dont have the time to answer them I fully understand that.

Over the last few years my gaming experience has changed alot. Since I was first introduced to online gaming I cant go back to single player. I know dynamic campaigns are great and alot of fun but fighting against an AI when I know I could be fighting against a human pilot doesnt cut it for me anymore.

The problem I have now is that there is that for each game Ive played my standards for multiplayer gaming have risen. I just cant find a multi player game that cuts it for me.

The biggest standard setter for me, and what has killed so many other games for me, is a game called Jumpgate. ITs a mmpog space sim where you fly and combat in space ships. The game requires extreamly high pilot skills but also has logistics, economy and tons of other aspects to it. It´s far from a perfect game but it has been a standard setter for me.

Ive for years now been trying to find a game that matches my requirements in player skill based sim game play and indepth game play of massivly multiplayer gaming. Cant find it.

Ive played Aces High on and off for quite some time and while its a fantastic game with tons of players (up to 700) it still lacks alot for me.

Ive done trials in Warbirds and Fighter Aces but they do even less for me.

What I love about aces high is its great flight model and its massive multiplayer persistant servers. Here is the key I dont settle for just massivly multiplayer anymore I need persistant servers. But what Aces High lacks for me is ENOGUH persitancy and a historical setup. AH is setup with 3 nations that got all planes accessible. While the battles and stats are persistnat there is no campaign, no player career, no logistics, no supply chain and nothing that makes fighting deeper then fighting, bombing and base taking.

For me what Im lookin for in a mmpog flight sim is the following:

*realistic flight and damage models
*historical setup (planes, nations, ground and sea units)
*Unlimmited persistant servers (700 minimum)
*Campaign and mission based game play which ties into player careers.
*Chain of command with high ranking players creating missions for other players.
*Limmited supplies, where supplies can be increased through logistic missions (flight cargo missions, protection of train and truck convoy missions, ect ect), and most importantly the ability to cripple the enemies supplies through hitting their supply lines.
*Consequence to death, this really ties in with limmited supplies. this is crusial to limmit rush and spawn behavior game play and promote tactical and strategical thinking.

How much of this will be seen in PF? Will MP game play be based off campaigns? If so will the MP campaigns be dynamic? Will players be able to create missions as well? Will there be limmited supply in them? And will the campaign based MP game play be in co-op mode only or in PvP mode?

But most importantly do you see your self, in a near future, making a truely persistant mmpog WW2 sim with the components mentioned above?

Thank you for your time.

10-01-2004, 11:03 AM
You might want to repost this after PF is out. Currently Oleg is very busy preparing PF for its release and i highly doubt that he will stop by here for the next 3-4 weeks. But who knows http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

10-03-2004, 04:29 PM
When I looked at the post...I didn't think much of it but then I got to thinking....

For me and I know for a whole lot of other people we are striving for a more difficult game...many of us have an enormous amount of virtual flying time and gunnery practice...so much so, that the game is in danger of being turned into an unrealistic game as we want harder and harder settings etc...

Maybe the fm's and dm's are getting better and better, but that doesn't make the game harder. Maybe managing new elements such as fuel, pilot fatique, logistics like ammo and spare parts, attrition, defending the base against attack...

I might be fishing here...but maybe that will be the thing that makes the game harder as we begin to discover that flying a virtual aircraft really isn't that hard once you get the knack for it.

It is learning all the intracacies of the fm's that i find fun...just add some more dimensions.

Maybe BoB will refine what CFS3 miserably failed at.

10-04-2004, 04:55 AM

For me combat in flying crafts (I say flying crafts because it includes WW2 Planes, Modern fighters and space ships) is not just about flight skill, gunnery, wingman tactics and team tactics its also about strategy and "reasons for fighting".

Let me first explain "reasons for fighting" before I go on. To me the reason to fight is that there is a consequence to a defeat, I can inflict consequences on my enemy but most importantly I, if I screw up, get to "live with" the consequence from it.

If there are consequences to defeat then the strategical and tactical aspects of the game are dramaticly increased. If there are multiple ways of inflicting defeat consequences on the enemy then the complexity of the strategic and tactical game is drasticly increased.

Logistics has always been a crusial strategical key to warfare. If due to your failiur your logistics suffered the consequences of your failur where always really high.

I as a player will always have more fun if the fight Im fighting is an important one, if something depends upon it.

As an example: I take off from my base in a multi player game (I only speak about mp gaming) in a fighter. I dont have any reall mission. I take off to more see what happens. I run into a few enemy fighters. We have a great awsome 10 min dog fight. Sure its fun. But what was accomplished? Some fun nothing else. They took off to find some fun, so did I. There was never a reason for the fight in the grand scheme of the war campaign.

On the other hand if I take off with the mission to give air cover to a supply train which is transporting fuel and ammo to my base, how does that affect my game play? Well I take off and run into say a wing of 110s. I manage to down them before they destroy the train. I might not get as good a dogfight as I got in the other scenario. But I ensured that we still have fuel for another two hours on our base and have ammo for another day. I feel really good about it because I really did save the day.

Expand a bit more upon this. Hitting the logistics will be very important. So the 110s will really have to have escorts to be able to complete their mission. Tactics and strategy expands.

If they have escorts I might fail in defending the train. As a consequence to this I might not be able to use certain plane types because the ammo for them is out. I will have to take up other planes to do the job, the challange increases.

At least to me this makes gameplay much much more interesting.

Add to this persistant servers where I play the career of my pilot and the more successfull I am the more responsiblity I get then gameplay becomes even more in my taste.

So yeah combat is much more then flight and gunnery skill to me.


10-04-2004, 04:58 AM

Personally I hate bumping threads but do you mind if I bump this one after the release of PF?


10-04-2004, 05:49 AM
I can already see the big hurdles for your vision.

a) With the current technology a MMP environment with the same amount of details as FB/PF is technically impossible. Even with 64 players (as shown by Virtualpilots) it can be problematic and users with 56k modems do have major troubles. I would say that it will be impossible for a long while since a fast Internet access is not possible for everyone.

b) A persistent server creates a lot of maintenance costs leading to a pay-to-play Sim. Many people just refuse to do so. Plain and simple.

c) Chain of command etc is all very nice in theory, but brings along a lot of problems. I have lurked in the WW2 Online boards for a while and have seen the threads with the complaints and the problems. It does sound nice but we all are players looking for a pasttime and not members of a military organisation. Some will accept that chain of command (say as part of the immersion), some will outright refuse to obey any commands.

Just my 0,02$.

10-04-2004, 06:56 AM

There are quite a few different types of players in the sim genre, just like in any kind of genre.

(Following terms are by no means inteded to flame people. Im geralizing to set a scale. So please read with a grain of salt.)

You will always have the arcade simer (the gamer) who wants to fly, shoot and down stuff in "Air Quake".

You will always have the simmulator snobs who want extream realisim in any situation. This player type rather plays an exact reincarnation of a historical battle then influence the outcome of the battle by creative tactical thinking. If it didnt happen in WW2 it shouldnt be possible to happen in the game.

Then you have the strategists. Not always as good pilots, skill wise, as the gamers and not as historicly knowledgable as the sim snobs but very interested in war tactics and strategy. The historical realism of the setup is usually important but they dont want to feel constraints by it.

Im not saying that any type of player is better or worse for a game. Just that they are different and different players desire different things. Also there is very few players that are pure type players, though everyone is somewher on the 3d scale of these 3 player types. Im willing to say that everyone who plays a sim game has bits and pieces of every type in them.

I dont mind arguments based on "imho this isnt what Im lookin for" but if its not your cup of game play coffe please dont state technological issues to shoot ideas down.

Simply your first issue does not hold up.

There are currently 3 mmpog WW2 air sims in retail. Aces High, Warbirds and Fighter Aces. All 3 of them target different audiences so their implementations are much more constrained by the target audience then technology.

Increase in graphical detail has nothing to do with the capability of the game to be a mmpog. Neither does damage model detail. This though does affect the server cpu and memory requirements but not ability to play over modem, with a good game architecture design. Physics detail level, see damage model detail level.

MMPOG does not have to mean pay to play. Though it does mean that the demand on the server and bandwidth to the server increase. This usually means that either the developer and/or publisher hosts the server(s) but it doesnt have to be true. But since the number of server instances needed to support the player base is less in a mmpog, then in a traditional mpg this usually is the way to go.

Some players refuse to pay to play but on other hand some players willingly do. All the players in AH, WB, FA and WW2Online do.

Your last point really falls back on different player types. Different players want different things. The key thing is that when one makes a design for a game is that one defines the target audience and develops a game for that target audience. Its important to create a design that allows a broad enough target audience but doesnt make it full of compromizes that doesnt satisfy anyone.

The reason I posted this thread is to bring infront desires of maybe a not so traditional Il2 player. What I hope to get in an answer from Oleg when he has time is his view on how he envisions the expansion and future of his games. By no means am I saying "do this and now", just that its something I would like to see in a game. Hopefully it is something that falls inline with Olegs vision. If not my search continues. No big deal.


10-04-2004, 07:22 AM
Tex - What I said under 1.) were not my words but Olegs a while back. The idea of a MMP based on Il-2/FB is not new, but certainly the netcode does not support this. I do have a Warbirds history, I have been flying it for over a year (old german server), but all MMP Sims are making large compromises speaking not necessarily of graphic represenation but more the amount of details put into damage and gunnery model.

When looking at the MMP Sim market so far it is rather obvious that large companies do not participate here. As for the reasons I can only speculate, but IMO the profit margins are most probably just not large enough for them. For them a "normal" retail game is the way to go and I do have severe doubts that you could talk UBI into setting up a server system as say AcesHigh or Warbirds. Right now I cannot see a project from Maddox Games that is not the traditional retail game with added Multiplayer.

10-04-2004, 08:14 AM
FB AEP allready can support all of that with a little out of the game job.

Now some things that will really help:

1) Make Big bridges Stronger. Even bazooka fire bring them down.

2) Log Destroyed buildings, so that installing "marking units" inside them is no more needed

3) Trains could be a bit more tough...

4) Since I believe that by some definitions made on buildings, bullets just don´t do any damage to them, it will be really nice to bring the cammo tents as another kind of object, just to be able to put the planes inside. Maybe as a Stationary object.

There are some solutions that support the kind of game you want. They are all based on making a fine mission log interpretation, and a good mission generator logic so that you can plan your own missions without too much effort.

Now I must agree with CSThor, this kind of game is very difficult to play it on the open. You must do it on fixed and known players. And even then people happen to get mad.

My point, the game is open enough for you to play it as you wish, with some parsing software and some script programming as extra help.

So don´t bother to ask Oleg for this kind of solution, pick some partners and start working. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW... the things I posted as needed above, some are for better immersion, and some to simplify the code and diminish the job needed to make things roll.

The best of it... you can play whatever game you wish, because you made the rules! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

10-07-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TexMurphy97:



Perhaps you could consider playing an online campaign.

10-08-2004, 06:21 PM
There is a product in public beta right now!

Have a look at Scorched Earth (http://seow.sourceforge.net/) and the main discussion thread at SimHQ:


It doesn't do EVERYTHING you asked for, but it is already attracting a lot of attention for its support of a deeper, richer and more fulfilling campaign environment.