What is really missing from DCS to me

[sedenion]

I'll give my egoist player point of view. I will resume here what i said elsewhere in this forum (and some other ones), in ONE thread. I know many players have another one, sometime by far. And i don't blame ED, they do what they want, how they want to target the public they want ( I suppose they are enough big to know which strategy is the better for them). So, please, don't blame me if for you, i say outrageous things: This is only my point of view. So, i don't say " I am the voice of many silent players ! listen to me !", i don't know, maybe i'am just alone and crazy...

 

Solo gameplay immersion & environment

 

DCS currently have a big lack of solo gameplay, which is highly focused to the Mission Editor. The out-flight environment is simply missing except a purely functional GUI with some pretty images. We can say that there is a total lack of fantasy and immersion. Campaigns are boring, for two reasons: 1) Mission briefing interface is very boring, no animations, no sounds, no environment, just a text to read and a small picture to barely know what we have to do. [here is an EXAMPLE, for inspiration (i do not say "COPY THAT !"), for how to make a more attractive and "easy to twig" briefing

sorry for my purely S.F reference... ] 2) Campaigns's shapes are very "serious wargame" oriented focused on military realism without any heroic implication. As it is, it is surely conform to the reality of a military mission: standard, regulated, you are a soldier, you do not know really why you do it, but you do what the chiefs of staff wants and you shut your mouth. Some times, you get some medal that you can admire in the purely functionnal logbook... Also, there is no "epic" progression, like an hero begins as a recruit, and becomes more "graded" with more responsibilities, etc... (please lets just look one second at this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces ). And at last, campaign's missions are too hard to achieve according the time we spend on (by flying over waypoints and seeking enemies)... even for the first ones... OK, that is realistic... but equally boring and discouraging (i speak here about the Su-27 campaign, i does not tryed the other ones, maybe they are better, but i like to fly the Su-27)..

 

The in-flight non-multiplayer environment lacks of ambience. Sounds are very cool, radio comms are a little bit absent, but there is progress here since some time. BUT, there is not dynamical music that would greatly enhance the gameplay experience during missions. As i know, this is here a matter of taste and way of playing... i don't blame people that absolutely want to "fly" in an realistic environment, which means, without any music. Also, the IA wingmens are a little bit too submissive and obedient, they take initiatives only when you tell them to "attack bandits !"... That's probably realistic in an military context where you are the leader, but, this is a little bit boring in a game context.

 

Multiplayer gameplay & infrastructures

 

Currently, it is very... VERY hard (impossible ?) for a "lonesome" player or a newbie, to find any multiplayer game to get some fun. Almost all opened games are:

- Aerobatic training (serious context please)... that is fun for some, okay, but not for everybody, and i think, not realy for a newbie that just want some "exciting" experience.

- Complex mission, where there is no breifing, or where there is a LOOOOONG briefing to read, and where, in fact, you just don't know what you have to do (that rejoins the solo gameplay environment problem)

 

This is like that i think for some good reasons.

1) There is not free-to-download distributed dedicated server software, which should be built for Linux system, to make possible run any dedicated server on small linux server with good bandwith.

2) The multiplayer interface is simply a list of server... and forgive me, but, even the very simplistic 1999's Quake III arena's interface was better ! There is no "mission type" selection, there is no "player's level" selection, etc... there is even no option to hide private servers ( ??!! ). Ok ED team, i don't blame you but, we are in 2014, and please look at some other games and how multiplayer is made...

3) There is not simples, good thinked, built-in multiplayer oriented missions. And here, i think about "instant action" missions, where a begginer or a lonesome player can join (and leave) at any time to get some fun. (i think about "Free for all dogfigh", "team deathmatch", "capture the flag", etc... [yes i'am influenced by Quake III, but there is many good idea in Quake III, and others in other FPS games (Left 4 dead for example), yes, they are NOT simulators, but they are GAMES, and they are FUN])

 

So the multiplayer gameplay need: A way to select mission type (serious ones, air-air oriented ones, air-ground oriented ones, mixed ones, instant action: FFA dogfight, Capture the "airbase" or "the flag", "team death match"), a way to browse by "flyable aircraft", and a way to browse by "realism level" (easy flight or no, easy radar or no). And we can have a purely non-realistic "FFA guns only" mission, with "realistic flight" and "realistic radard", and a complex mission with "easy flight" etc... think about that: there are MANY way to play and get fun with a realistic fighter simulator, not the only "purely military serious"...

Edited November 22, 2014 by sedenion

[Tumbleweed]

Edge should hopefully bring about some changes to the Multiplayer.

What or how, I can't say because only ED know for sure. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Devrim]

I agree with you on many things you say, but I can't say anything on you other thoughts. Because I see DCS World as a pure simulation, so music or fantastic sounds in mission brief page etc. options are out of circle for me, but I don't blame you of course. :)

 

You're damn right about Multiplayer entrance and AI wingmen. I can agree with you about missions a little bit. There're not much missions that you can play with fun and want to play it again and again. They're built for pros I think. :P

 

This issue is in my mind and want to talk about for long time. Some mission builders likely want to use whole capability of mission editor or DCS World in one mission. I remember some missions, I was hitting by a ground unit in the first second of take off in Ka-50. What?! How a mission is that?! If missions will be simpler, they'll be more realistic to me... Whatever, this thread is not for this though.

 

I just wrote my thoughts. G'day...

[sedenion]

I agree with you on many things you say, but I can't say anything on you other thoughts. Because I see DCS World as a pure simulation, so music or fantastic sounds in mission brief page etc. options are out of circle for me, but I don't blame you of course. :)

 

I know DCS is not an adventure game... and in fact, an real adventure game require a LOT of work (by writing story, scripting, making environment, art, etc...), and an adventure is matter of taste... personally i like "post-apocalyptic" or "survival" context, which is not universal... many prefer "military" context, etc...

 

But, even if DCS is a smulator, i think it can be little enhanced in this way, by adding some "out-flight" and "in-flight" features and work on some GUI concepts (not necessarily complex or luxurious). I do not realy know HOW (i have some ideas, but i'am not game designer), but i really think this aspect can be enhanced without transforming DCS in arcade-like or "rôle playing" game... (i specialy think about the briefing stage and some built-in good missions or even multiples short campaigns)

Edited November 22, 2014 by sedenion

[Exorcet]

I'll start by saying that I fly DCS for the sim aspect, not really for any "game" aspect. Despite this I can agree with you on some things, even if I might agree for totally different reasons.

 

 

 

Solo gameplay immersion & environment

 

DCS currently have a big lack of solo gameplay, which is highly focused to the Mission Editor. The out-flight environment is simply missing except a purely functional GUI with some pretty images. We can say that there is a total lack of fantasy and immersion.

DCS does fall short in terms of immersion in a few places. Combat with large numbers of AI are devoid of communication. You basically end up as a lone fighter in a sea of random aircraft.

 

Air to air combat can be hectic of course, but in real combat AWACS will do more than randomly babble about bandit positions that are 20 minutes old and I'd hope at the very least if there is another flight with you, you could work with them so that you don't waste missiles firing at the same target. The ME does give you some ways around this, but they would either increase player workload during the mission (setting lots of F10 options) or make the mission feel a bit scripted (I feel like random elements are important for mission re playability).

 

Campaigns are boring, for two reasons: 1) Mission briefing interface is very boring, no animations, no sounds, no environment, just a text to read and a small picture to barely know what we have to do. [here is an EXAMPLE, for inspiration (i do not say "COPY THAT !"), for how to make a more attractive and "easy to twig" briefing

sorry for my purely S.F reference... ]

From a stylistic/aesthetic point of view, I don't think there is anything wrong with the static mission briefing. I don't think it needs to be animated or flashy to be interesting. Also, when making missions DCS does let you fill the briefing with lots of images, but it's a bit tedious to you, especially when if I recall it doesn't always display pictures correctly.

 

That said that Star Wars briefing is a good example of a potentially realistic style of briefing. The problem with it of course is that it needs to be animated for every mission before hand.

 

When it comes to menus and what not I like this a lot:

 

 

Part of it is nostalgia driven, but I like those menus even down to the sound effect when clicking a button.

 

 

Also, there is no "epic" progression, like an hero begins as a recruit, and becomes more "graded" with more responsibilities

I see this a lot in "gamey" games. I think it is highly overused. You don't need to start out as a rookie and progress, which has been done 500,000,000 times.

 

Way back when I liked the Metal Gear Solid series and one thing I liked about the main character (Solid Snake) was that he was a master at what he did, even from the beginning.

 

There are other things to focus on besides the progression of someone who may or may not be important (I also don't like it when someone is made too important, like in Ace Combat where the player eventually becomes a god more or less).

 

In either case, of course it would not bother me if there was a story I didn't like. I'd just not play it. To this day I haven't tried a campaign that has come with a DCS module. I make my own missions 98% of the time. Also speaking of mission making, you can definitely have character progression in them. The thing is though, unless you make you own campaigns, you're going to have to rely on other mission makers to give you what you want. I hope to release campaigns in the future, but I won't be focusing on the kind of character progression you point out. I don't mind people adjusting my missions to suite their taste though.

 

And at last, campaign's missions are too hard to achieve according the time we spend on

Yes, I've heard that missions can be over the top. I think part of it is down to how much DCS changes with every patch, which can make balancing hard. Another issue is that you lose your wingmen if you RTB since they don't come back up.

 

Also, the IA wingmens are a little bit too submissive and obedient, they take initiatives only when you tell them to "attack bandits !"... That's probably realistic in an military context where you are the leader, but, this is a little bit boring in a game context.

I'm not sure what the alternative is here. If they don't wait for your orders, then they would act like just another random flight? If you want, you can tell them "Cover me" and they will fly with you until you are targeted and then attack on their own.

 

Some gripes I have with wingmen is that communication is tedious. In FC2 I think, but definitely LOMAC, you can output radio commands as fast as you can press them. They changed this in DCS so that you need to wait for radio to finish before sending new commands. It sounds more realistic, but it's not. You only have preset things to say, so getting wingmen to do anything complex becomes clumsy and needlessly difficult. They need to undo this and let you go back to spamming out mass radio orders.

 

I also really want to see second element options for FC planes like you have with the A-10C.

 

Multiplayer gameplay & infrastructures

 

Currently, it is very... VERY hard (impossible ?) for a "lonesome" player or a newbie, to find any multiplayer game to get some fun. Almost all opened games are:

- Aerobatic training (serious context please)... that is fun for some, okay, but not for everybody, and i think, not realy for a newbie that just want some "exciting" experience.

- Complex mission, where there is no breifing, or where there is a LOOOOONG briefing to read, and where, in fact, you just don't know what you have to do (that rejoins the solo gameplay environment problem)

Here people might disagree with you. When I see the MP list I see:

 

-Aerobatic (same as you)

-Simple missions (short briefing, not enough info, unorganized deathmatch combat)

-Dogfight missions (even simpler combat where it is just planes fighting planes)

 

The complex missions are usually locked behind password servers.

 

There's a bit of a clash of perspective here, but ultimately it comes down to what missions the servers like to host. What you call complex missions are too simple for some of the more hardcore players. Make them any simpler and you'd probably lose a good number of players.

 

The most simple missions are dogfight missions which is basically deathmatch. These are fun from time to time, but I prefer complex missions myself. Still they are popular enough to be found from time to time.

 

 

2) The multiplayer interface is simply a list of server... and forgive me, but, even the very simplistic 1999's Quake III arena's interface was better ! There is no "mission type" selection, there is no "player's level" selection, etc... there is even no option to hide private servers ( ??!! ). Ok ED team, i don't blame you but, we are in 2014, and please look at some other games and how multiplayer is made...

This is true. It was actually slightly better in FC2, but in DCS it was dumbed down for some reason. Hopefully DCS 2.0 addressed it.

 

3) There is not simples, good thinked, built-in multiplayer oriented missions. And here, i think about "instant action" missions, where a begginer or a lonesome player can join (and leave) at any time to get some fun. (i think about "Free for all dogfigh", "team deathmatch", "capture the flag", etc... [yes i'am influenced by Quake III, but there is many good idea in Quake III, and others in other FPS games (Left 4 dead for example), yes, they are NOT simulators, but they are GAMES, and they are FUN])

The most popular servers built for the purpose of letting people join at any time. But something to remember is that air combat takes places over relatively large distances. In a game like Quake you can spawn and walk 20 steps and find an enemy. The equivalent to that in DCS is taking off and instantly being shot by a missile.

 

Combat takes place away from the base. New players might not know where to go (though the briefing usually says) and they get upset.

 

So the multiplayer gameplay need: A way to select mission type (serious ones, air-air oriented ones, air-ground oriented ones, mixed ones, instant action: FFA dogfight, Capture the "airbase" or "the flag", "team death match"), a way to browse by "flyable aircraft", and a way to browse by "realism level" (easy flight or no, easy radar or no). And we can have a purely non-realistic "FFA guns only" mission, with "realistic flight" and "realistic radard", and a complex mission with "easy flight" etc... think about that: there are MANY way to play and get fun with a realistic fighter simulator, not the only "purely military serious"...

Usually this is handled by the mission description you see before selecting a mission. However some people don't make [good] use of it.

 

Having tags or something for missions could be helpful too though.

[nervousenergy]

I'm hopeful in the future that more complex, interactive missions/campaigns can be brought to us by third party groups just like aircraft modules are today. There's just not enough meat there right now for it, but it's coming. The Straights map will be a huge boon to modern mission designers, and of course everyone and everything is waiting on EDGE and the all-important standalone server.

 

I'm more of a WWII simulation enthusiast, and the two planes we have are well-matched against each other and absolutely breathtaking to fly. With EDGE, the upcoming K4 and Spit, and proper period maps and ground assets, we're likely to see it explode. There is no modern competition for '44-'45 sim gaming (WT isn't a sim, and IL2:1946 is a far cry from Modern), though we do have a couple of options for 40-42 in Stalingrad and CloD:TF. Many WWII enthusiasts have a lot of hope pinned on 44 DCS.

 

With the maps and added planes, the server mission scene will be there, but what I'd really love to see to bring in the single-player crowd would be someone like Disastersoft bring a compelling single-player campaign add-on module. It's more money out of your pocket, of course, especially after buying the planes and maps, but what they did with CloD was excellent (especially given what they had to work with at the time, well before TF.) At some point a discounted set of the WWII planes, maps, and campaign could be a big seller. This kind of thing is (IMHO) a lot easier in the WWII setting and perhaps Korea, as there was a lot more room for different skill levels and 'heroics'. Modern combat pilots don't take modern jets into combat without already being a master of its functions, as they're bundles of complex systems. You'll never have a Boyington or Marseille or Hartmann in modern combat, and re-creating the campaigns of the real pilots and real battles is very, very compelling to us in the WWII sim arena. We'll pay for that add on, in droves.

 

The OP has it nailed... the bones of this sim is like nothing else we've ever had in the genre. More meat on those bones will lead to more sales, and more content to fly and people to fly against.

Edited November 22, 2014 by nervousenergy

[Talisman_VR]

Things look set to get better with the WWII Europe project and 'Edge'. News of the WWII Europe project is the reason I have just decided get into DCS, starting with the P51D.

 

I think the WWII project will prove a good business model to extend the appeal of DCS to a wider audience.

 

If they get the WWII project right, there is a good chance that many organised squads and others that currently fly other combat flight simulator titles will move to DCS and extend the community. This is likely to stimulate more activity on the fast jet front too.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[ez]

all good points, and things that would be nice to see in order to flesh out the 'game' side of the sim.

 

two flight sims that i used to play that did this very well were falcon 4's dynamic campaign (of course) and eurofighter typhoon (where you could hop between pilots)

 

though it seems to me that most of the components for a dynamic campaign are there. wouldn't it be relatively simple to achieve, eg: set up all the friendly and enemy units, and then just let things play out?

[Haukka81]

I hope that we someday get least full screen briefings , that small postcard image/text box in midle of screen is quite poor thing in high realisim sim. (just my point of view & fact)

 

Maybe edge will bring better UI ? wags , ed , anyone ?

 

 

Sometimes its just those small things that build up immerision before mission , please dcs. Give us bit more immersion before flight :)

[sedenion]

From a stylistic/aesthetic point of view, I don't think there is anything wrong with the static mission briefing. I don't think it needs to be animated or flashy to be interesting. Also, when making missions DCS does let you fill the briefing with lots of images, but it's a bit tedious to you, especially when if I recall it doesn't always display pictures correctly.

 

i don't realy speak about aesthetic (it seem, but it is not), but more about ergonomy and how a mission can be started without reading 150 lines of small text. In the "x-wing" example, the Admiral Ackabar is speaking (it's a trap !) with gestures, but, this is not my point. I'll find a pseudo-guy speaking totaly ridiculous in DCS... But, the PowerPoint-like based briefing, with symbolic icons that explain the mission, where you are, where you go, what you have to do, with some sumary text, and maybe some animation (like blinking highlight or some arrows) is to me, a very good idea. The briefing SHOULD be automaticaly generated according the mission data AND according the "unit slot" you choose in multiplayer mission... and if you want add some more text in the editor, you can.

 

The most simple missions are dogfight missions which is basically deathmatch. These are fun from time to time, but I prefer complex missions myself. Still they are popular enough to be found from time to time.

 

They are almost all private... maybe i'm not in the good side of the atlantic ocean (or black sea), but nothing with a reasonable ping... if i had a linux based server software for DCS, i host my own and the problem would be solved...

 

 

Usually this is handled by the mission description you see before selecting a mission. However some people don't make [good] use of it.

 

Yes... guess why...

Edited November 22, 2014 by sedenion