NTTR Multiplayer Servers

[gregzagk]

IMO the problem is not based on the theaters (like NTTR). The problem is on the gameplay that DCS offers. We will see less servers or less populated servers in the Caucasus map also if it continues like this.

 

Since NTTR release you could see thousand of free flight screenshots showing where this could lead. Same happened when 1.5 was out. We all are excited when something is released. Things are easy in the single player or free flight enviroment. You hop in,fly around, test new features & capture screenshots.

 

But in order to have also the ability to enjoy the combat & MP experience some people have to setup stuff for the community (mission designers, organisers). When they start to put their hands on these new features they face many issues.

 

The biggest are the bugs & continues changes of DCS World during the mission designing. (scripts, triggers, API etc). You can say it's BETA but this remains a long time issue.

 

Another but highly important issue is that DCS should offer a better gameplay for Multiplayer by providing the feeling to the players that they have something like a career. Dynamic & persistant war scenarios should be there. Same mission scenarios over the years don't make the difference and eventually people don't get motivated to join again after some time. You need something to drag you in by motivating you to join the server and help your side to complete its longterm goals.

 

Mission designers now are wasting a great amount of time to reach close to a point like this. And that can force them to stop due to less free time. Without them there are less missions & servers on.

 

Sadly we don't see an improvement in this area. Lots of new modules comes out but if you don't get motivated to use them properly in Multiplayer, which is for many people a high priority, then I believe we will see the results that the topic mention.

 

 

Greg

[NeilWillis]

Valid points Greg (apart from the thread drift that is!). DCS World is a sandbox, and it contains tools for missions to be designed and built, and then compiled into campaigns. It is not beyond anyone's capabilities to get stuck in and come up with some very playable content.

 

There is also the recent introduction of DLC, which opens up mission dewsign to the people who want to get some payback for their time and effort.

 

In addition, VAs have the capability of putting together any mission, campaign or scenario they wish, and again, that is down to the individuals concerned. There are some very in-depth, and challenging organisations out there.

 

What you get out of DCS World shouldn't be down to what other people serve up on a plate for you. Why not rise to the challenge yourself, and provide the kind of content you feel is lacking? Agreed, sometimes updates to the code mean missions need to be repaired and updated, but most - if not all - updates improve the environment and tools available, so they're double edged swords, but on balance are more of a benefit than a handicap.

[carrollhead]

DCS is a sandbox, but it's still missing some bits (in my opinion) that don't help the situation.

 

1. Flight planning isn't built into the game. I know that sounds boring, but without thinking about how you're going to fly to your objective and kill it (or whatever) then you join a game where it's not so easy to play your role. The briefing system available to mission makers is pretty crude - and we don't have good maps (that match the game) to use as a tool in the briefing. The end result is that even if you join in an aircraft like the A-10 which has a nice shiny navigation system, the flight plan was made by someone else. That kills SA, and immersion. (Again my opinion)

 

It's possible to get around this, but it's not straightforward. It should be. FSFian made a very cool mission planner that helps, but it was built around the game limitations and basically wrote the waypoints into the mission file. Therefore a player joining later (with the mission in progress) couldn't change the waypoints.

 

Being able to join an AI aircraft in flight would be very useful too - I.e. If I'm playing a strike mission and there are AI f-15s around - joining one to help the strike/cas whatever would be very cool. (Yes I know the a-10'doesnt really do strike we use it for all sorts though!)

 

2. Radio comms. I would be so happy if we could have this built into the sim. TARS was awesome, and so is ARIES. However they both needed teamspeak and a bit of effort on behalf of players. I think MP would be a totally different place if we could talk to each othe natively from whichever aircraft we chose to join in.

 

 

DCS is awesome, no doubt, and NTTR is stunning. Currently though, it's far easier to play in small groups to get around these problems than scaling it up to a big server.

 

I can only hope we'll see these things as time passes - personally I would much rather see features like these than more planes, at least in the near term. I believe they would help grow a bigger player base......who would then buy more stuff!

Edited January 9, 2016 by carrollhead

[NeilWillis]

Flight planning is not something that needs to be done in-game if the staff in your virtual squadron have anything about them.

 

Can real world pilots jump into other airframes mid flight?

 

Radio comms can and have been covered by a few applications that any virtual squadron will be able to point you to, and assist with the employment of.

 

The radio and planning facilities would be good additions to DCS World, but they are far from deal breakers.

 

Any decent server would howl in derision at the prospect of you jumping in mid air from cockpit to cockpit, and even allowing you external views. Real world pilots are confined to their cockpits, and so should we be.

[carrollhead]

I didn't say they were a deal breaker - and I believe we were talking about getting higher player numbers into public servers.

 

I also covered why I thought native comms would be a better solution to the current status quo.

 

VSquadron life is not the same as open public servers - there have to be some compromises to allow for the fact that a lot of players don't have a huge amount of time and want to fly reasonably quickly. A serious mission is going to be held on a passworded server with people that know and trust each other to play the part. That's the type of game I like, but if we want more DCS multiplayer in general there needs to be an easy way in. That's all I'm saying.

 

You could implement a respawn timer to stop players from jumping around too much (I.e if you go from one slot to another there is a 5 minute wait). Either way if it was an option in the mission planner - it could be turned off. It would help smaller groups build and fly complex missions though.

 

I don't actually think everyone would do flight planning, but if you were to join and you got a screen showing your waypoints over the map with features (decided by the mission maker) available to you, it would make the whole experience a lot better.

 

I'm not slating DCS - i spend way too much time in it, and I've done a fair bit of making missions too. It's just an opinion ;)

Edited January 9, 2016 by carrollhead

[Eddie]

Flight planning is not something that needs to be done in-game if the staff in your virtual squadron have anything about them.

 

That depends on what you means by planning, some features could be carried out by external tools ala WDP for BMS, but at the most basic level any planning needs to be done using a toolset with access to the mission and simulator assets. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand what mission planning really is or what it involves. Yes there are workarounds, most of which we use in the 476th but they are crude and not remotely as effective as proper planning tools would be.

 

I personally long for the day we have a MP mission planning system and no longer have to spend 20+ mins on the ramp plugging in flight plans, weapons profiles, and other things that should be contained in a DTC.

 

Can real world pilots jump into other airframes mid flight?

 

Can real world pilots do half the things most people do in DCS, especially in the public server environment? No they can't. Equally the DCS player has many handicaps that are not present in the real world.

 

As for NTTR, personally it's the theatre I've been waiting for for over 20 years as its the most significant airspace is western military aviation, and has seen more "combat" sorties flown that any other airspace in the world. And itr finally give us the chance to fly real world flight and mission profiles in DCS using real world TTPs.

 

I understand that for the casual simmers who fly on the public PvP servers it may not be all that interesting, but then why should it be? The public PvP is only a small segment of the community, and frankly it's a segment that has been pandered to far too much already. It's high time other elements of the community started seeing the things they crave for in a sim.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Eddie

[carrollhead]

Thankyou Eddie - very succinctly put. I find it to be very time consuming to write a decent briefing from within the mission editor - usually we end up writing a PDF for pilots in a mission. It's not an option really for public servers (at least if you want people to read it!)

 

I do think that making these tools available would benefit all players, and mission makers too.

 

If I could do it I would, but I'm a bit thick ;)

[Blooze]

Referring back to the OP's observation concerning the NTTR map specifically, MP activity will depend on the creation of MP missions, whether they are locked organized squad type missions or open missions that invite anyone in for an unorganized slug fest. The waning list of NTTR MP servers IMO is evidence that the majority of capable mission designers are struggling like I have been to create anything immersive with the NTTR map apart from what the map was intended for, TRAINING. For those that are at the training stage with whatever aircraft they have chosen, or those that are attracted to training exercises from a military point of view this would probably be the ideal setup, but for the many that already have many hours of virtual combat experience under their belts the thrill of the new graphics are short lived, training missions are boring, and one is left waiting for SoH so that the true intention of DCS World, COMBAT SIMULATION, will resume. Although I am awestruck at the progress that has been made and remain optimistic about the future of DCS I find myself stalled again for now while I wait for SoH. :music_whistling:

Edited January 9, 2016 by Blooze

[Pikey]

My feelings exactly Greg. As a misison designer I spend most of my waking hours trying to get realistic and immersive scenarios for the guys to do. Sandboxes aren't for everyone, some need a lot of structure, but especially groups who look for organised play.

 

Much of the community isn't really familiar with what bug 27912 is, or why it put an end to Blue Flag and frankly they probably don't care, or expect Xcom to fix it somehow. But for us that know, it's been debilitating for months on just a small simple thing, ended dynamic content that needed it (Blue Flag) and made us sit on our hands until such time as it's fixed or we understand the API that ED are making for MP slots. Don't get me started on what 31682 did to scripting in general. I just wish ED seemed to understand how their players extended the game with scripting so as to properly understand the impacts of their changes and prioritise fixing. The ME on it's own isn't enough to satisfy customers, if it was no one would spend thousands of hours developing scripts to extend the usefulness.

 

In 1.2 days I had our server open to public. I've essentially locked it to public, restricted it to 1.5.2 and not looked at 2.0 at all. It's been hard just hanging onto our own groups as they fragment on different versions, so in public I can't really afford the time to put up a 2.0 server.

 

From a geographic sense NTTR doesn't lend itself to gaming PvP like the Georgian map which has natural mountain ranges at borders and better 100nm distances. NTTR could handle structured PvP inside of groups because the groups have a strict script, they take up sides etc, but public game servers are going to be abused so you need to look at ranges beteen airfields. I think if ED opens Tonopah airport it would make a HUGE difference to this very simple dynamic and its a good learning experience for why to pick certain areas as game play maps.

 

TTR opening would also put Groom lake in the middle of Nellis and TTR so from a design point of view you have lovely seperation, a centre objective airfield and the right distances for 4th gen radar. Right now, our in-house campaign is in Georgia and will remain there until something I can design will work in another map.

 

Also, it seems small maps are a detriment to expanding our minds approaches on how we play. Whilst some consider a map based on their one play session, others, notably groups, squadrons and communities consider the battle space in 3 dimensions - how it lasts between sessions. My group certainly is and that's why we need Georgia. We need the full area, the more the merrier - the longer the campaign. Dynamic campaigns will never exist in small spaces with small numbers of objectives.

 

TLDR; NTTR is not as suited to typical public server content in its current state, it s alittle too small, and the bugs in general are slowing any chance of good mission design using it in the near future.

 

IMO the problem is not based on the theaters (like NTTR). The problem is on the gameplay that DCS offers. We will see less servers or less populated servers in the Caucasus map also if it continues like this.

 

Since NTTR release you could see thousand of free flight screenshots showing where this could lead. Same happened when 1.5 was out. We all are excited when something is released. Things are easy in the single player or free flight enviroment. You hop in,fly around, test new features & capture screenshots.

 

But in order to have also the ability to enjoy the combat & MP experience some people have to setup stuff for the community (mission designers, organisers). When they start to put their hands on these new features they face many issues.

 

The biggest are the bugs & continues changes of DCS World during the mission designing. (scripts, triggers, API etc). You can say it's BETA but this remains a long time issue.

 

Another but highly important issue is that DCS should offer a better gameplay for Multiplayer by providing the feeling to the players that they have something like a career. Dynamic & persistant war scenarios should be there. Same mission scenarios over the years don't make the difference and eventually people don't get motivated to join again after some time. You need something to drag you in by motivating you to join the server and help your side to complete its longterm goals.

 

Mission designers now are wasting a great amount of time to reach close to a point like this. And that can force them to stop due to less free time. Without them there are less missions & servers on.

 

Sadly we don't see an improvement in this area. Lots of new modules comes out but if you don't get motivated to use them properly in Multiplayer, which is for many people a high priority, then I believe we will see the results that the topic mention.

 

 

Greg

[BitMaster]

I got feedback such that my flying pals are not planning to buy NTTR and thus for our group NTTR is dead as long as it that high in price ( that may change ) and they also moan it's too small.

 

Well, I like it, but LAN by yourself is obsolete....so I hear what others say why they dont adopt to NTTR.

 

- Money ( too small and not usefull for what they pay, bottomline )

- too small for many things, even if for free

 

I run NTTR at decent fps, didnt complain about the price at all and like it as a change, but if Hormuz is even smaller that NTTR...well... that I wont buy & like I know even today.

 

Jets need a playground and no boundaries imho, lets have Scandinavia like in EF2000 and make/must make use of tankers etc... 1000 miles long and 750 wide, that I call a map for jets.

 

just my 2 cents and those of my pals

[BitMaster]

+1 to Greg's post. DCS's strategy towards usable products as a complete pack has it's limits.

 

The real thing, map + engine + modules + missions = a hard to achieve masterpiece that only a few ever delivered.

 

That, is my very personal problem with DCS. Maybe hard to understand but as a system it never ran complete since I am with it...and it probably never will to some extend due to the limited number of customers and development power/speed and strategy forced onto the series.

 

The modules are 1a ! no doubt....it's like a perfect piece of Steak meat, but the dish is more than the ingredients, they need to seamlessly match and they need a cook ( strategy ) that puts it all in place in a timely manner that results in a top notch steak on your plate :)

DCS is a good steak, but it misses the side orders, the nice and easy surrounding, the ease of handling the system....who knows DCS knows what I mean.

 

It's still a long way for a 2* Michelin Dish in my personal view and expectations.

[piXel496]

I'm seeing less and less MP servers for NTTR. Are people tired of that map already? The graphics are fantastic.....I'm surprised.

I have no doubt more people will host fun or interesting MP maps with those fantastic graphics if the scripting environment becomes reliable again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

until then :sleep:

[Blooze]

The latest newsletter said that more airfields would be added to the NTTR map but no specifics other than Tonopah. What I would like to see is a few new airfields that the user could name in the ME regardless of whether or not ATC would be available. At least then one could create a hypothetical mid-east type mission that might be more believable in the absence of airfield names that are directly associated with Nevada.

[104th_Maverick]

We are having a Nellis Night this Saturday for 3 hours in the NTTR!

 

Please come along and join us guys for some combat action! There will be Air to Ground targets along with enemy Air Aggressors.

 

If this kicks off we will do it every Saturday night!

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2663138&postcount=717