They Gotta make this sim fun

[Reaper6]

I have been playing DCS ever since the LOCK ON (or Lock Up back then), so a long time. I find servers just as boring now as I do then. I mean server are freaking boring. I can't spend more that 10 minutes in one. There is no rhyme or rhythm to them. Most of the time you join in and the "mission" is half way through and everything seems like a gong show. As well what do people really do? They take off, point the plane towards where the enemy is and they shoot a missile at each other and see who's missile hits. BORING!!! There needs to be more tactics to it. Like a single player campaign but with multiplayer. If you choose a squadron, you have a mission, keep to it! Nope people just do what they want.

What there needs to be is tactics. Also risk. Something in the neighborhood like a point system. so lets say you have 10 planes on your team. Lets say 2 of them are A10s. If that A10 team sets out on their mission and successfully completes it that team gets 500 points. If you wander off your mission and just feel like doing whatever you get 0 points.But if you lose an A10, a replacement will cost you 300 points. Until you replace it, that pilot that got shot down will just have to sit and wait until he has a plane he can fly. Anyways, something along those lines. That way there is risk. You don't just take off like a twit and go shoot whatever you feel like. Otherwise you don't help the team out by acquiring points and you risk getting shot down and sitting out a while until your team can buy another plane for you to fly. This way DCS will have some strategy that is forced upon you and when there is a risk to getting shot down (sitting out a while) it makes you play the game smarter. Just like watching a sports game. Its always better to watch if you bet money.

I am just ranting because I feel DCS is pretty stagnant because the lack of fun involved. I don't know if the devs ever thought about doing something like this but IMO it would enhance the multiplayer gameplay immensely. Its never any fun when there is no goal....or should I say a goal that takes organization and strategy. Any tool can jump in a plane and shoot at something.

 

Honestly, I have no idea why I am even responding to this. But not every "tool" can jump in a BlackShark and shoot down fast-movers! If you want a challenge, perhaps try using other modules...

 

Reaper6

[winchesterdelta1]

I am on the server almost every day.. And guess what. I have tons of fun playing with other people as a team. And the fun part is because most people fly in groups now others are also forced to do the same. Otherwise they will be decimated... And guess what. Now we mostly fight groups of public pilots instead of individuals. And that all because of a simple application called team speak. We fly with F-15's Flankers, MIG's, Mirages... You name it. And almost every flight is a thrill. Also we already have that 15 minutes built in wait... If you die you have to startup, taxi and fly to the target area. Or if you want to do it properly you go the long way around to flank them. So on every flight you do you ave the thrill of not wanting to die. And nothing is more satisfying then returning back to base.... That takes another shitload of time to land, refuel and rearm.

 

The only things needed to make this game more fun is planning tools, a way to draw on the map and knee-boards for yourself, proper ATC and build in GCI and ACMI instead of external tools. Bigger maps and human AWACS and proper AAR would be a must as well. We don't need artificial things like 15 minutes respawn timer, more XP because you destroyed your target and other artificial insentives to behave a certain way. You should force yourself to behave a certain way YOU want. So if you like to fly as a team but you can not stand a annoying WinchesterDelta, you find other people to fly around with. How many times i have seen people on her asking for more team work and more immersion.. But then they come onto Team Speak and don't say a word. Or leave because they getting annoyed by all this talking. Beacuse the people playing don't fit their playing style. Maybe it's time for people to adapt a bit more and be a bit more creative to get the gameplay they want. But i only see is people that want a game that forces them to behave a certain way... If you give them the freedom to do all they want they suddenly find the game boring cause now they suddenly have to think for them self and find the right people them self. This is no game that holds your hand. This game gives you freedom to do almost everything you want... But it also gives you the freedom the be bored as F*** if you lack creativity and are afraid to talk to other people or even get annoyed by the slightest fart from other people.

 

A lot need to be improved int his game... Including the players them self. I would rather not see artificial BS because people are not creative and talkative enough to make fun them self. And even if there are people that create fun scenario's for them like BLUEFLAG they complain and complain. Maybe we all should start looking at our self first. Cause that needs some improvement as well.

[Frostie]

Vincent, you can't say that you dedicate yourself to SP in DCS but then come around and comare it to a MP game, all of the above can be found in BlueFlag in some shape or form

 

Vincent is one of thoee guys that just scrapped the surface of mp and thinks that is it. He expects ED to make all the play and doesn't realise that the mp scene and all its glory is created by the community and some hard working server hosts.

[FeistyLemur]

Vincent is one of thoee guys that just scrapped the surface of mp and thinks that is it. He expects ED to make all the play and doesn't realise that the mp scene and all its glory is created by the community and some hard working server hosts.

 

Why would he? What other multiplayer game works this way?

 

It's not particularly easy to get into, or lone wolf-able as most other multiplayer experiences teach people to expect.

 

My experience is kind of similar to his. I'm not one to join events, or voice servers. So the multiplayer from that point of view, if you're coming from something like war thunder, or any number of other online games, even Arma, there's the playerbase to just casually jump into games and do your own thing, is pretty unusual.

 

I don't know enough about multiplayer here to offer too much of an opinion, but just jumping on in the evening to play a game, In North America I see one server with anyone on on it, and probably a grand total of about 70 people playing, give or take across all servers. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, or if there or more people in Europe, as there tends to be. But this isn't the kind of environment that's very easy to understand for people that are used to matchmaking style games where you can just roll matches all night. Or pick from dozens of servers that are too full to get into.

 

Whether that's a good thing or bad, I don't know. That's kind of how I see the way this differs from most other online experiences. The game mechanics herd the cats so to speak into some form of system of expected balanced play. This would appear to be more of a sandbox where there is no such thing as balance, since the F15 pretty much utterly destroys everything else in the sky from 40 miles out.

 

That may be fine, and I'm sure it works well for the people who are used to it. But I can understand the confusion for someone who's not already part of that community. Cause I pretty much don't get it either. I've had a couple fun times in multiplayer but mostly I learn modules, train, and play single player. Probably the most fun I've had in the game is the KA-50 single player. And the single multiplayer Mig-21 v F5 dogfight I managed to find.

Edited September 1, 2016 by FeistyLemur

[Wrecking Crew]

8)

[Frostie]

DCS is a multi aircraft simulator with no parallel, it's not a game made with mp in mind, mp is just a bolt on bonus. It is something that can be enjoyed without any opponent or objective whatsoever. When people try to compare it with games designed with objectives and mp in mind and then ask why isn't DCS like this it makes me sigh. Why don't those mp focused, objective based games have realistic aircraft working in a realistic environment, maybe because it takes a lot of research, work and resources to get even close, as much as say making a totally new game.

 

A long time ago before WoW and CoD an RPG such as DnD was something that required the users to be creative, have great imaginations and like minded friends, there was no board or playing pieces just the users wits. DCS is like that in that it gives you all the tools, so you can be creative in how you wish to enjoy it by yourself or with friends and strangers. In mp there is no spoon feeding of repetitive scripting, no capture the flag nonsense, no game so to speak unless you make it so. You want to capture the flag then carry on playing War Thunder after all that is what it was designed for. If you want capture the flag in DCS then you better get making it and then hope there are enough willing to join you to make all the effort worth your while.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Frostie

[FeistyLemur]

DCS is a multi aircraft simulator with no parallel, it's not a game made with mp in mind, mp is just a bolt on bonus. It is something that can be enjoyed without any opponent or objective whatsoever. When people try to compare it with games designed with objectives and mp in mind and then ask why isn't DCS like this it makes me sigh. Why don't those mp focused, objective based games have realistic aircraft working in a realistic environment, maybe because it takes a lot of research, work and resources to get even close, as much as say making a totally new game.

 

That's kind of why it's a bit of an oxymoron saying this is a multiplayer game. I love the game, I do. The clicky cockpits, the realism, the learning curve, It's fantastic. Then you have the FC3 aircraft sitting there like an abomination among the Mig-21's and the A-10c's, or the Huey's.

 

So what was the purpose of the FC3 aircraft? To draw in a broader audience and make some money? I can't say. But in the end you have this multiplayer experience that's pretty disjointed, and people coming in with expectations of something that will hold their hand and give them some kind of traditional multiplayer experience, and it's not that. It seems to be completely community based make your own fun, make your own scenarios kind of thing.

 

And that's honestly quite fine, but understand you're going to have a small insular community with this. And for newcomers, probably you're going to adapt and join the community, or leave.

Edited September 1, 2016 by FeistyLemur

[Frostie]

That's kind of why it's a bit of an oxymoron saying this is a multiplayer game. I love the game, I do. The clicky cockpits, the realism, the learning curve, It's fantastic. Then you have the FC3 aircraft sitting there like an abomination among the Mig-21's and the A-10c's, or the Huey's.

 

So what was the purpose of the FC3 aircraft? To draw in a broader audience and make some money? I can't say. But in the end you have this multiplayer experience that's pretty disjointed, and people coming in with expectations of something that will hold their hand and give them some kind of traditional multiplayer experience, and it's not that. It seems to be completely community based make your own fun, make your own scenarios kind of thing.

 

And that's honestly quite fine, but understand you're going to have a small insular community with this. And for newcomers, probably you're going to adapt and join the community, or leave.

 

I don't understand what you mean by traditional multiplayer experience, what do you want to see, one life deathmatch, 15 min rounds, first to 10 kills, you need to define what it is that you expect to see. The single player part of the sim doesn't lead anyone on to believe mp is going to be anything, unless for some reason you're expecting a game environment to suddenly crop up out of nowhere based on the fact some more common mp games are like that.

 

How are FC aircraft an abomination or make it disjointed, they have the same restrictions and complexity with weapon employment, they also have just as complex flight models. The FC aircraft were there before any click cockpits arrived they've just been updated since. The click cockpits are of the same ilk just with more in depth system modeling, the FC3 aircraft still have realistic systems that matter in combat but lack the system modeling out of combat and configuring for combat, hence the original name of 'lock on: modern air combat' They also add to the scenario of choice.

 

The benefit of having a community drive mp is that you can create, request ideas that can then be implemented. If someone wants a fast battle map or 30min objective mission it can be done, this is how the il-2 sim grew in mp.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Frostie

[doodenkoff]

So what was the purpose of the FC3 aircraft?

 

It seems like you may not be real up on the history of this product. The FC3 aircraft are the earliest iterations of it; they were basically the very first product. And they came from an era when graphics and PC capabilities were far behind what's considered common today.

 

So, the "purpose" of the FC3 aircraft is pretty straightforward; that's what Eagle Dynamics latest and greatest was at one time.

[FeistyLemur]

It seems like you may not be real up on the history of this product. The FC3 aircraft are the earliest iterations of it; they were basically the very first product. And they came from an era when graphics and PC capabilities were far behind what's considered common today.

 

So, the "purpose" of the FC3 aircraft is pretty straightforward; that's what Eagle Dynamics latest and greatest was at one time.

 

I'm kind of new to things but Wikipedia is misinformed if what you say is true. It lists Black Shark as the initial release, A-10c (which is what I attribute most with DCS), combined arms, and the P-51 coming out before FC3.

 

And and the A-10c module is really what I would consider the benchmark of realism for Military Sims, out of those. Black shark being pretty hardcore, the A-10 being really hardcore, and FC3 being well, what it is.

 

Also according to what I'm reading the Huey came out in 2013, same as FC3.

 

So, how is that their first project? unless what I'm reading is incorrect.

Edited September 1, 2016 by FeistyLemur

[FeistyLemur]

I don't understand what you mean by traditional multiplayer experience, what do you want to see, one life deathmatch, 15 min rounds, first to 10 kills, you need to define what it is that you expect to see. The single player part of the sim doesn't lead anyone on to believe mp is going to be anything, unless for some reason you're expecting a game environment to suddenly crop up out of nowhere based on the fact some more common mp games are like that.

 

How are FC aircraft an abomination or make it disjointed, they have the same restrictions and complexity with weapon employment, they also have just as complex flight models. The FC aircraft were there before any click cockpits arrived they've just been updated since. The click cockpits are of the same ilk just with more in depth system modeling, the FC3 aircraft still have realistic systems that matter in combat but lack the system modeling out of combat and configuring for combat, hence the original name of 'lock on: modern air combat' They also add to the scenario of choice.

 

The benefit of having a community drive mp is that you can create, request ideas that can then be implemented. If someone wants a fast battle map or 30min objective mission it can be done, this is how the il-2 sim grew in mp.

 

I want to see amazingly realistic sims to the detail level of the A10, with lots of players. But that's probably a pipe dream. I'm just saying I see where the guy is coming from. He wants to get online and have fun without having to do a lot of work or meeting a schedule. Which is pretty much what other games provide. So I can see why he might expect this.

 

As for the FC3 aircraft. I just think they're basically all the same aircraft with slighly tweaked flight models and weapons loadouts. And the one with the best weapons loadout, the F15, wins. All of them have the exact same controls layout. Maybe I focus too much on the simplistic unified controls aspect, but I don't know.

Edited September 1, 2016 by FeistyLemur

[GGTharos]

Without major surgery to introduce fuller systems modeling for the weapons, this always will be the case regardless of DCS aircraft or FC3 aircraft.

 

Come to think of it though, if such things were introduced the F-15 would win even more because ... it's the better weapons platform with the better weapons loadout ;)

 

As for the FC3 aircraft. I just think they're basically all the same aircraft with slighly tweaked flight models and weapons loadouts. And the one with the best weapons loadout, the F15, wins.

[FeistyLemur]

Without major surgery to introduce fuller systems modeling for the weapons, this always will be the case regardless of DCS aircraft or FC3 aircraft.

 

Come to think of it though, if such things were introduced the F-15 would win even more because ... it's the better weapons platform with the better weapons loadout ;)

 

Well, it's what? A 1990's F15 vs at best the Mig29S which is still no contest?

 

Reality doesn't have "balance" so it's probably not exactly an attainable goal for multiplayer anyway as long as you want to attach "sim" to the title of your product.

 

If you consider that things are probably working about as well as can be expected. All I was saying is that I think I was seeing the original posters point.

[Nerd1000]

I'm kind of new to things but Wikipedia is misinformed if what you say is true. It lists Black Shark as the initial release, A-10c (which is what I attribute most with DCS), combined arms, and the P-51 coming out before FC3.

 

And and the A-10c module is really what I would consider the benchmark of realism for Military Sims, out of those. Black shark being pretty hardcore, the A-10 being really hardcore, and FC3 being well, what it is.

 

Also according to what I'm reading the Huey came out in 2013, same as FC3.

 

So, how is that their first project? unless what I'm reading is incorrect.

Prior to DCS Eagle Dynamics made Lock-On: Modern Air Combat (LOMAC) and its successor Flaming Cliffs 2. The FC3 module basically started out as a transplant of the content from FC2 and LOMAC into DCS, though it has since been updated and upgraded with new flight models and 3D geometry.

[Pronin]

Well, it's what? A 1990's F15 vs at best the Mig29S which is still no contest?

 

Reality doesn't have "balance" so it's probably not exactly an attainable goal for multiplayer anyway as long as you want to attach "sim" to the title of your product.

 

If you consider that things are probably working about as well as can be expected. All I was saying is that I think I was seeing the original posters point.

 

F-15 vs MiG-29 is no contest?

 

I wouldn't be so sure.

[winchesterdelta1]

Thank god there is no match making or some other form of player balance mechanic. I would throw this "game" right out of the window. Also what kind of F-15 do you use that can shoot people from 40 miles? I would like to have that one.

And also... the FC3 people made it possible for you to have Full blown Modules. And you might need some practice and fly with a buddy if you can not destroy F-15's with MIG-29's, SU's or Mirages. Plenty of times F-15 pilots like me get decimated by those planes.

Edited September 1, 2016 by winchesterdelta1

[Frostie]

I want to see amazingly realistic sims to the detail level of the A10, with lots of players. But that's probably a pipe dream. I'm just saying I see where the guy is coming from. He wants to get online and have fun without having to do a lot of work or meeting a schedule. Which is pretty much what other games provide. So I can see why he might expect this.

 

As for the FC3 aircraft. I just think they're basically all the same aircraft with slighly tweaked flight models and weapons loadouts. And the one with the best weapons loadout, the F15, wins. All of them have the exact same controls layout. Maybe I focus too much on the simplistic unified controls aspect, but I don't know.

 

What i'd say to the op is don't follow the sheep, don't just join the server with the most players in it join the one that suits your requirements. If you join a good server more will follow. Get on TS, how can you co-ordinate tactically if you don't communicate. READ THE BRIEF. A lot of missions have very instructive and informative briefings.

 

There are so many variations in how missions are made up, find a server that matches your taste and remember it.

[FeistyLemur]

I don't how it is in the UK prime time, but in the evening here that's not really a realistic plan. Unless you're keen on sitting alone on a server hoping anyone shows up.

 

I did a sort by players the other night and there were I think about 4 servers populated past 10 people and 1 of them was locked.

 

You either play on the 104th phoenix one or you play on the "open combat" one from what I can see. Unless there is something I'm missing. I've been watching and hoping to find a mig21 vs f5 server with any players on it and I've found one game with another player in it so far, once. And I haven't seen that server on that mission again or with a player on it since. So my only other option is to play mig21 or f5 weed whacker style on the 104th server vs modern fighters and hope to get lucky. I mostly loathe playing the fc3 aircraft but that seems to be the only real choice here.

Edited September 1, 2016 by FeistyLemur

[Reaper6]

And and the A-10c module is really what I would consider the benchmark of realism for Military Sims, out of those. Black shark being pretty hardcore, the A-10 being really hardcore, and FC3 being well, what it is.

 

I have to add my two cents, and defend my beloved BlackShark. Considering I purchased and have learned both the A10C and the Ka50, I mainly only fly the Ka50 though. The A10C was pretty simple to learn the systems, even air refueling not that difficult. I personally wouldn't categorize it as "really hardcore", considering the systems do most of the work for you.

 

The A10C is mostly computerized(if I may use that term) which makes it extremely user friendly, provided you can read the manual and watch a few YouTube videos.

 

The Ka50 on the other hand is all about the pilot and his skill. The closest thing you have to anything resembling a computer is the ABRIS and a 1950s TV screen. You don't carry any A2A missiles, other than Vikhrs w/A2A fuze. There is no RWR which lets you know a missile is coming for you. The Ka50 takes massive amounts of situational awareness if you want to survive any type of combat mission.

 

Of course I am extremely biased when it comes to the BlackShark, since I have been flying it since its first release. I would say each aircraft have their own levels of difficulty for each individual. But I for one have never been bored flying around in my Ka50, 7 years later I am still learning new things about the Shark.

 

No offense was intended for the A10 pilots out there, but "really hardcore" is a bit of a stretch I think...

 

Reaper6

[GGTharos]

Not a stretch at all, rather the typical issue that people rely on the systems too much instead of learning flight technique and tactics. Nothing to do with 'hard core' or not, just attitude and the time and effort required to pull this stuff off.

 

Also, a proper SAM setup would help make it a little more 'hard core' and help actually implement SEAD properly :)

[FeistyLemur]

I enjoy the KA-50 as well, I just found the A-10 more time consuming to learn and harder to remember. I stopped playing for a few months recently and when I came back I was able to remember exactly how to run the Black Shark with no trouble. The A-10 I actually had to read a few things to refresh my memory.

 

When I say hardcore i'm referring to the detail level of and the number of systems involved not really how easy or hard it is to fly the aircraft. By that reasoning I've read the Huey is really challenging to fly, and I've yet to get that module, but most likely will one day.

 

The mig21 for example tends to be heralded as quite an accurate simulation. But it's also a very simple machine which is easy to learn and easy to remember.

Edited September 1, 2016 by FeistyLemur

[GGTharos]

Yeah, that's what people typically mean by hardcore ... but in the end everything is accomplished with a few switches on the HOTAS ;)

[OperatorJack]

F-5 vs MiG 21 servers need to be brought back t b h, they were objectively the most fun

[leadlag]

F-5 vs MiG 21 servers need to be brought back t b h, they were objectively the most fun

 

I'm with you on this. The playing field tends to be level and you have proper merged battles rather than spamming bvr missiles.

 

I have enjoyed flying on this server in both the mig and the f5.

 

I'm much more successful in the f5. I don't know what that says about me.

[gavagai]

Yeah, that's what people typically mean by hardcore ... but in the end everything is accomplished with a few switches on the HOTAS ;)

 

When I have the chance to enjoy the F-16C with my friend's Cougar Hotas, I still have to use the mouse pretty frequently for mfd buttons and the icp. The only mission I could do with the HOTAS alone would be quick action air-to-air stuff. The idea of working all of the different mfd modes and submodes with joystick/throttle buttons doesn't make sense to me. How would someone do that? :huh: