FPS Section Added to the game

[ContraStorm]

I just wanted to say one thing that is really missing in this game. That is communication with ground units. I usually feel a "disconnect" to why am I going to go bomb this airbase? There is no real aspect to the reason why I am going to go bomb this airbase or units on the ground. I know the game is telling me to go bomb this place, but there are no men on the ground needing my assistance. There is no feedback from ground units what so ever. I feel that that is what pilots in this game need. Some feedback of what they did for units on the ground. That would bring a whole different level of immersion to the player.

There are people who enjoy and would rather go FPS in a world like this. I mean just imagine...

There is a team of players wanting to take a base or a city. They are pinned down and need some CAS. They call for Air support and you are the nearest plane around their AO. You take the call and head to their location. Of course the men on the ground know how to tell you the exact instructions on where they need the hit and what weapon to use. You say RGR and head there and unleash hell. After you did you job you get praised by the players for helping them on their mission. Now you, as pilot, you feel more accomplished and satisfied as a pilot.

Not only will the player feel more satisfied with what he did on his mission but he will want to play the game more often.

My suggestion is to include a FPS aspect to the game. Not only playable men on the ground but also to improve the play-ability of the current ground vehicles that are available.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, ContraStorm said:

There are people who enjoy and would rather go FPS in a world like this. I mean just imagine...

There is a team of players wanting to take a base or a city. They are pinned down and need some CAS. They call for Air support and you are the nearest plane around their AO. You take the call and head to their location. Of course the men on the ground know how to tell you the exact instructions on where they need the hit and what weapon to use. You say RGR and head there and unleash hell. After you did you job you get praised by the players for helping them on their mission. Now you, as pilot, you feel more accomplished and satisfied as a pilot.

So basically the infantry get to sit around for hours watching you destroy all their targets

[ContraStorm]

I knew someone would say something like that. I guess that is why the US only uses the Air force and Navy to win Wars. Come on man, think a little, use your brain. The units on the ground will never be visible to air units at all. All ground battles would never be shown on the f-10 map. The only way a pilot would know where ground players units are is if they request assistance from air units, that's the only way anyone would find out or if you accidentally find a unit while using your litening or atflir.

That way they should almost never be bothered unless they need help from us above.

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, ContraStorm said:

I knew someone would say something like that. I guess that is why the US only uses the Air force and Navy to win Wars. Come on man, think a little, use your brain. The units on the ground will never be visible to air units at all. All ground battles would never be shown on the f-10 map. The only way a pilot would know where ground players units are is if they request assistance from air units, that's the only way anyone would find out or if you accidentally find a unit while using your litening or atflir.

That way they should almost never be bothered unless they need help from us above.

The maps in DCS are just too large for an FPS game. And lack detail to make them interesting at that level. 

[MAXsenna]

@ContraStorm

You've been a member of this forum for 10 years, and this is the first time you've encountered "Sharpy the Wish Killer"?
Sorry Sharp, couldn't resist!
But seriously CS, you have never seen all the other numerous posts/wishes about a potential FPS module/feature?
I mean, they are numerous, so you're not alone, and it will probably come, who knows when though!

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

Who’s gonna want to play infantry in this game? Here’s an entire squad going bye bye in DCS  The effect of one player controlled Apache on an FPS game  

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by SharpeXB

[SOLIDKREATE]

I think it would be cool if they could somehow merge ArmA with this game. 

[ContraStorm]

So

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, ContraStorm said:

So

 

In real world situations there are probably thousands of ground troops per helicopter or aircraft. In a game like this there will be 8 or 10 or so infantry players vs a dozen attack aircraft. So the ground troops will just get dominated, not a very balanced game in that regard. 
 

The real problem is the size and level of detail in the maps. Aircraft need large less detailed maps but this will be too large and bland for interesting first person gameplay. A typical ARMA map is 400 sq km. The Syria map is 450,000 sq km. FPS games need detailed environments, buildings and such which are infeasible in flight sims. Mixing the two games types just doesn’t seem practical due to differences in scale and detail. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I can hear the game engine already screaming in agony.

[draconus]

On 7/8/2023 at 5:27 AM, SharpeXB said:

Here’s an entire squad going bye bye in DCS

Well, if you stay out in the open, without any AA protection...

I support the idea for a limited FPS in DCS but OP talks only about one type of mission - CAS while there are many aircraft missions that don't have anything to do with infantry/ground forces. Also CAS pilots rarely get instant cheers and full contact with many ground forces - you just follow the orders and confirm the results. You might eventually get "Good job!" on the RTB.

[cfrag]

This topic comes up regularly, and although not resolved entirely, we can say that at the current stage of DCS gameplay, boots and fixed wings don't mix, and boots and rotorwings mix haphazardly. 

The issue isn't that this doesn't happen in reality. The issue is that DCS's game loop makes these different playstyles disjunct, they might as well play on their own servers, oblivious of the others. 

One of the problems is that someone on foot (when fit and trained) moves some 6km per hour - 3.7 miles. So to traverse the length of an average airstrip's runway, they will require 30-45 minutes. 

Thus to ingress to a target, they'll use vehicles. Imagine driving your truck 75 miles to the objective, taking some 60 minutes to get there, then go the last mile on foot (another 30 minutes) to prepare your assault with your team. The problem: 3 minutes ago, 50 miles away, an aircraft dropped a stand-off cluster munition. You re-spawn at base, to jump into the truck to enjoy another hour-long ride. Fun? You tell me. OK, so let's move the spawn point closer to the objective, so people can "Battlefield" their way to the objective. In both cases: what do they need aircraft for? Most aircraft cover hundreds of miles in minutes. The speed differential virtually guarantees that there is no meaningful game loop that brings ground - and airborne bound players together. So they might as well play on different servers or different games.

So there simply is next to no regular interaction from the ground to airborne players to make this a good game. Also, even if we tried, there seldom are enough players to make this work: you'd need a couple of pilots, and a couple of foot/ground unit drivers and they'd have to meet at the right time, or be in the same vicinity. Few players would think it fun to loiter their A-10 over the battlefield for 40 minutes to wait for the boots to arrive. Likewise, few tank drivers like to wait for a Hog's 10 minute ingress. So why not spawn both over the battlefield? Indeed - but why not play "Battlefield" instead? You already have shrunk the active area to that game's arena, so you might as well play that game.

Even if we look at helicopters, we have to admit that creating a fun, mixed ground (CA-based) and Helo mission is incredibly hard to do, and requires many, many caveats to make it work. All players have to be on time, at the correct location, or the scenario doesn't work. This may be fun the first time, but gets old very fast - there simply is no emergent gameplay. When you get killed, you are out, respawning puts you so much out of synch with the rest of the mission, that it's usually not worth the effort. This style of gameplay may be interesting to some, but has very little broad appeal. This is what I discovered with my group: even though we had realistic CSAR missions auto-generated from the mission, few players ever were willing to do them: they took too long to accomplish. And when I created a mission that required an ejected pilot to be rescued by a CSAR mission before they could re-enter a new plane, they would prefer to commit suicide (did not eject) to avoid the 30-90 minutes rescue downtime. They loved the idea, but hated the implementation. The game loops simply don't match up, and that creates a bad game experience.

That's why I currently assert 'boots and wings don't mix' well for a fun game. It's possible to do so, but few people enjoy it.

Edited July 12, 2023 by cfrag

[draconus]

@cfrag Part of the problems can be solved by common CA option to jump between units. Another wish comes to mind: downed pilot stays as AI when player disconnects.

[cfrag]

9 minutes ago, draconus said:

Part of the problems can be solved by common CA option to jump between units.

Indeed, and it's a good start. It does currently not resolve the issue that the game loops of air and ground troops don't mingle well. It does not make for a good overall game experience, and definitely not better than one that can be had without the other. Once this is resolved, nothing can stop DCS