Jump to content

What Can Be Done for Multiplayer?


ericinexile

Recommended Posts

Lately I've returned to playing IL2 online. There's no comparing the two sims. DCS is a true sim and an amazing work. But the attraction with IL2 is the ability to fly in a huge world of other players, many of whom are coordinating tactics on Teamspeak. That is a thrill. Multiplayer on DCS is usually the same experience as single player for me. Other than datalink transfers, there is nothing that ties a player to others in the world. The lack of a significant H2H element* lessens further the contact with other players. Even as we noticed this early on, I thought as more players came online participation would increase. That hasn't happened. If anything, online participation has perhaps even decreased a bit since the Spring.

 

I have a few ideas about what is wrong. But I was wondering if anyone shared my concerns and have "user-side" (as in not ED programmed) ideas.

 

*159th's "King of the Hill" is an exception but its a real technical challenge for some players.


Edited by ericinexile

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately I've returned to playing IL2 online. There's no comparing the two sims. DCS is a true sim and an amazing work. But the attraction with IL2 is the ability to fly in a huge world of other players, many of whom are coordinating tactics on Teamspeak. That is a thrill. Multiplayer on DCS is usually the same experience as single player for me. Other than datalink transfers, there is nothing that ties a player to others in the world. The lack of a significant H2H element* lessens further the contact with other players. Even as we noticed this early on, I thought as more players came online participation would increase. That hasn't happened. If anything, online participation has perhaps even decreased a bit since the Spring.

 

I have a few ideas about what is wrong. But I was wondering if anyone shared my concerns and have "user-side" (as in not ED programmed) ideas.

 

*159th's "King of the Hill" is an exception but its a real technical challenge for some players.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=28629

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric In Exile - first of all, let's hope you can return home some day. ;)

 

Valid points you have brought up there - and Im sharing your concerns.

Sorry for a lengthy post, but I found it appropriate to do a bit of speculation in the context of your question, and it wont work without a bit of explaining. I'll speculate in why we see DCS:BS in the shape and form we do, as well as why this influence how we do Multi Player. :)

 

To encourage growth, the extended life of the series

IMHO - To improve the longivity of the series, how many copies are sold, and how large this community will become you need to:

  • Encourage MP communities and content creation (extended life after Single Player) - to maintain how many people who are using the sim (concurrently) after the intial SP campaign is over.

To do just that you need a to have a few requirements in place:

  • Good "Content Creation Tools", meaning Mission Editors (somewhat lacking), open scripting interface (LUA, ok when we start to learn it) and modification of the existing content/engine (we have this to a certain degree).
  • Community Developers who are encouraged to create new tools, offering documentation where possible / wiki. Some people are already doing this, models and textures, or even smaller utils.
  • A Managable Server / Standalone Server. Somewhat hampered due to the GUI requirements for the server - but future versions may change this (or so we hope). Acedy's server mod helps a bit - but still there are basic things that needs improvement in the game engine/core platform.

IMHO I think we have a basic platform that works for Single Player (short term lifespan), but not so much for "new content" in the MP arena.

 

The early decisions

From what Im seeing DCS:BS (and the series) as of now is that ED made some basic choices in the planning phases, which influenced MP as we see it today:

- They decided to model "one by one" airframes, focusing on the realism of that model, as well as using it in warfare.

- To further support this they implemented the basic tools for creating a enviroment where the pilot can play out the aspects and tactics of this particular airframe and model.

 

I think their initial plans for DCS was to use it as a basis prove their abilities creating military sims (for their business customers) - which also makes sense, they too need long term contracts.

Creating a fully fledged "one airframe" model makes sense with that in mind - multiplayer or standalone servers is a bit more irrelevant in that perspective (as of now).

 

The above decitions and choices puts a definitive constraint on what the will create and how much effort that is put into each area - and as any other companies in the world, ED have only so many employees, time restrictions, budgets and everything else to relate to.

 

The effect ..

The first package of DCS which arrived is the Ka-50.

This package works really great for single player - but due to limitations in the Mission Editor + Game Engine (don't forget the mechanisms that actually do the work when you are airborne in MP) ... the MP environment is suffering a bit.

 

Why the MP is suffering?

- It's quite labor intensive to create new missions

Especially large scale wars which have to live and run for 5-8 hours online, and not run out of options/targets. (For reference, see 159th server, easilly 500-1000 ground units for blue and Red).

Checking the position of all those units using F7 is immensive(!). To check 1-3 units position, you press F7 500 times, then watch - adjust - and do it over again.

If the unit is in motion (ground unit/air unit) - you need to remember that you will watch this unit maybe 5-10 mins - and then readjust your work.

 

- Triggering mechanisms support only "basic" operations like within zone (unit). For example there's no "coalition is in zone" or "class Helo is in Zone"). (There are too many methods to improve the triggers to list here, but they must be implemented in the server/game mechanism to work). Lacking mechanisms and support are "Events, actions, metods, classes, variables" within a missioneditor+triggers.

 

 

The future brings ...

 

 

As for speculating - doing the future is a risky business. But I think we'll see the following things:

  • 1.0.1 will bring fixes and hopefully some extended abilities for content creation.
  • A10. with Ka-50 they had to "do it all" - this time around they may have more resources working on extending the tools / platform which runs the simulator - as well as new content (Nellis AF).
    So this time around we MAY see more FACILITATION for content creation :)

Do we get a standalone server? Im not sure they will do that. See my inital thoughs why this is less likely (as of now). :)

 

Still - I DO think the future may be a bit brighter - we may have to be a bit patient, since time and resources may bring us some better tools ...

.. so that we, you, I, me and Irene can start bringing some MP content near your Client! :)

The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open | The important thing is not to stop questioning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric In Exile - first of all, let's hope you can return home some day.

 

Thanks. But I haven't gone anywhere. My routine is to fire up DCS MP and if nothing seems to be going on I close DCS and head to HyperLobby and IL2. It's just that the "nothing's going on" thing seems increasingly more common.

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. But I haven't gone anywhere. My routine is to fire up DCS MP and if nothing seems to be going on I close DCS and head to HyperLobby and IL2. It's just that the "nothing's going on" thing seems increasingly more common.

 

I hear you, but nothing going on is still going to be there if no one pops into the server every now and then... Unfortunately I can't really say I'm much better..

Core i5-760 @ 3.6Ghz, 4GB DDR3, Geforce GTX470, Samsung SATA HDD, Dell UH2311H 1920x1080, Saitek X52 Pro., FreeTrack homemade cap w/ LifeCam VX-1000, Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1.

FreeTrack in DCS A10C (64bit): samttheeagle's headtracker.dll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panzertard,

 

Great post. Just the kind of response I was hoping for. I'm sure ED understands that Multiplayer improvements are vital to the long-term success of the franchise. Even Flanker 1.0 had a strong multiplayer capability. And that was 12 years ago.

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for direct facilitation for Multiplayer my top 100 list would be:

 

(I'm afraid all of this is Mission Editor related / some game mechanics)

  1. 3D editor, so you can see the placement of the units directly.
    - The units themselves (direction, position) and the static world environment like houses, rivers, streets, powerlines.
    - Correct representation of world mesh (altitudes etc), crucial for unit positioning - and evaluating it's effectivness.
     
  2. Triggers improvements (a few examples only):
    Conditions: "In zone" trigger / other triggers

  • Unit-name that starts with "text"
  • Group-name that contains "text"
  • Country (Russia/USA etc) and Coalition (Red/Blue)
  • Entity class Player or AI
  • Classes (helo, air, ship, vehicle, men)
  • Variables: Flag (variable) "myvar" <> value
    Actions:
  • Flag "myvar" = "myvar" + 8
  • Unit ID respawn (from dead. Note: this would actually save HOURS/DAYS of mission work in LARGE missions for MP)
  • Group ID respawn
  • Mission Restart / Reload.

4. Much improved filtering - separate and better control:

a) of visible units / editor environment (what you see in the editor when your work with it) ... AND ...

b) ..AND ... the "hidden" / "visible" flag for the GAME engine.

  • Hide / Show All Blue (or Red, or Class (helo, air, ship, static etc))
  • Hide / Show All
  • Im sure there are other filtering techniques as well :)

5. Multiple select and manipulation:

- Select many units (in different groups) - and manipulate (move / rotate) them.

- Select many groups - and manipulate (move / rotate) them.

 

6. Copy / Paste (multiple units or groups).

 

99. Standalone server - no gui - able restart / reloads / other via remote (text/http) commands and connector.

 

:thumbup:


Edited by Panzertard

The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open | The important thing is not to stop questioning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, Kuky.

 

DCS at the moment is primarily aimed at coop-gameplay, not at H2H.

 

 

I agree that the later is more thrilling, supports better squad vs squad gameplay and stuff, but currently that is not the primary goal of DCS it seems. Neither the A-10C nor the Hind or Apache will change that and even if we get a fighter after the A-10C first, it will take another 9 month to get the counterpart. So LockOn or IL2-gameplay is still a long way from where we are now.

 

Still, I'd personally very much like to see that with the complex simulation and the possibilities evolving from that. And of course I also support most of the ideas posted here, as multiplayer is still a vital part of modern gaming and this is especially true with all the datalink and even more with the 2-seaters like the Apache and Hind.

 

But you have to remember that BlackShark is just the first step into a new direction and DCS will evolve, grow and get bigger and better. So, let's use the wishlist and have faith. I'm sure ED knows about these points and it will improve.

  • Like 1

Gigabyte GA-Z87-UD3H | i7 4470k @ 4.5 GHz | 16 GB DDR3 @ 2.133 Ghz | GTX 1080 | LG 55" @ 4K | Cougar 1000 W | Creative X-Fi Ti | TIR5 | CH HOTAS (with BU0836X-12 Bit) + Crosswind Pedals | Win10 64 HP | X-Keys Pro 20 & Pro 54 | 2x TM MFD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiplay requirements-

 

1. Dedicated server for Linux so the game can be supported by gaming networks

2. Dynamic campaign system such as EECH, so longivity is not totally reliant on a small group of mission editors

3. Blue force helicopter

4. Functional IFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS at the moment is primarily aimed at coop-gameplay, not at H2H...
Even without H2H or regenerative/dynamic mission elements, there are still ways to make MP exciting until or if ever the above improvements see light:

 

* Red AND Blue human forces with equalization enforced. There is no real heart-pounding excitement in this game without humans on the other side intelligently prepared to kill you.

 

* AI Helicopters. Killing hostile units is too easy without enemy CAS.

 

* A map that ends when one team meets it's goal or point total.

 

* Anything that makes the player feel he's part of something. A multiplayer Map with no need to interact with other players is meaningless.


Edited by ericinexile

Smokin' Hole

 

My DCS wish list: Su25, Su30, Mi24, AH1, F/A-18C, Afghanistan ...and frankly, the flight sim world should stop at 1995.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and I might add, and I dont like being negative, but most servers are locked and, seems, could be wrong, BS players, most, are not as friendly...plz correct me if otherwise observed.

 

I couldn't say whether that is true, or not. I think the plethora of password protected servers is largely a natural response to some bad apples ruining the fun for others by team killing.

 

Right now, as far as I know, the best tool for dealing with that problem (other than password protecting the server) is Acedy's server scripts. Any tools / features that further that effort could eventually open up some more servers. Getting some sort of user account scheme (ala some gaming networks) in place could help. IP blocking alone is not enough, as IP addresses can changed.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not enough missions, not enough servers. Developers think for some reason people want to slave away for hours and days on end making end user missions. NOT :thumbdown:

 

I fire up Blackshark to fly. Theres no flood of new missions, so i have the same old missions to fly. Online there may be 5 or so servers to join, with the same old missions.

 

This game needs an automatic mission generator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DCS at the moment is primarily aimed at coop-gameplay, not at H2H.

 

It seems this is all I ever say on these forums anymore and frankly I'm starting to sound abit like Steve Ballmer....

 

"Community.....Community.....Community.....Community.....Community.....Community..... WOOAAAHAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA"

 

Community is what you need in order to build and keep a player base with a co-op game. They have a very basic server browser that comes with the game, yet you can't communicate directly with people outside of directly joining the game. (which if you need help with your setup is kinda a raw deal) Some squads host ventrilo and teamspeak servers, yet upon joining is like the first day at a new school, you don't know what the expect and the people in there already have pre-existing friendships, making the new guy the awkward man out.

 

Lack of defualt MP missions that come with the game doesn't help things much, nor does the editor facilitate quick construction of missions.

 

As a whole the multiplayer needs to be more of a "game." We need someway to define if we accomplished something, not a personal goal of not crashing the chopper, but a mission goal.

 

What I think it needs.

-In game info and briefing (See ARMA)

-Updated in game objectives users can understand and see (Again See ARMA)

-GAMEMODES! Establish a defined set of rules for a gamemode and build missions around that idea where your team success is easily quanitative and obvious.

-Multiplayer lobby with chat, friends, direct voice, private messaging (hyperlobby replacement)

-Server wide VOIP would be pretty awesome, but if thats not possible, what about peer-to-peer voip? (as connected through the game lobby)

 

 

Mission Editor needs...

-None GUI Simulation

Used for testing AI in missions. It simulates at accelerated speed and feedsback detailed information and records the data for later analytical usage. Perhaps once its done you "simulate" it 10 times to find out the reliability of an AI group. If they destroy their target 9 out of 10 times like they are supposed to then you can move on, if they fail half the time you know something needs fixed.

- and alot of stuff Panzertard said.

 

Maybe someday I'll give it a go at the BS Mission Editor and see what sort of ideas I can come up with, but right now I'm having way to much fun in the Source SDK to care.

  • Like 5

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects:  Grayflag ServerScripting Wiki

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread)

 SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...even if we get a fighter after the A-10C first, it will take another 9 month to get the counterpart. So LockOn or IL2-gameplay is still a long way from where we are now.

 

I disagree. Yes, having dissimilar combat can be more dynamic, but even using the same plane on both opposing sides will still be lots of fun. Other study sims have the same situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just to do a simple thing like when a player enters a zone acction 1 will hapen.. well its simple if u have only one player but if u have 4 or 8.. geeeezuz

u have to make triggers for each player instead of just one witch would sense if player1 or player 2 or player 3 etc.. enters zone then acction 1 will hapen

 

so we really need some Bolean operators to make triggers less daunting to do! :huh:

  • Like 2

It takes a fool to remain sane :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It seems this is all I ever say on these forums anymore and frankly I'm starting to sound abit like Steve Ballmer....

 

"Community.....Community.....Community.....Community.....Community.....Community..... WOOAAAHAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA"

 

Community is what you need in order to build and keep a player base with a co-op game. They have a very basic server browser that comes with the game, yet you can't communicate directly with people outside of directly joining the game. (which if you need help with your setup is kinda a raw deal) Some squads host ventrilo and teamspeak servers, yet upon joining is like the first day at a new school, you don't know what the expect and the people in there already have pre-existing friendships, making the new guy the awkward man out.

 

Lack of defualt MP missions that come with the game doesn't help things much, nor does the editor facilitate quick construction of missions.

 

As a whole the multiplayer needs to be more of a "game." We need someway to define if we accomplished something, not a personal goal of not crashing the chopper, but a mission goal.

 

What I think it needs.

-In game info and briefing (See ARMA)

-Updated in game objectives users can understand and see (Again See ARMA)

-GAMEMODES! Establish a defined set of rules for a gamemode and build missions around that idea where your team success is easily quanitative and obvious.

-Multiplayer lobby with chat, friends, direct voice, private messaging (hyperlobby replacement)

-Server wide VOIP would be pretty awesome, but if thats not possible, what about peer-to-peer voip? (as connected through the game lobby)

 

 

Mission Editor needs...

-None GUI Simulation

Used for testing AI in missions. It simulates at accelerated speed and feedsback detailed information and records the data for later analytical usage. Perhaps once its done you "simulate" it 10 times to find out the reliability of an AI group. If they destroy their target 9 out of 10 times like they are supposed to then you can move on, if they fail half the time you know something needs fixed.

- and alot of stuff Panzertard said.

 

Maybe someday I'll give it a go at the BS Mission Editor and see what sort of ideas I can come up with, but right now I'm having way to much fun in the Source SDK to care.

 

 

QFT

Especially this imho ,-Server wide VOIP would be pretty awesome, but if thats not possible, what about peer-to-peer voip? (as connected through the game lobby)

 

I think the lack of VOIP is a gaping hole in a reality sim. Isn't communication everything in war.The great Khan new this 700 -800 yrs ago. Until we get some kind of squad / flight comms we will fight as individuals, And how much easier would it be to help each other learn this complicated sim if we could talk and not have to type. :thumbup:. Communication is also critical to build and maintain a strong sim community.

My thoughts anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Yes, having dissimilar combat can be more dynamic, but even using the same plane on both opposing sides will still be lots of fun. Other study sims have the same situation.

 

No, they have not.

 

Setting up a multi-role aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 against a simple counterpart is a much different situation than setting up two similar CAS-aircraft in a pit and let them fight against each other.

 

No doubt, this can be fun as well, but it still not intended happen this way on a common basis and this is also the reason why the original designers didn't even equip these aircraft with a radar or IFF interogation capabilities.

Gigabyte GA-Z87-UD3H | i7 4470k @ 4.5 GHz | 16 GB DDR3 @ 2.133 Ghz | GTX 1080 | LG 55" @ 4K | Cougar 1000 W | Creative X-Fi Ti | TIR5 | CH HOTAS (with BU0836X-12 Bit) + Crosswind Pedals | Win10 64 HP | X-Keys Pro 20 & Pro 54 | 2x TM MFD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

 

Been playing single player only up to now, still learning. Had a lot of fun with lock on though.

I haven't logged on yet and i can already see the flaw with multiplayer.

 

I understand why they had chosen the Ka-50, and that some people were disappointed that there would not be a fighter to begin with. Personally i wasn't disappointed. The prospect of the project was enticing enough for me, lol.

 

That said H2H is a very important thing in multiplayer, and in the shelf life of said game. I like co-op as much as the next guy, but it gets old alot quicker i think. I don't regret how things are by any means however, I believe that this has been done backwards. The other aircraft should have come first, if only to fulfill the H2H satisfaction. The white-knuckle flying everyone loves from lock on. THEN you add the other roles.

 

Of cource this is just part my opinion. The other part of me says, that the A10 will spice things up quite nicely in the H2H arena. I guess time will tell how this unfolds, and I gotta say they got me excited. heh

 

Anyways, I'm about ready for online play I think. I can fly the thing anyways, haha. See ya soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Until there is at least one fighter in DCS, multiplayer will be next to non-existent. Also the 3d world needs to be dramatically improved to become attractive to a large online community in the future. Pyramid hills, flat seas, static weather and dodgy inland lakes just dont cut it anymore.

 

Multi-Core support is also something that is a must have these days.

 

What are you going on about Ice? Have you ever been on multiplayer? I can tell you that when ever I have been flying Blackshark on the 104th_DCS server it has virtually been full. You may not see that living in Australia because of the time zone difference between us but trust me, we who fly DCS Multiplayer online maybe small in number but we are steadily growing.

 

The guys at ED have done an excellent job of getting the Sim off the ground and who cares what it looks like as long as the long as the virtual pilot feels as if he is flying the real thing. Hey if you want a "sim" with good a good graphics engine but none of the reality then go fly HAWX.

 

Routemaster Out.


Edited by AustinN360
Damn my grammer!
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you going on about Ice? Have you ever been on multiplayer? I can tell you that when ever I have been flying Blackshark on the 104th_DCS server it has virtually been full. You may not see that living in Australia because of the time zone difference between us but trust me, we who fly DCS Multiplayer online maybe small in number but we are steadily growing.

 

The guys at ED have done an excellent job of getting the Sim of the ground and who cares what it looks like as long as the long as the virtual pilot feels as if he is flying the real thing. Hey if you want a "sim" with good a good graphics engine but none of the reality than go fly HAWX.

 

Routemaster Out.

 

Well said :thumbup:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until there is at least one fighter in DCS, multiplayer will be next to non-existent.
Apparently you haven't played any exhilerating coop missions lately :D

 

Also the 3d world needs to be dramatically improved to become attractive to a large online community in the future. Pyramid hills, flat seas, static weather and dodgy inland lakes just dont cut it anymore.
Isn't this what you as a beta tester are supposed to put forward?
  • Like 2

There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you were off apparently flying

 

 

Also the 3d world needs to be dramatically improved to become attractive to a large online community in the future. Pyramid hills, flat seas, static weather and dodgy inland lakes just dont cut it anymore.

 

 

The rest of the community is flying

 

 

Time to stop living in the past.

  • Like 3

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...