Single Players: What would win you over to a multiplayer server?

[Dangerzone]

Interesting to read the replies. Quite an eye opener for me actually (as mostly a MP person). As someone who I think sits in the middle (I prefer PvE, so "co-op" MP)  I actually had other preconceived ideas as to why SP might be popular - but I see there's far more reasons than I first suspected.  Thanks to all who replied.

[Beirut]

What would help get me into MP? Two things:

 

1 - A video tutorial series, explaining in language a small dog could understand, exactly what is required to join MP and not look like a complete tool.

2 - The ability to instantly ban from all servers on Earth anyone who ever uses the phrase "split the community".

 

#2 is a deal breaker. Thank you. 

[Dragon1-1]

8 hours ago, Ornithopter said:

I've sat through 2 hour long "Milsim" briefings that by the time it came around to actually flying I was already on my 6th beer, and to my amusement performed quite well. 

In other words, almost just like in the actual military, only it's easier to hide the beer.  

I'm all for using proper procedures and a detailed planning session, but "milsim" really shouldn't mean simulating the BS, too. Most of us get enough of that already.

[twistking]

40 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

Interesting to read the replies. Quite an eye opener for me actually (as mostly a MP person). As someone who I think sits in the middle (I prefer PvE, so "co-op" MP)  I actually had other preconceived ideas as to why SP might be popular - but I see there's far more reasons than I first suspected.  Thanks to all who replied.

I think a lot of people really avoid the public servers. For me Coop is just a natural extension of singleplayer (everything is better with friends?). I don't even think of it as multiplayer per se. It's the default way of playing for a lot of games...

[Dangerzone]

  

14 hours ago, AdrianL said:

So what is missing from the original post is that people avoid the public servers.

A lot of people will host a server from their machine, for 2 or 3 friends, where they are free to play how they like. 

Actually - that's the reason I said MP, and not public servers, so I don't think it was missed. . Having seen so many people say they're SP only - I gathered that meant no servers at all, public or private. From many of the posts here, I think that's a fair representation too - given a lot of the issues seem to be time related to missions, etc.

For instance - most of the missions (milsim, etc) that I've had experience with have been on locked down servers. (ie, not public). 

19 minutes ago, twistking said:

I think a lot of people really avoid the public servers. For me Coop is just a natural extension of singleplayer (everything is better with friends?). I don't even think of it as multiplayer per se. It's the default way of playing for a lot of games...

Interesting. For the sake of the conversation and clarity - I would treat co-op PvE as MP still, but given these two replies - it would seem prudent to use something other than just "MP" to describe the discussion, given that some people see MP more along the lines of just public servers, and not including the others. Thanks!

Edited 23 hours ago by Dangerzone

[twistking]

19 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

Interesting. For the sake of the conversation and clarity - I would treat co-op PvE as MP still, but given these two replies - it would seem prudent to use something other than just "MP" to describe the discussion, given that some people see MP more along the lines of just public servers, and not including the others. Thanks!

Yes, technically you’re absolutely right. Coop is Multiplayer of course. Colloquially though, games with a focus on cooperative play are often explicitly referred to as Coop games. I think for some people PvP is considered the "default"; at least that's what comes to my mind first when I hear MP...

Edited 22 hours ago by twistking

[Czar]

1. Hour of day not at noon or around noon. Bonus for scenic golden hour, around golden hour and even into the night. I'll never forget chasing afterburners and sonic booms in the 104th when it had night missions back in 2013-2014 in FC aircraft. It was a rush.
2. Not be flooded with multiplayer rules messages on screen while starting up/setting up my jet. Just do a good briefing description of rules, commands and good old kick with a message when someone still decides to break them.
3. Weather: bring some wind and turbulence in moderation. Some servers I've joined past months (north america and europe) were set with the most tame of atmospheres.

There are some things you have on single player/co-op that you'll not be able to have on a multiplayer server such as tackling the objective at your own pace with your own templates on mission generators or mission design (if you do Mission Editor stuff).
After a busy day, that need will hardly go away. With lack of time, usually single player or co-op experience takes the forefront, especially with the power to chose the map and base your own and the ability to pause (also available in co-op).

[Dangerzone]

42 minutes ago, twistking said:

Yes, technically you’re absolutely right. Coop is Multiplayer of course. Colloquially though, games with a focus on cooperative play are often explicitly referred to as Coop games. I think for some people PvP is considered the "default"; at least that's what comes to my mind first when I hear MP...

Yeah - that's what I'm beginning to learn - that I need to change my vocabulary in order to have clearer communication. 

I hardly play PvP. PvPvE at best, otherwise PvE and always considered that MP - so I can see that it's going to have benefits moving forward to eliminate MP out of my dictionary, and maybe instead use terms like Solo player, Multicrew Player, PvE Co-Cop player and of course PvP. 

[Nealius]

8 hours ago, Ornithopter said:

Well, you know what they say:  "Get Good!"

The problem with "get good" is that it requires i+1 structure, i.e. you level up through challenges that are calibrated to your current skill level. Most PvP games do not have a leveled system that facilitates this, and there's enough people on the internet who leveled up through survivorship bias that public opinion is skewed towards "just get good" without recognizing the very real cognitive mechanisms that involve "getting good."

[rob10]

I flew solo in SP for many years.  I had a negative view of MP due to all the noise about cheaters and griefers etc AND it's pretty intimidating (even for someone who is pretty computer literate) to just know how to actually start into MP on a software/hardware/connection level.  And that's before you have to actually know details about procedures etc.  I finally dipped my toes into MP because I was running out of missions/campaigns and started browsing some sites and discords for virtual squadrons.  I got extremely lucky and stumbled on a great group that I love flying with and have learned so much from that I never would have learned on my own.  It was quite a learning curve up front (even as a reasonably experienced flier) but well worth it in the end.  Looking at other groups I can definitely see how I might have sworn off MP again if I had landed in them because it wouldn't have been a good fit for style of play or just the personality things others have mentioned.

[Ornithopter]

 

9 hours ago, Nealius said:

The problem with "get good" is that it requires i+1 structure, i.e. you level up through challenges that are calibrated to your current skill level. Most PvP games do not have a leveled system that facilitates this, and there's enough people on the internet who leveled up through survivorship bias that public opinion is skewed towards "just get good" without recognizing the very real cognitive mechanisms that involve "getting good."

Oh, I agree.  I wasn't using "get good" in the literal sense, I was using it ironically.  In DCS, I too learned the ropes of MP iteratively, not by jumping head first into the shallow end of the pool with a bunch of random people on a server, but by linking up with a group of experienced people who could provide that iterative structure, within a closed server environment.  That's why I said earlier that joining a Squadron is a good thing for players new to the MP scene.  There are people to help.  Even for the most experienced of players, how does one find success in MP other than through effective teamwork?  My first multiplayer experiences were in a different game.  After I got tired of getting knocked down and frustrated every single time, I decided it was time to find mentors, wingmen, and teamates.  I would imagine that story is not unique and describes the journey of many players from SP to MP.  Yes, it takes practice, and who you choose as teachers makes a lot of difference.  Choose wisely.

Edited 10 hours ago by Ornithopter

[QuiGon]

What puts me off of public MP is the lack of hardcore servers that enforce realistic gameplay, through realistic mission settings (e.g. no units and aircraft visible on the F10 map, including your own aircraft) and custom server rules (e.g. no takeoff from taxiways, no refueling/rearming on the runway). Maybe there are such servers, but I'm not aware of any atm (there definitely have been in the past, e.g. @Alpenwolf's server). It would help a lot if the DCS server browser would offer gameplay filters, so you can filter for servers which offer gameplay settings that suit you.

And yes, I'm aware that organized squadrons offer that kind of gameplay, but I just don't like the restrictions that come with it. I much prefer public MP, where I can fly whenever I want, don't need to enter into any comittments.

Edited 9 hours ago by QuiGon

[twistking]

On 9/29/2025 at 7:18 PM, Lace said:

@twistking Very well said.  I'd add that with the best intentions, real-world tactics designed to keep pilots alive and to prevent the loss of expensive toys just doesn't translate well to a 'game' with no real disincentive for death or loss of asset.  Perhaps if each online player had one 'life' per week (or even month) it would encourage more realistic tactics and execution of missions, rather than just Leeroy*-ing into the furball every time.  If people want realism, then dead should mean dead.

 

Thanks.
I’ve been into "realistic" videogames for over 25 years, and I’ve thought about this dilemma a lot. I think it's just not worth trying to force "realism" into PvP. You can design systems that push players toward the dynamics we want, but they're always crude and end up feeling like crutches.

Your idea with a single life mode will surely make players value their life more, but to me, that doesn't seem like an elegant or even practical solution.

I'm not disillusioned though. I think each mode of play has its own strengths and weaknesses and embracing those leads to better results. My own frustration with the realism dilemma actually taught me to appreciate designs that lean into their format. I might scoff at "airquake" but I’ve also learned to enjoy Quake itself for what it is. I mean the actual arena shooter, not the DCS variant.

For truly "realistic" experiences, I believe the real answer lies in cooperative play. And with advances in AI, I'm quite optimistic about the future of that mode.

Edited 2 hours ago by twistking

[Ornithopter]

Coop need not be PvE.  And PvP need not occur on open free-for-all servers.  Obviously one can have a private server, with opposite teams both playing for "realism", thereby avoiding the pitfalls of the open servers.  I've seen Milsim groups though that not only don't do PvP, they consider even the concept of it to be "unrealistic" as if it were some kind of blasphemy.  I never understood how that could be...A skilled human opponent instead of a predictible AI?  I hate to say it, but my guess is that a large number of MilSim-style/PvE only types would get their butts handed to them on a platter if they had to fight against a skilled human being.   IMO, its an entirely new level of difficulty and requires a much higher level of skill.  The open server people might not know how to communicate like a real pilot, fill out a comm card, or keep a tight formation, probably can't even navigate in the dark, but when it comes to shooting down the enemy, they are GOOD.

[Ramius007]

I split my time betwean pve and pvp, SP pve is usually played on "hardcore" settings, but people who claim that AI planes can offer higher or even similar level of challange as human players are dellusional.It's possible against begginers of course, but even semi advanced player will be stronger than AI. Similar level of detachment from reality are claims about cheating being part of pvp, it's practically non existent. Dream come true would be server that offers realistic scenario based on realistic order of battle, with many MOVING AI ground units, but with human players in air as opponents.

[MAXsenna]

@Ramius007 You're getting off topic.
The topic is in the header. What would bring us SP guys over to MP, not why you guys prefer MP. That we already know.  
Cheers! 

[RedeyeStorm]

Well my two cents. I have played MP with friends but strictly PvE. I don’t like flying with like minded people but PvP I never liked. I don’t have the time for committing to a squadron. I have searched the available squadrons but the more serious groups force you into playing one module and I want to switch around. That means I never excel in any one module.

In public MP (which I dabbled in) means I take off try to figure out what is going on and then eat a missile. Get’s old fast and I do not have the will to free up the time to learn. 
That said a game like DCS isn’t just about simulating planes or heli’s for me but also the air and ground war. SP can give me that (to some limited degree) and a server with strangers never will. The remarks ‘we want full real sim you noob’ and then take off by gunning the engine across the airfield, taxi way, with the wind at there backs etc. It puts me off in an unbelievable way. 
 

So I don’t see MP giving me ever what I seek in DCS but I am really craving for the dynamic campaign! Long live Retribution!