Dynamic Campaign Discussion Thread

[Wolf Rider]

Personally, I rather something original (which is the way DCS appear to be heading)... Falcon has already been done, il2 has already been done and MSFS has also already been done

[Irregular programming]

Stop ranting about squadrons, you shouldn't need to join a squadron to have a good experience with the game.

 

Many squadrons have more or less "dumb" restrictions set on their members, I have seen everything from "required" flying time to the rules telling me I can't join other wings. It might fit some, but I'd say most people are not playing in organized squadrons.

 

I see it a lot on these forums, be it about bugs or missions or whatever the answer seems to be "join a squadron" instead of addressing what the OP actually was complaining about.

 

 

 

For Troutish, I don't agree with you that you got something with little content when you bought a DCS game but there is a DC coming, ED has said in interviews that they really want a dynamic campaign and the question is not if but when.

[Exorcet]

As to using the mission editor myself, I actually dont want to know the forces I'm up against, what their plans are, or how my supiriors are planning to fight the war:smilewink: There are limits to how much random stuff you should put in your own missions.

Yes, probably the one weakness to making your own content. Though I think it can be strongly mitigated with triggered.

 

I don't really see a limit to randomness in missions besides the mission creator's abilities. Back in FC2 I had some fun making missions that could end up 180 degrees from where they started. It really helped replayability and made me less omniscient. Admittedly though, when triggers are complex or broken, setting these up can be painful. I've had to shelve some missions because of bugs or what not.

 

I also have to add that with this and other sims / games I can't say I've had the best experiences with player made content. A small portion will always be fantastic, but there are many that have a silly or unbelievable premise, are too hard/ too easy, buggy, etc. Frankly, many companies have fobbed off the provision of good content onto the "communty" and dont really provide it themselves. Or they think online play is sufficiently exciting so as not to require a DC.

Fair enough.

 

If you have a decent DC you dont really NEED player made content, and as I've said, replayability goes through the roof, for both online and offline play. For all its bugs, the fact that people STILL play falcon says all you need to know abou the value of DCs. Better jet sims have come and gone and yet falcon still gets played. I also think all the right lessons have been learned about what NOT to do with a DC based on the falcon experience. Importantly, none of these lessons discredit the basic idea or its value.

To be honest, I don't think DC can ever replace UGC. I still made my own missions in Falcon, even if I found the DC very enjoyable.

[Troutish]

Go about what? ;-)

 

People only criticise when they care - otherwise they stay quiet. In other words, its when your wife STOPS bitching that you start to have a real problem.....

 

I hate to sound like a crabby old man....but... when exactly did replayability go out the window? I too put the blame on scripted shooters that come with 8 maps. I long for the days of wasted hours......

 

IMHO, DCS is not that high on the replayability index. As more people install DCS world it will get easier for the devs to measure satisfaction based on the hours played, right?

 

So....would it be possible for a third party to develop, right now, if not a DC, then at least a campaign generation "tool"? Somthing that let you (easily) stipulate orbats and victory conditions; then generated a first mission (that you could modify), and then the others thereafter based on mission results?

[BigMotor]

I still made my own missions in Falcon, even if I found the DC very enjoyable.

 

+1 :thumbup:

[Wolf Rider]

Go about what? ;-)

 

People only criticise when they care - otherwise they stay quiet. In other words, its when your wife STOPS bitching that you start to have a real problem.....

 

 

 

no, no, no :) ... its when she throws the cool calm "its alright, its okay" from over her shoulder that one should panic

 

 

as for the rest of your post, you then end up back in same; "Its too hard, Its too easy, its too xxxxxxx" and what would be the point of editing it? you'd be back to knowing then what you're up against.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Wolf Rider

[NineLine]

its when your wife STOPS bitching that you start to have a real problem.....

 

I see what you are after, a DC that's like a wife... unscripted, unpredictable and a little crazy :)

[Wolf Rider]

...and editable :)

[Nealius]

Stop ranting about squadrons, you shouldn't need to join a squadron to have a good experience with the game.

 

Many squadrons have more or less "dumb" restrictions set on their members, I have seen everything from "required" flying time to the rules telling me I can't join other wings.

 

This must be a DCS thing. I have yet to come across any Falcon squadrons that require flying time or other stupid restrictions. The only "restrictions" are SOPs, like always setting NAV lights to flash, etc.

 

Of course you shouldn't have to join a squadron to have a good experience with the game, but it definitely improves the experience. For the last decade or so nearly all games have been focused on online multiplayer, where anyone with any level of experience can jump in and play with anyone else. This works for a lot of games, but I don't think it works too well for high-fidelity combat flight sims because the only way to survive is by situational awareness and mutual support. The only people who will actually do that instead of going off and doing their own thing are either very dedicated team players or members of an online squadron.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Nealius

[Wolf Rider]

Each has their own... it doesn't make them any different though

[EtherealN]

This must be a DCS thing. I have yet to come across any Falcon squadrons that require flying time or other stupid restrictions. The only "restrictions" are SOPs, like always setting NAV lights to flash, etc.

 

I wouldn't call them "stupid" restrictions.

 

I am currently not at flight status in "my" squadron because it was a long time since I participated due to time constraints. This means that what I did learn will be foggy, and some will simply be forgotten; thus I am not "mission ready". Nothing strange there IMO, if it wasn't what I "wanted" I wouldn't have accepted the invitation in the first place. It's all just about what you want with the squadron: some fun shooting stuff in the air on weekends, or a more serious experience aimed at not only "simulating" the aircraft but also simulating "life" as a fighter pilot. To each their own. :)

 

 

This works for a lot of games, but I don't think it works too well for high-fidelity combat flight sims because the only way to survive is by situational awareness and mutual support. The only people who will actually do that instead of going off and doing their own thing are either very dedicated team players or members of an online squadron.

 

There is a "similar-but-different" problem in SP too though - it is almost impossible to make an AI that properly simulates what real pilots would do in combat. Nothing strange there - training a fighter pilot takes the kind of time we might otherwise spend learning to become engineers, yet no-one is surprised that we don't (yet) have computers replacing the creative effort of the engineer - helping them with pure numbercrunching is one thing, but the engineer is still a human, not a computer. If multi-billion dollar industries cannot manage that, it becomes unrealistic to expect that any AI pilot would be able to faithfully represent something that is as complex as aerial warfare. (And as far as DC's - now you have to not only have that, you also have to have a strategic AI that can do the job of what would otherwise be a whole staff of senior personnel each with decades of experience on the job...)

 

That last is why I myself isn't terribly bothered about not having a DC. It would almost by definition have to be a half-assed replacement for a human.

[osram]

Go about what? ;-)

 

I hate to sound like a crabby old man....but... when exactly did replayability go out the window? I too put the blame on scripted shooters that come with 8 maps. I long for the days of wasted hours......

 

IMHO, DCS is not that high on the replayability index. As more people install DCS world it will get easier for the devs to measure satisfaction based on the hours played, right?

 

So....would it be possible for a third party to develop, right now, if not a DC, then at least a campaign generation "tool"? Somthing that let you (easily) stipulate orbats and victory conditions; then generated a first mission (that you could modify), and then the others thereafter based on mission results?

 

I usually welcome healthy criticism myself.. since I'm usually rather critical and direct myself. Your complaints come across a bit wierd though:

 

I think it's okay if someone does not want to get involved with the Editor too much, or finds it time-consuming to get into. That's perfectly fine. What I don't understand is that you blame the game for "lack of replayability", while sitting there.. running out of offline-campaigns... and complaining about locked servers... and the time-consuming editor... and how someone should implement some sort of campaigns or system... where you can get into more "easily"... etc. etc. etc. While actually sitting there, in Singleplayer/Offline.. isolated... from the actual "people"... and their content, available/playable online. . Instead of giving multiplayer a chance.. and therefore accessing more maps and "content" made by other players. And kind of getting in touch with the "rest" of DCS world. It sounds to me you don't care too much about multiplayer. Maybe I'm mistaken. But that's how it comes across.

 

I believe there are still enough non-locked servers with challenging maps out there. Missionwise there is still quite some content and experiences to be had, or explored. Not everyone cares about "Stories". I prefer to have my own "stories" and experiences.. happening, dynamically.. while playing with other people.. during missions, online. No need for some phoney text and fiction. And blaming the game, for your own desinterest in actually exploring the game's full potential and possibilities.. kind of doesn't sound fair or right to me.

 

A virtual "squadron" is not needed either. You can easily join an open server... hop into it's Teamspeak... if available... and hook up with others. Or just play along without comms... Still amazing, with decent servers/maps. And therefore experience... very individual events and stories... i.e. "campaigns". Maybe even more intriguing than what you know from Singleplayer. If you open up a bit, you might tap into content or experiences you might not have expected.

 

Plus the maps/missions available for download on websites in no way reflect the mission-landscape actually available online. Since most people just host things running on live servers. It's only a fraction of what there is to be experienced in terms of "replayability".

Edited April 2, 2013 by osram

[Nealius]

That last is why I myself isn't terribly bothered about not having a DC. It would almost by definition have to be a half-assed replacement for a human.

 

That's true. There is a big issue with the ATO in Falcon generating suicide missions or loading aircraft with twice the normal drag index and expecting it to go just as far without fuel tanks as it would with a negligible drag index. On the positive side the player can cancel those missions or change the loadout, or the player can even take his squadron out of the ATO and frag the missions himself.

 

I think AI is the weak link for any game though, not just flight sims. You either have incredibly stupid AI, or omniscient AI that know everything at all times and kill you before you have a chance.

[Troutish]

Ahh.....so the right to offer criticism must be earned? If you have not yet done XYZ then STFU!?

 

I'm familiar with the editor, with online squads and online play. I'm not asking for tips on how to get more enjoyment out of DCS, I'm simply pointing out what is, IMHO, an obvious short-coming of the product.

 

I believe there is a much larger market for a good quality flight sim like this one than most people realize. I cant think of a better way for DCS to get and retain customers than by having somthing like a DC.

[Nealius]

Ahh.....so the right to offer criticism must be earned? If you have not yet done XYZ then STFU!?

 

In some places that appears to be the case. The internet is a mysterious place with many fragile egos, people who like to dish criticism but can't take it, and others who just feel the need to put others down to deal with their own insecurities. I speak from experience ;)

[outlawal2]

 

I believe there is a much larger market for a good quality flight sim like this one than most people realize. I cant think of a better way for DCS to get and retain customers than by having somthing like a DC.

 

+1 :thumbup:

 

I am right there with you on that statement Trout...

I love DCS and all of the modules.. The fidelity is awesome and the gameplay excellent... If DCS (or a third party) could only add some campaign DEPTH, this would be the PERFECT simulation!

 

These are not complaints, Trout is simply pointing out that the weakest part of DCS as a whole is the campaign content and I don't think anyone can dispute this fact...

 

I am waiting for a third party dev to join in and give some reasons why SOME kind of campaign system couldn't be created.. A decent campaign system would be sure to generate cash for the developer as well as ED since a good campaign would generate a lot more interest in DCS...

[EtherealN]

Ahh.....so the right to offer criticism must be earned? If you have not yet done XYZ then STFU!?

 

Don't worry, I decide who can offer criticism, and you're doing fine. :)

[EtherealN]

As an aside, and more on the topic: I certainly see nothing that hinders a DC from being created as a 3rd party product. As long as a persistent world is not part of the requirement, everything that is needed is actually already there (with a few very small possible exceptions). The problem lies in developing it cheaply enough to "pay" for itself, which is where I think we have the real problem. A feature can be good and cool, but it also needs to pay for it's own development through sales - otherwise the developer ends up like Microprose and the product becomes abandoned; like Falcon.

[outlawal2]

As an aside, and more on the topic: I certainly see nothing that hinders a DC from being created as a 3rd party product. As long as a persistent world is not part of the requirement, everything that is needed is actually already there (with a few very small possible exceptions). The problem lies in developing it cheaply enough to "pay" for itself, which is where I think we have the real problem. A feature can be good and cool, but it also needs to pay for it's own development through sales - otherwise the developer ends up like Microprose and the product becomes abandoned; like Falcon.

 

Hmmmm.. I find it hard to believe that a decent campaign would require as much development as a high fidelity plane such as BS or A10... And I know I would be first in line to pony up my $30 for a GOOD CAMPAIGN with real depth, story etc... I understand that ED doesn't want to take the time/ effort etc. sinc ethat is not what they do. they make awesome flight models... But somebody should be able to create some kind of dynamic campaign without requiring the collective programming might of Micorsoft... And at $30 a pop it would pay for itself the same way that a new plane does... (And if done RIGHT, more people would purchase the campaign becasue not everybody is going to purchase every plane... But if the campaing encompasses most of the planes available your market is wide open.)

[NineLine]

Hmmmm.. I find it hard to believe that a decent campaign would require as much development as a high fidelity plane such as BS or A10... And I know I would be first in line to pony up my $30 for a GOOD CAMPAIGN with real depth, story etc... I understand that ED doesn't want to take the time/ effort etc. sinc ethat is not what they do. they make awesome flight models... But somebody should be able to create some kind of dynamic campaign without requiring the collective programming might of Micorsoft... And at $30 a pop it would pay for itself the same way that a new plane does... (And if done RIGHT, more people would purchase the campaign becasue not everybody is going to purchase every plane... But if the campaing encompasses most of the planes available your market is wide open.)

 

I think he meant for a 3rd Party to develop a Dynamic Campaign, not just a standard campaign anyone could do right now.

[Dafiew]

Let's see what possibilities EDGE brings when it's released :D I would have no problem shedding some dollars for a dynamic campaign system like in Falcon which would be sooooooooooo awesome :thumbup:

[outlawal2]

I think he meant for a 3rd Party to develop a Dynamic Campaign, not just a standard campaign anyone could do right now.

 

That is what I am talking about, some kind of dynamic campaign...

I understand that this would be a big undertaking, but no way it would be as much work as a high fidelity plane would take and it could make more money than a stand alone plane would at this point..

[NineLine]

Let's see what possibilities EDGE brings when it's released :D I would have no problem shedding some dollars for a dynamic campaign system like in Falcon which would be sooooooooooo awesome :thumbup:

 

 

EDGE is purely for terrain the way I understand it, I dont think it would have any baring on any sort of dynamic campaign system...

[NineLine]

That is what I am talking about, some kind of dynamic campaign...

I understand that this would be a big undertaking, but no way it would be as much work as a high fidelity plane would take and it could make more money than a stand alone plane would at this point..

 

 

Probably not, but there would be some coding and programming involved for certain aspects that are not there yet.

[Dafiew]

EDGE is purely for terrain the way I understand it, I dont think it would have any baring on any sort of dynamic campaign system...

 

As long as we get those trees fixed...:D