PDA

View Full Version : BOB ONLINE GAME PLAY SCENARIO



strykablue
10-05-2005, 10:20 PM
Hi All

Have to post this, been bugging me for ages.
Love IL2, congratulations to Oleg and his team, looking forward to BOB

Now, as for game play, a suggestion!
I played Warbirds for a year and while it's low in numbers and poorer graphics it has some excellent things that keep the players faithful and make it fun to play.....my observations of IL2:

1. Hyperlobby dogfighting becomes boring for a number of reasons: No objective but shoot em down. No reason to bomb, there is very little bombing, almost no high altitude bombing because there is little reward, everyone just dogfights regardless of what gets bombed, we never see high alt bombing, there's no benefit.

2. The chat interface is useless, the text is too big and all the miscellaneous 'lost control of plan' etc makes it too hard to catch anyones chat anyway so no-one really uses it much.

3. No objectives, sure targets but no effect on the gameplay.

4. People like too see how they score, not just for the game time but on-going like SE stats. Warbirds has an updated in game ongoing score for all pilots for a month or so.

So now lets compare: Warbirds has the same scenario as the highly successful BF2. TAKE THE FLAG, OWN THE FIELD then defend the flag. BF2 has 15-20,000 players on line all the time. BF2 gives rank and score based on on-going game play, people therefore respect that achievement.
Some of the best gameplay in Warbirds and BF2 is when everyone realises they are going to lose the last flags and they all work together.......

What about we have a map with fields that have specific infrastructure around them. When you take out the infrastructure you can bring in paratroopers that take the control tower and they take the field. The map then shows the field to become blue or red. This encourages people to take out targets around the field [AA, bunkers, planes, fuel etc] so they can win the field. The AA stops vulchers until they get taken out, hence the encouragement for higher alt bombing. This is the basis for BF2 and Warbirds.

Players work as a team to get fields, players have a reason to bomb and take targets, the team wants to win the most fields, the individual wants to win kills and targets destroyed and compare to others ongoing.....every time all the fields are won it starts again, maybe with a new map.

To make it even better we can use AI tanks and gunners randomly moving to fields.

Winning fields and then stopping the other side from getting them back, noe that's fun and teamplay!

450 Stryka...the desert hassasers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2005, 10:25 PM
Oleg should not offer any "kill score" recording in his next sim.

In real life, kill score counting was a social process involving the larger social community as witnesses -- other aircrew, ground troops, superior officers examining guncams in later years (after BoB), etc...

strykablue
10-05-2005, 10:45 PM
Think your missing the point, this is about gameplay but thanks for the comments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2005, 11:00 PM
Your first thread post is all about gamer behavior crippling Online flight simming...lack of motivation to fly historically. The automatic "kill score" count is one cause for gamer behavior killing Online flight simming.

Online "Gameplay" involves gamer behavior modification. Think military boot camp which real life (not gamer) pilots had to complete before being trusted to fly with other pilots.


blue::
4. People like too see how they score, not just for the game time but on-going like SE stats....

Maraz_5SA
10-06-2005, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by strykablue:

1. Hyperlobby dogfighting becomes boring for a number of reasons: No objective but shoot em down. No reason to bomb, there is very little bombing, almost no high altitude bombing because there is little reward, everyone just dogfights regardless of what gets bombed, we never see high alt bombing, there's no benefit.


You should really try some coops or some online wars like VOW. In VOW missions, for example, you have specific targets (which often include bombing or dropping torpedoes) and winning/losing the mission affects considerably your score. Ground targets destroyed increase your score, obviously. Also staying alive affects your score much.

Anyway, in some dogfight servers, e.g. Zeke vs Wildcat, there are lots of people taking care of the mission objectives and flying bombers (even at high altitude) to accompish the task.

Cheers
Maraz

stubby
10-06-2005, 06:19 AM
The bigger issue plaguing IL2 coops is convenience. Coops offer virtually no convenience. You have to show up at a specific time, hop into a HL room and wait for an hour before the host launches. Once it launches, then you have the next round of bs like folks not readying up, guys dropping due to net hiccup,host forgetting to set ports, etc.. Il2 coops do offer a rich environment but they have no flexibility. What's needed is some type of Ubi server that runs a persistent 24/7 dynamic war that's populated with both AI and human objects. That way, folks can hop in when it fits their schedule and participate. Why do you think dogfight servers in HL get far more players? Cuz you can hop in and out as you like. As long as Il2 or BOB depends on player hosts or 3rd party tools to develop robust coops, coops will only be flown by a very small, insignificant number of people.

IAFS_Painter
10-06-2005, 06:46 AM
Hyperlobby dogfighting becomes boring for a number of reasons: No objective but shoot em down. No reason to bomb, there is very little bombing, almost no high altitude bombing because there is little reward, everyone just dogfights regardless of what gets bombed, we never see high alt bombing, there's no benefit. This strikes me as a community issue, not an in game issue. Between DCG, own design missions, and online wars, most of these requests are presented somewhere. Try joining a squad involved with COT if you want to bomb in a DF server - plenty of insentive there
The chat interface is useless, the text is too big and all the miscellaneous 'lost control of plan' etc makes it too hard to catch anyones chat anyway so no-one really uses it much Well, voice coms is better - try TeamSpeak, or (maybe) Ventrillo.
Chat is adequate if you have those tools.
No objectives, sure targets but no effect on the gameplay Are you talking about the lack of event driven options in game? That's on my want list for BoB.
Campaigns in FB/AEP/PF are affected by game events though.
People like too see how they score, not just for the game time but on-going like SE stats. Warbirds has an updated in game ongoing score for all pilots for a month or so OK.

Ummm, there is a problem with trying to use aircraft to own ground. In my personal opinion, that is a job for ground troops, infantry in particular.

strykablue
10-06-2005, 05:27 PM
Mate I don't want to spoil the thread with arguments about the score, IL2 already has an in game score system anyway.
Looking at the rest of the topic was a suggestion about how we could introduce a scenario that might be appealing as in many other successful games to impove gameplay.
Any positive contributions to that principle would be interesting.

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2005, 05:28 PM
stubby::
What's needed is some type of Ubi server that runs a persistent 24/7 dynamic war that's populated with both AI and human objects.
That will most likely be the Pay-to-Play Online War in BoB And Beyond.

strykablue
10-06-2005, 06:02 PM
Thanks for the input.I think Stubby summarises what I am getting at, a dynamic campaign taking fields as in BF2.
I play SE so have that option, but wouldn't it be nice to jump into a dynamic campaign like that at any time without being a set event.
I use TS but still a better chat line would allow better communication with other not on TS and with the players on the other side [not as easy on TS]
And again, taking a field and then being able to take off from it to win the next field is the main point here. This means anyone can jump in at any time, see what fields belong to who and join the game, doesnt have to be a co-op just normal gameplay, like warbirds and BF2.

p1ngu666
10-06-2005, 06:50 PM
coop play is good, perhaps have a book/mag handy for the waitin part. most ppl have comms now.

continous campaign onwhine would be good, be cool too see if what thingy at duxford said would come true...

if the lw continued its attacks, it would have bled itself dry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif, i think he said it would have happened even without goerings meddling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif but a harder fight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-06-2005, 07:07 PM
1. High altitude bombing doesn't really have a place in a tactial level sim. The game was designed to simulate short-range, air to ground operations, and it does that better than anything else. On maps that are, at most, 150km wide and maybe a little more high, who is going to bother with conventional straight and level bombing? The bombers we have, or are slated to get, all encourage medium altitude fighting ast the highest. He-111s, A-20s, B-25s, Il-2s, Ju-87s, Ju-88s, Mosquitos all operated primarily at medium altitudes.

Bombing does occur, it just depends on the server you are playing. Of course if you play dogfight servers than there will only be dogfights going on. However, scrpited servers, with defined ground objectives, encourage bombing. 95% of my time on Warclouds was spent in a P-47. Half of that was at 5500m and the other half of that was at 5m. The rest of the time was spent in a A-20, shallow angle dive bombing from 2000m.

Even on the dogfight servers like 334th, you found dedicated bomber jocks. One of the best couple of hours I ever had online was flying in a serise of B-25 bomber boxes and hitting carrier targets on what is ostensibly a dogfight servere

You can also pull the chat bar down to see more of it. Most people choose to use TS or some other form of voice comms. MUCH better than chat.

Part of the fun of IL2 is that it is NOT like BF2. Its a small bunch of people. There is an even smaller group that go out of there way to try to simulate and re-enact the airwar as close to how it was as we can make it. I think most of us are happy simulating air combat without trying to bring in too many more elements for online play. The online wars work because people want to re-create famous battles and or refight them and see how ell they do.

Jetbuff
10-06-2005, 09:43 PM
I think it's the players' responsbilities to provide the venue. e.g. take CoT:

- High altitude bombing? How's 8,000m for ya? http://simjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=159

- Teamwork and objective-based missions? http://simjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=78

- Stats? http://cot.simjunkie.com/?stats

The tools are there, we just need to get creative with how we use them. In fact, I much rather prefer this to having the game developer "dictate" to us how it's going to be. I really hope BoB is built from the ground up to offer as much flexibility to war developers as possible.

RCAF_Mac_403rd
10-07-2005, 03:32 PM
Reply to firts post.

"Don't ever suggest that we add BF2 settings in a great sim. game like IL2. Ever! "

This is a simulation that offers realism. The BF2 engine looks good but the game play is for the kids. It's offers no realism so therefore keep that **** out of a great game like IL2!

I was in a BF clan before and when BF2 came out I was sickened of what I seen. Never knew that one 120 mm tank shell can not take down a chopper. Never knew that a shotgun can not take down a guy at point-blank range. Also never knew that 5 chest shots or more is needed to kill a person.

Enough said. ;\

Chuck_Older
10-07-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
1. High altitude bombing doesn't really have a place in a tactial level sim. The game was designed to simulate short-range, air to ground operations, and it does that better than anything else. On maps that are, at most, 150km wide and maybe a little more high, who is going to bother with conventional straight and level bombing? The bombers we have, or are slated to get, all encourage medium altitude fighting ast the highest. He-111s, A-20s, B-25s, Il-2s, Ju-87s, Ju-88s, Mosquitos all operated primarily at medium altitudes.

Bombing does occur, it just depends on the server you are playing. Of course if you play dogfight servers than there will only be dogfights going on. However, scrpited servers, with defined ground objectives, encourage bombing. 95% of my time on Warclouds was spent in a P-47. Half of that was at 5500m and the other half of that was at 5m. The rest of the time was spent in a A-20, shallow angle dive bombing from 2000m.

Even on the dogfight servers like 334th, you found dedicated bomber jocks. One of the best couple of hours I ever had online was flying in a serise of B-25 bomber boxes and hitting carrier targets on what is ostensibly a dogfight servere

You can also pull the chat bar down to see more of it. Most people choose to use TS or some other form of voice comms. MUCH better than chat.

Part of the fun of IL2 is that it is NOT like BF2. Its a small bunch of people. There is an even smaller group that go out of there way to try to simulate and re-enact the airwar as close to how it was as we can make it. I think most of us are happy simulating air combat without trying to bring in too many more elements for online play. The online wars work because people want to re-create famous battles and or refight them and see how ell they do.

Gotta agree about the bombing...in this sim. However, BoB will have a strategic side as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif