CPG Poll 1: Multiplayer

[column5]

For this poll, please select the MINIMUM level of multiplayer support required for you to invest $50 in preordering a community-financed sim. Assume that the single-player aspect of the game is EXCELLENT and meets all of your single-player requirements.

[Paladrian]

Personally I can live without multiplayer, but it could attract more people, so I voted #3

[Typhoid]

I voted for advanced since you asked for the minimum. In development I would push for the ultimate when designing it so you can implement less and grow with later releases.

 

my sons have a couple of games that they network up at home where one computer is the remote server that carries a lot of the data, and the others network in. I think that fits into your "advanced" column but one advantage of designing that would be the issue now where different loads can't link for MP. The optional remote server might solve that.

 

anyway - my $0.02.

[Viggen]

Personnally I would want to see the "Advanced" possibility. People who are on a slower conection or have a weaker PC could have problems with the "Extreme".

[Dave]

I voted for advanced because JA37 has some good points. We got to make it where anyone can play.

[starfighter2]

Advanced baby, advanced

[Crusader]

This Is Advaaaaaaaaaance.....d !!!1

[JediMaster]

While I'd prefer "ultimate", and that is my wish for more sims like that, I know that's a pipe dream.

Advanced is what SFP1/WoX offer now, and I consider that the bare minimum. Basic isn't even worth my time (like Jane's F-15 had) and no MP means I may or may not bother with it.

Back in the 90s I had many SP-only sims, but I had more free time and spent 90% of my PC time on flight sims. Now my time is less and split between other genres, so I tend to gravitate towards ones I can play MP in a coop environment.

[FastCargo]

I'm thinking the TW series is more like Basic...Advanced would be something closer to LOMAC? Am I correct in this assesment there C5?

 

FastCargo

[column5]

I'm thinking the TW series is more like Basic...Advanced would be something closer to LOMAC? Am I correct in this assesment there C5?

 

FastCargo

 

Yeah, what we have now is pretty much "Basic" although there is some coop capability.

 

For each selection, the assumption is that the implementation would work well, so even if someone chooses Basic, they will be getting a system that does what it is supposed to do reliably and with good performance.

[Julhelm]

Tbh, the bare minimum ought to be something similar to EECH.

[streakeagle]

The bare minimum should be just about every other decent sim prior to SFP1:

Jane's Fighters Anthology and Jane's USAF have far superior mission editing/multiplayer setups

The IL-2 series is the benchmark for box sim multiplayer support/popularity: it is the only box/single player combat flight sim that has HUNDREDS playing every night on Hyperlobby, possibly THOUSANDS counting other server networks such as UBISoft, etc. for FREE.

The Aces High approach with massive multiplayer requires servers/bandwidth that leads to monthly fees.

I pay those fees, but would there be many besides me flying F-4s versus MiGs in an Aces High type game for a monthly fee? WW2 has the massive multiplayer sim market pretty much cornered. I don't know if the market is truly big enough to support separate eras such as WWI, Korea, and/or Vietnam.

 

A truly successful game isn't going to target one small niche... but seek to get people playing together globally.

But then, hard core jet combat flight sim jocks interested in 50's/60's70's era jets are about as small a niche as you can aim for.

The only niches I know of that are smaller are hard core naval and armor combat sims (think Dangerous Waters and Steel Beasts, which definitely come to life with multiplayer!).

That reminds me, I never got around to getting the latest Steel Beasts...

[Stwa]

Dang IT. This is why I don't like polls. I voted for BASIC, but now that I see I am the only one that voted for that, I want to change my vote to NONE.

[column5]

Dang IT. This is why I don't like polls. I voted for BASIC, but now that I see I am the only one that voted for that, I want to change my vote to NONE.

 

S'allright. I'll make a note of that for when I present the final report, after all the polls are done.

[SayethWhaaaa]

I voted for advanced because that's what I'd like to see, but I'd settle for basic because, usually, if I get together with mates for some local BF2/Zero Hour/NFS Underground 2 style action, that sorta resembles how we play. Right now as it stands, SF series MP isn't terrible. I've had some great dogfights with other players, but it can be finicky to use from time to time.

 

Last time I played, DaSpungie (A canuck I might add, least I think he is ) had to set up a server for a few of us Aussies to use because HL wouldn't allow us to create a game for ourselves for some reason. Now that could have been for several reasons, but my point is most MP orientated games don't have this problem.

 

One of the hardest aspects of this game to implement into MP would be the use of player created/modded aircraft and the possible exploitation of game quirks or other ways of cheating. I could see dodgier players shrinking their hit zone surfaces to make it nigh on impossible to strike, or multiple weapons sharing the same hardpoints and so on. Again, I'd settle for having a LAN setup that doesn't randomly crash when using non stock aircraft. But for me, this is hardly an issue when considering everything else I can do when tinkering around with this sim... ALthough I would like to have a co-op game again someday. It's been close to 6 months now. I'm having withdrawls!!

[Rambler 1-1]

#3 is a good choice because it'd keep the game (relatively) simple, and it'd attract buyers. Also, if the game is based around a couple of select planes, could we not specialise the missions for these?

 

EDIT: D'OH! I clicked #2 by accident. Not that it's gonna make a difference...

Edited February 13, 2008 by Rambler 1-1

[Viper6]

The bare minimum should be just about every other decent sim prior to SFP1:

Jane's Fighters Anthology and Jane's USAF have far superior mission editing/multiplayer setups

The IL-2 series is the benchmark for box sim multiplayer support/popularity: it is the only box/single player combat flight sim that has HUNDREDS playing every night on Hyperlobby, possibly THOUSANDS counting other server networks such as UBISoft, etc. for FREE.

The Aces High approach with massive multiplayer requires servers/bandwidth that leads to monthly fees.

I pay those fees, but would there be many besides me flying F-4s versus MiGs in an Aces High type game for a monthly fee? WW2 has the massive multiplayer sim market pretty much cornered. I don't know if the market is truly big enough to support separate eras such as WWI, Korea, and/or Vietnam.

 

A truly successful game isn't going to target one small niche... but seek to get people playing together globally.

But then, hard core jet combat flight sim jocks interested in 50's/60's70's era jets are about as small a niche as you can aim for.

The only niches I know of that are smaller are hard core naval and armor combat sims (think Dangerous Waters and Steel Beasts, which definitely come to life with multiplayer!).

That reminds me, I never got around to getting the latest Steel Beasts...

I too have played Aces high and I was thinking to myself only if there was a sim like this with jet aircraft, then i played the TW series and thought only if there was a multiplayer or co-op. maybe one day...and yes i would GLADLY pay the cost to have a TW type sim with co-op and real time ground war that would be directly affected by the actions of the pilots. Wishful thinking??

[JediMaster]

What I REALLY want TW's sims to have is missions in MP like Il-2 and LOMAC have. Sure campaigns like Il-2 and EECH offers would be nice, but it's not something I insist upon.

The main limitation of TW's MP side is every plane in the mission must be a flyable, and you can only have 4 different types maximum. You also are limited to 4 bombers and 12 fighters/fighter-bombers or 16 fighters/fighter-bombers. You can't have a mission where say 6 fighters are escorting 2 C-130s and a flight of 6 comes after them, or any anti-shipping missions, or ones involving carriers, etc. Well, those are other limitations. However, I've come to accept that TK just isn't going to go there.

[column5]

Just a reminder that when you vote, please choose the MINIMUM level of MP support that would be required for you to invest money up front. Not your preferred level of support. :)

[allenjb42]

I just voted for none. I don't play online or multiplayer ,so it's not an issue. I can see that it would be a major selling point though from the comments above.

[JediMaster]

Yeah, from the voting it seems 3 out of 4 want MP of some type.

I do think the differentiation between basic and advanced is confusing, though. I didn't consider the TW sims now as "basic" because the way it was worded I thought of Jane's F-15. "Advanced" as worded, to me, was the way TW sims are now. However, if the intention is that TW's are basic and sims like LOMAC are "advanced" with F4 and Il-2 being pretty much in the "ultimate" category, then I think some people might revise their vote.

[column5]

Possibly a poor choice of wording on my part. I really wasn't thinking of any other games when I wrote the descriptions. The idea was that MP dogfight would be much easier to implement than MP coop.

[kesegy]

Advanced is definetly the minimum IMO - at least, such as it is presented here. i think coop play is a must. in essence, to have the ability to do anything you are able to do on a single player mission, so custom loadouts have to be there, mission planning, etc. Some sort of ranking system with tangible effects would be nice (i.e. rudimentary chain of command). well, that's my .02s

[centrinoe]

I hope the multiple player part could be as the same powerful as LOMAC