Suggestion of new community built Online MP lobby

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by xnomad

I think it's best if we are forced to use the system that comes with the game. The more lobbies we have that aren't official the more fragmented the community will get. I'm sure there were a few new people who hit the multiplayer button in IL2 and decided there was nobody playing it anymore so didn't bother finding out where we all were.

I respectfully disagree. First of all, people who don't want to use something will come up with alternatives of their own, it's just a matter of time and it's something that can't be stopped. We can't "herd" the community into not fragmenting by force, it's already fragmented and to be honest i don't mind as long as it's not turning into a blood feud.

We have multiple divisions already, people who like flying full switch and others who want to fly with easier settings, mods servers and non-mods servers, all this is fragmentation too but it doesn't bother anybody as long as they have a choice of doing what they want. That is, unless they want to force their opinion on others, which is what usually turns a simple difference of opinion and personal preferences into a feud.

The same thing will happen with multiplayer lobbies and gradually people will gravitate to what suits them best. The sooner we all accept it and stop trying to force our preferences on others, the easier things will smooth out on their own in the long run.

Finally, the choice of lobby doesn't matter if we all play on the same servers anyway and at the end of the day that's what counts: server numbers instead of lobby numbers

Originally Posted by Shrike_UK

in reply to xnomad. I totally agree the thing is to avoid fragmenting the community, which is why Steam would be best for that purpose. If you look at UBI lobby for example. This is what everyone should have used if they didnt want to fragment the community. I was there for many many years, but, anyone who played there was bashed as being noob, it got bad press as it was the game room that all the non-expert players went as it was the one new people were first introduced to when buying the game, whereas hyperlobby on the other hand recieved tournament games and better organised squadrons, more features related to IL2 specifically that UBI (and Steam for that matter) dont have. and mostly rooms with full real switch players.

I think if we are going to try to keep the community together then we all need to act responsibly, and those that are veteran IL2 community members do need to promote staying together. Anyone who used to play on UBI servers would most likely know me. But Hyperlobby Users wont. I had the largest active memberred squadron on UBI. Alongside MH and MD, TX squadrons. Going to Hyperlobby when UBI went dead however we was the new kids on the block. And we never really took off again on Hyperlobby as other Squadron were much more recognised and well known as being the best in Hyperlobby domain.

One thing to have a think about is game experience. Weigh this up. On Steam, as with UBI, you dont get information on settings used in a game before you join. Apart from what people write in the game room title. This means you could well join a Coop or Dogfight with CEM turned off for example. Now we dont want that do we, being experienced pilots. And so time is wasted. There can be many features a lobby can have to support its game. Generic game lobbies will not support them. This is another reason why Hyperlobby became more popular.

Personally, i would rather see a purpose built lobby for IL2, and well, maybe link steam hosted games into it to provide a better overall coverage.

And yes, i'll wait till we see what we get in game, the information might be sufficient and the community might not need some 3rd party addition. we simply dont know yet.

Agreed on most counts. A lobby used for an FPS game needs to display a lot less information than one used for a flight sim: all a user needs is knowing the map, ping, number of players/available slots and game type (deathmatch, capture the flag, etc). On top of that, a flight sim user needs a detailed description of the realism settings used and possibly any mods that are in play.

It's not rocket science that a custom, purpose-built solution for a specific game will work better than a generic one that's used for many different genres. Heck, even Steam's own documentation that can be found online states something similar. It was linked a few days ago but can't seem to find it, something to the effect that "our steam server browser is a basic tool built to work with many different games, your game will benefit more from having its own dedicated solution".




Also,

Originally Posted by ColdfireTrilogy

What are you talking about Les... a steam account is required to play CoD period...

according to a community manager over on the Ubi forums this is not true for the boxed editions. She said that Steam is required for matchmaking only and not for game activation and DRM. According to Oleg, matchmaking will also be possible through 3rd party alternative lobbies.

Assuming this information is correct, if we put two and two together it's just a matter of whether one wants to use steam or not. A boxed edition (regular or collector's) will install and activate just fine without installing the steam client. Then, when we want to join a multiplayer session we can make our own choice: if we want to use steam we can go ahead and do it, if we don't we can use an alternative tool. That's all coming from official sources (Oleg Maddox and Ubi), the only reason it's still being debated is that there has been a lot of conflicting information on various subjects that makes people think "maybe Ubi is mistaken on this too". If what they told us is correct, Steam will be optional and not a necessity for anyone who buys a boxed edition of the game.