|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
03-24-2012, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
A request for more features to make IL-2 a better game, not just better software.
Most of the talk on these forums these days have been for fixes to technical issues and adding more aircraft, ships, drivable tanks etc to the game.
Hardly anyone brings up the serious lack of attention to gameplay elements that will actually make CloD fun for the wider player base. The vocal minority (and the most active posters here are mostly a vocal minority) don't seem to think this is an issue but I've seen in other flight sim communities that this lack of gameplay elements is driving away a lot of players. I, for instance, hardly have any technical issues with CloD. Despite this, I have 8 hours in this game. Most of that was in free flight configuring my controls and since November, I've only launched CloD twice and only out of curiosity to see how many people are playing online, which isn't a lot. I play with people who enjoy varying levels of realism on different sims; in IL-2 we use CEM, in DCS A-10/Blackshark we fly full realism. In FSX we're flying procedure approaches on VATSIM in everything from bug smashers to 737NGX's. Some of us have never been in a plane before but there's a good portion who are working on or hold private and commercial pilots licenses. I say this so you know that we ARE the target audience for IL-2. We are NOT a bunch of 'children who should go back to Ace Combat' like some people suggest we do when these issues are brought up. So, time to get down to the point. Nobody I play sims with finds IL-2 Cliffs of Dover worth their time. The single player is bland. The multi player is worse. There's no dynamic campaign and the development teams refusal to compensate for the fact that this is a sim played on a computer monitor leads to unrealistic engagements. So, the game needs to be fixed. So far nobody I've spoken to is impressed with the direction IL-2 is headed and a few have already taken a 'won't get fooled again' stance when it comes to the Moscow expansion coming out. If you want us back, you need to make this a better game. Here's some examples of what we want. Better Target Recognition This is a serious complaint a lot of people have. It's harder in CloD to pick out targets than in any other sim we play or IRL. Take a look at the little black airplane sprites in 777 Studios Rise of Flight game. There's a reason why they put those in. Do something like that. Easier Mission Editing Why is this so terribly documented and so difficult. Everyone I know who's tried to make a mission in CloD has thrown their hands up in frustration. Dynamic single player and co-op campaigns This was hinted at before release but it never materialised. IL-2 1946 has these and Lowengrin made an even better third party generator. The fact that this isn't in CloD is a major step back. Multiplayer dogfight mission generators Making missions is hard and time consuming work. Take a look at what Lowengrin's DCG can do in a few clicks. Somewhat decent dogfight maps in a matter of minutes. Hell, there's even support for AI planes in dogfight. This will take a lot of burden off of hosts who want variety but don't want to spend hours making missions. This is sorely needed in CloD. Mandatory Tree Collision We make fun of the trees in IL-2 (the common cry when slamming in to one is OLEG TREES!) but in CloD we only get either fully rendered 3d forests or none at all. Because players get to chose, tree collisions is off. The few times I've bothered with multiplayer it's been common to see people flying under the forest canopy. If the average player can't handle full 3d forests, at least put in some Oleg Trees and turn collisions on. This way people flying with trees off can't fly UNDER the forest canopy. Add 2 sprites to the trees though so they aren't almost invisible from the side. These are the sort of things that CloD needs if your development team is going to survive after releasing the Moscow expansion. Adding more plane variants, more tank variants, making vehicles drivable etc IS NOT going to win us over. The people here counting the rivets on panels and comparing the paint colors to 75 year old photographs are your vocal minority. If you keep listening to them alone, you won't make enough money off of future releases to keep food on your plates. Give us a good game if you want us to keep giving you our money. 
|
|
#2
03-24-2012, 04:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
All good points that have been raised almost every month since release. ive prob asked about IL2 style COOPs about 10 times to no avail, Luthier says we dont need them.
 
__________________
Furbs, Tree and Falstaff...The COD killers... 
|
|
#3
03-24-2012, 05:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
A good post, to the point and "non-political" and I agree, being a game it lacks gameplay elements but even worse are all the non-intuitive stuff, clunky GUI etc. As Furbs said these questions have been raised before but we don't really know if the devs have taken any of it to heart. The QMB is IMO a step back from IL-2, I can't see what they were thinking, maybe someone else can explain the logic of it. With regards to the FMB, what I miss the most there are triggers Jane's WWII Fighter's style, the triggers in that game where soooo good and practical and easy to use, I could sacrifice 50% of all the objects in the CloD FMB for triggers like that.
|
|
#4
03-24-2012, 05:06 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Talking with the people of Sesto stormo, my wing, and with the Italian online community people (who flies or flew SEOW probably knows that i'm talking about
at least 80 people) what you said is the minimum average of requests. We all hope (but alot of the ones with i talk about it think that will never happens) that eventually will come. The amount of people that still flies Il2 is more than an evidence; to the hyperlobby stats you need to add also the SEOW campaing flown two times a week with 80 players online. Quote:
|
|
#5
03-24-2012, 05:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
03-24-2012, 05:13 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#8
03-24-2012, 05:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
mission building- yes a severe lack of documentation
however there are some community made guides http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3423371 http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3543389 which is a start 
|
|
#9
03-24-2012, 05:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 well at least we can do it. A "minor" problem so..
|
|
#10
03-24-2012, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Of course... it's not user-friendly, but with experience you can create very interesting missions (without the coop's limit). It's something like Arma2's scripting.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
