A request for more features to make IL-2 a better game, not just better software.

[zapatista]

Alpha, can we please start a dedicated thread on what we want for coop function to work the way we need it (based on our collective 10 yrs of il2 experience, and how it might be well implemented in some other games). this fruitful discussion, and the illustrations and screenshots you made, will be invisible to luthier who needs to see it (so he can understand why we are frustrated with the current system), and it will just disappear as the thread slides into oblivion

i am also one of those who is frustrated by the lack of proper coop implementation in CoD, and i dont want to spend weeks learning some complex and complicated new scripting method, however good and advanced it might be, its not very usable for most current coop users.

your screenshots with the comments illustrate very well how this issue can be solved fairly simply and quickly by luthier. i would add to those:
1) once coop has started new players should still be able to join, and either choose a new plane on the tarmac or join an existing aircraft (taking over an AI plane, or taking up a crew position in a multi crewed aircraft). that way we get past the boring wait times waiting for a late comer to join, and when people get killed early they dont have to wait 60 to 90 min for the mission to restart in order to play again.
2) when RL players get killed in a mission, they should be able to continue playing by similarly taking over a friendly AI position to control a new aircraft, or take over an AI position on a multi crewed aircraft.
note: server owner should be able to prevent new people from joining if he chooses, and be able to limit numbers of planes a killed player can take over (to prevent abuse by some disruptive players online etc..)


by all means keep the advanced scripting methods that have now been added in CoD, so people can start using them as their skills evolve and they get used to the new system, but additionally it needs at least some kind of console/interface added to make that advanced scripting method easier to use.

[ElAurens]

Frankly a simplified GUI for making DF missions is needed as well.

I used to make a lot of DF and a few CoOp missions for the BlitzPigs, but I can't even place a base on a map in CloD.

You should not have to understand a programming language, or whatever it's called, to be able to make missions at least at a basic level.

I think that developers often fall into a trap that has them thinking that their customers are developers as well. It's easy to do if you work with it all day long. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't work in IT.

I'm not a programmer.

I do (or at least used to) enjoy making missions, from the research to the placement of objects. I derived a great amount of satisfaction from seeing my work come to life online.

So how about a simple GUI option for the FMB for those of us that don't want to write scripts and dink about with all that computer boffin stuff?
I know I'm not alone in thinking this. At the very least just implement the ability to use IL2 FMB controls.

[Flanker15]

Good post OP, those are my problems with the sim too.
A dev can make all the realistic plane models and physics in the world but people still won't want to play it if the game they're in is boring and frustrating to play.

[FG28_Kodiak]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Frankly a simplified GUI for making DF missions is needed as well.

I used to make a lot of DF and a few CoOp missions for the BlitzPigs, but I can't even place a base on a map in CloD.

You should not have to understand a programming language, or whatever it's called, to be able to make missions at least at a basic level.

I think that developers often fall into a trap that has them thinking that their customers are developers as well. It's easy to do if you work with it all day long. Not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't work in IT.

I'm not a programmer.

I do (or at least used to) enjoy making missions, from the research to the placement of objects. I derived a great amount of satisfaction from seeing my work come to life online.

So how about a simple GUI option for the FMB for those of us that don't want to write scripts and dink about with all that computer boffin stuff?
I know I'm not alone in thinking this. At the very least just implement the ability to use IL2 FMB controls.

So and why don't you simply ask for a script in the Missionbuilder-Area.
Describe what you want and you will get it, for me it's about 5min to make a simple script. The most scripts you can reuse in other missions. Also don't be shy .

[csThor]

Quite honestly I am not one of the few who can actually make sense of the C# gibberish CloD uses for scripting. And I know that area will always be a closed book to me, I simply lack the brain connections to make sense of any kind of coding language. I also heartily agree that the game desperately needs some kind of FMB support interface to help people like me who have no clue about coding.
That said I am quite astonished that people want the horrible old canned Coop format back which really excluded any kind of fluidity, any kind of surprises and deviations from a pre-defined set of parameters. They were, IMO, essentially like a comic strip which ran along a pre-defined path (which the player, with a minimum of intelligence, could easily predict) and had little to do with the conditions on the WW2 battlefield with its fluidity and fog of war.

My 0,02 € ...

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by csThor

Quite honestly I am not one of the few who can actually make sense of the C# gibberish CloD uses for scripting. And I know that area will always be a closed book to me, I simply lack the brain connections to make sense of any kind of coding language. I also heartily agree that the game desperately needs some kind of FMB support interface to help people like me who have no clue about coding.
That said I am quite astonished that people want the horrible old canned Coop format back which really excluded any kind of fluidity, any kind of surprises and deviations from a pre-defined set of parameters. They were, IMO, essentially like a comic strip which ran along a pre-defined path (which the player, with a minimum of intelligence, could easily predict) and had little to do with the conditions on the WW2 battlefield with its fluidity and fog of war.

My 0,02 € ...

+1.
Yes to a GUI for the FMB, no the old Il2 style coops.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Insuber

+1.
Yes to a GUI for the FMB, no the old Il2 style coops.

so what for of coop would you suggest ? there is no need for it to be a rigid copy of the old version, but it needs to satisfy a few criteria:
- people need to be able to meet in a lobby type format where they can collectively discuss the mission (plane types, target, map, loadout, route to target and egress etc..)
- server owner needs to be able to start the mission so people can take off from the airfield as a cohesive unit
- late comers (who might be finishing dinner etc..) should not have to be waited on for mission start or for them to join, they should be able to join a little later and take over an AI plane etc..
- when players are killed they should be able to rejoin the server without having to wait another 60 - 90 min for the next mission

if you know a better way to include this and not use an improved version of the old system, please explain

the only other way i see this is that we have a 24/7 dynamic server that runs an unfolding battlefield scenario over several weeks (largely with scripted elements, not completely player controlled). the server owner could then pause the server when his coops buddies arnt playing ( or let it unfold/run on its own when not used even). you then could use "mission task screens" that give a continuous series of missions that need to be flown, and the players choose some they like (large formation bombers, fighter escort etc). to do this right would be fairly complex, and i dont see luthier pulling that one out of his hat any time soon.

so what other version of coop would you suggest ?

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by zapatista

so what for of coop would you suggest ? there is no need for it to be a rigid copy of the old version, but it needs to satisfy a few criteria:
- people need to be able to meet in a lobby type format where they can collectively discuss the mission (plane types, target, map, loadout, route to target and egress etc..)
- server owner needs to be able to start the mission so people can take off from the airfield as a cohesive unit
- late comers (who might be finishing dinner etc..) should not have to be waited on for mission start or for them to join, they should be able to join a little later and take over an AI plane etc..
- when players are killed they should be able to rejoin the server without having to wait another 60 - 90 min for the next mission

if you know a better way to include this and not use an improved version of the old system, please explain

the only other way i see this is that we have a 24/7 dynamic server that runs an unfolding battlefield scenario over several weeks (largely with scripted elements, not completely player controlled). the server owner could then pause the server when his coops buddies arnt playing ( or let it unfold/run on its own when not used even). you then could use "mission task screens" that give a continuous series of missions that need to be flown, and the players choose some they like (large formation bombers, fighter escort etc). to do this right would be fairly complex, and i dont see luthier pulling that one out of his hat any time soon.

so what other version of coop would you suggest ?

Mate, I am with you for the requested capabilities, but let me explain my position. I've played countless Il2 coops in the last 11 years: there is good and bad, but all in all they're too rigid, and they lack a lot of tactical and strategical flexibility, both for air and for ground units. My opinion is that nowadays MG could do - and possibly did - a much better "coop mode" than that one.
And if I listen to the few C# mission builders here, all of the features of your exhaustive list - that I approve - are already present in CloD, except for the first bullit - where TS comes in more handy . That's the reason for my stance: we need a GUI for the FMB, to exploit fully what is under the hood. Once we will know the limits of the new mission builder, we can ask for new functionalities.

BTW, the ATAG Axis vs. Allies server has already a lot of interesting coop-like features. I miss mainly the points for ground targets ... but there are objectives, updates on the targets status, you can join and quit at your will, and once the objectives are reached a faction wins and the mission restarts ... and you can work cooperatively with your mates. AFAIK one cannot jump in a flying AI plane, but I believe that this is a server choice.

I suggest the following to facilitate the communication and understanding on coop, which is one of the most ambiguous and misunderstood debates we have had:

- starting from today's state of the art for online missions, that is the ATAG server, one can specify what one wants different/added/improved. I believe that this would be a more efficient way to proceed.

Cheers!

[addman]

All I want is a fair number of preset triggers to choose from instead of editing text files in c# or whatever it is.

[furbs]

CThor, but the simple COOP is not just about canned missions with AI that i agree leave little to surprise people.
Its also about quick fast COOps between humans that we miss, also its the set up of quick engagements for a particular training, ground attack, scrambles, skip bombing and such.

What we need is all the new toys in a easy to use and adjust interface with a simple to use and join GUI.

If we dont get that then online wars between sqds are not going to happen.

Though i think we are spiting in the wind with this, its prob not even on Luthiers very long list of fixes and one that we wont see happen for CLOD.

best we can hope for is BOM comes with a better set up for COOPs and we can then go back to CLOD and use it because its not going to happen until then.