FC2 Online

True, a small part of total customers actually play online, but that does not mean things should stay that way.

 

Indeed; but if ED dedicated development effort in providing the ultimate multiplayer flight sim experience, would they actually increase sales enough to break even, let alone make a profit? I believe that's what c0ff is asking/begging for here: some kind of evidence that an investment in multiplayer will actually pay off. Or, would that time be better spent creating the next DCS module, or improving AI, or adding wing tip condensation, ...?

 

Obviously multiplayer is a huge segment of PC gaming if you look at the rest of the market.

Yes, but similarly, flight sims are a tiny segment of PC gaming, and most of the popular multiplayer games seem to be the ego-shooter type: fast-paced, little teamwork required, immediate action, etc. Personally, I don't think dramatically improving the MP side of FC2 would result in a dramatic increase in the number of people playing it online. But again, if anyone has evidence to the contrary, please do share!

 

Hi c0ff, what other tasks? the A-10C, i don't want it

 

Well, I do, and my 'yay' cancels out your 'nay'. ;)

 

And you think money will keep coming if they keep pushing unfinished products!

 

No game is ever "finished". There is always plenty more that could be done. At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say, "this is as good as we can do with our current resources". ED made the best product they could and put it on the market for what they deemed a reasonable price. What more do you expect from them? Why do you think it's reasonable to expect more from them?

 

We understand that multiplayer is right at the top of your list of priorities; what you are asking for is for ED to put it right at their top of their list. However ED are dependent on sales of their product for their livelihoods, so they are forced to make difficult decisions about what to spend their time on. They've chosen to spend some time on MP, obviously, but apparently not enough for your liking.

 

No doubt the crystal ball they use to peer into the market is frustratingly cloudy, but I'm also confident it's vastly better than yours or mine. After all, they are still in business, so they must be doing something right.

 

Throughout this thread, you've had reasons given as to why multiplayer hasn't received as much attention as you think it should. It seems fairly clear that the only answer you're actually willing to hear is "yes sir, right away sir". Unless there's some magical evidence that resources put into multiplayer will have a return on investment at least comparable to resources put into other aspects of the game, I don't think you're going to hear what you want to hear.

first of all, I have to thank c0ff for noting my comments in professional manner. I realy appreciate it.

 

secondly, it is not my intention to scorn developers of this series. very large portion of what I have written in this topic is based on my talks with my community members. keep that in your mind! I'm simply forwarding their opinions, wishes and so on. on top of that, I may add a conclusion of my own, but I'll do my best to make it clear when that particular part is my own opinion.

 

topic title is "FC2 online" and that is what I was trying to talk about and to relate online playing with hardware issues.

 

in other games it is completely irrelevant what kind of hardware you use in server (ok, not completely, but in the range of average/high-end). simultaneously, clients hardware is irrelevant (in the same hardware range). if I use old bucket to play IL-2 online, the only shortcoming on my end will be lousy graphics. no lagg, no playability issues.

 

in fc/dcs series, it is crucial to keep up with servers hardware and its graphical settings. if clients PC cannot keep up the pace, client will have hard time running the game, regardless of his performance in single player. this should not be an issue!

 

several of my buddies are clearly stating that when they upgraded their PC's, only then they were able to participate and enjoy in MP. up until that moment, their experienced huge laggings, stuttering, crash to desktop, game freezing and so on.... and most annoyingly - weapon performance. because of the combined effect of above mentioned, and God know what else, their missiles would often miss, or they would be killed by something that to them appeared as miss, and is in their tacview visible as a miss.

Do you think that it will be easy for ED to change this? Just a small patch? Just a small easy fix so that your computer can run it as good as your "buddies with upgraded PC´s". Do you really think it would be that easy and fast to change it?

Renato,

 

What hardware one uses for a server is not irrelevant for any games anywhere. You happen to be comparing to what is effectively ancient games, so obviously ancient hardware will work. For new games, you need new hardware.

 

Now, as it happens, I use hardware that is weaker than what the 104th use for a server, and my connection right now is 0.5Mbit up and 1Mbit down (1mbit up and 15mbit down when I use the mobile, but that has higher ping). Using said hardware, that incidentally is so old that it is not easy to purchase it (it was old and cheap when I bought it two years ago), I never run into any multiplayer problems that are not caused by my ISP.

 

That includes when there's 30 people flying around, plus AI.

 

And this here is very very important to understand: you do NOT need ace hardware to run a server for FC2. This is because the server only needs to run AI physics, which are very simplified, handle communications, run AI, and present itself with EGA graphics. You need an acceptably recent (last two-three years) CPU, but aside from that you can run with almost anything you dug up out of your basement. For DCS it is the clients that are taking the big hit, since they need to run physics for their own aircraft.

 

...now, if you use something that (by the sounds of it) is old enough that a C2D (phased out of production two years ago or so) is considered "new" to run as both your server AND as your playing machine... Then yeah. You will have problems, because your hardware is not up to the task. And that is the sad fact of computing: moores law states that transistor counts double every 18 months, they've done so since the 60's, and since the pressure on developers is to do anything and everything they can with the hardware that their software is made to run on, they'll keep making stuff that demands more of your hardware.

 

If you don't like that, you don't have to use it. It's just a simple matter of "reality". And I invite you to try going to a fair like E3 and tell people that they should NOT develop for new hardware and see how long you will survive. You would get lynched. :P

LMAO.

As nomdeplume aptly stated, it's not a technical issue, it's a business issue. However, I happen to disagree that the demand for an accessible (in terms of cost, technical requirements and ease of setup) and compelling MP experience is weak. One of the reasons that FC 1.1x sat on my shelf for as long as it did after I purchased it is that there simply wasn't any good reason to play it without human competitors. In a simulation as complex as DCS, the AI will always have severe limitations IMHO, which makes robust MP capability an imperative. Granted, the study sim market is a niche market, but that doesn't mean that it can't grow. The best marketing comes from satisfied customers, and one of the strongest selling points that DCS fans can use with their friends and acquaintances is the MP experience. If you neglect the MP component, it becomes much harder to make a case for sitting in front of your computer for hours at a stretch learning how to fly a virtual combat aircraft (combat is a team sport after all). It's easier to show people than to tell them, and you can't show them without accessible servers and good missions.

True, a small part of total customers actually play online, but that does not mean things should stay that way. Just because something is a certain way does not mean they should carry on like that with no innovation. Obviously multiplayer is a huge segment of PC gaming if you look at the rest of the market.

 

So that begs the question what is wrong with FC2/DCS and why do so few choose to play it online? I believe there is a ton of untapped potential with flight sims in an online environment. Sadly we don't have the tools, the stability, nor the built in functionality to make it something unique. Part of the problem I believe is the degree which ED relies on the community to sustain the game after its released. I really get the feeling that adding features in patches is considered to be a no-no. Hell the only feature I seem to recall that was added in the last several years of ED patches was the new sound engine in the Black Shark to FC2 compatibility patch. Sure we can get new 3d models, but that's a relativity simple prospect that the community itself has done on several occasions.

 

I think all games no matter what they are or how they are made have a very distinct pattern of players. The type of common players found is pretty evenly distributed across many games on many platforms. There is the crowd that is having fun, there are those who have fun and care about teamwork, and there are some who take the game very seriously and want to win all the time. All gamers fall somewhere between these 3 groups, I think the majority tends to hover around the "just having fun" and the "fun and teamwork" groups. Although I like to think that the number is leaning toward "fun and teamwork." We will always face this problem, but the solution has always been to simplify the needed interactions between the players. TF2 has built in hotkeys and basic dialog to communicate a message to teammates. You can play the whole game without chiming in on VOIP or typing a message and still effectively communicate a message. ARMA 2 has the group spotting messages which are completely automated. Why isn't there a "Help Me!" action with FC2 that relays your position to friendly players via "HQ." Instead, if you aren't on the optional VOIP a server might be hosting, you have to take your hands off the flight stick and type into chat.

 

 

I tend to think two things keep a gaming community alive.

1. Multiplayer

2. Major Modifications

 

Multiplayer is a very important purely through human to human interaction. You could play just co-ops and it would be 1000x better than single player. Because you are SHARING the game experience with someone else.

 

Mods to an extend the community can create. The sheer amount of happiness and anticipation from the SIM-MOD A-10 model was amazing. I personally love the VNAO mod but I loath the needed "copies" of my game in order to easily run it. However I do believe ED needs to step in and make some improvements via patches. If DCS:A10 gets a new multiplayer interface, FC2 oughta receive the same facelift.

 

Basically we need to see improvements post release for a product. Waiting 1 to 2 years for new features is a terrible idea.

I tend to think two things keep a gaming community alive.

1. Multiplayer

2. Major Modifications

 

Multiplayer is a very important purely through human to human interaction. You could play just co-ops and it would be 1000x better than single player. Because you are SHARING the game experience with someone else.

 

Mods to an extend the community can create. The sheer amount of happiness and anticipation from the SIM-MOD A-10 model was amazing. I personally love the VNAO mod but I loath the needed "copies" of my game in order to easily run it. However I do believe ED needs to step in and make some improvements via patches. If DCS:A10 gets a new multiplayer interface, FC2 oughta receive the same facelift.

 

Depending on the features, I would be willing to pay for some modifications. For instance, the ME interface, MP interface and new Caucasus map from DCS:WH packaged as an expansion/compatibility update for FC2. I'd definitely pony up for that (on second thought, no I wouldn't; see below). I realize that FC2 is in all likelihood not going to get any more updates to it's aircraft, but there's something to be said for keeping at least some of the existing flyables flyable in an MP environment. I'd say the T-toad, Su-27 and F-15.

 

Edit: or, conversely, (and probably more feasibly) create a mod to make those three (3.5 if you include the vanilla toad) aircraft multiplayer flyables in the DCS series for those who own FC2. That way, you continue to promote FC2 sales and enhance the multiplayer aspect of the DCS series at the same time.

Edited September 16, 2010 by GhostDog

I don't think whether you want A-10C or not matters. There is no other way to make money than to create new product, and there is no possibility to patch anything without money. Frankly, I think they should just forget about LO/FC and focus on DCS.

 

I bought LOMAC, and MP never fix.

 

I bought FC1, same history for MP.

 

Ok, you say forget this product, i can asume that.

 

What i can admit, is that you say forget FC2 too? A new product, that is in DCS world? so, for what i pay for FC2?

 

For the same in FC1 and a bit more? In that case, if i new, i don´t waste more money, because if i can´t play with my squad, for what i want it...

 

 

AOne of the reasons that FC 1.1x sat on my shelf for as long as it did after I purchased it is that there simply wasn't any good reason to play it without human competitors

 

The best marketing comes from satisfied customers, and one of the strongest selling points that DCS fans can use with their friends and acquaintances is the MP experience. If you neglect the MP component, it becomes much harder to make a case for sitting in front of your computer for hours at a stretch learning how to fly a virtual combat aircraft (combat is a team sport after all). It's easier to show people than to tell them, and you can't show them without accessible servers and good missions.

 

I know lot of people that was tired of FC1, and the MP.

 

In FC2 and BS still lag with 8-10 persons or more, and this don´t finish here, everytime a triggers activate or appear some IA, the mission stop for 1 second, a little jump.

 

This have become in a very big deception, so beside this, i have friends that leave FC world and move to Falcon and IL2 because they fly 15-20 persons with NO PROBLEMS, no lag and very stable.

 

People is getting really tired of this.

 

Greetings

 

P.D. I love ED sims but if they don´t fix this i think they´re gonna lose more customers

Ghostdog and Grimes. Good points. If not for MP, FC1 would not have been discussed for as long as it did in these forums. I realize we are a vocal minority, but we help to keep things alive publicly after other games/sims come and go. I rarely played FC until I jumped in MP. Another bonus, I would not know even a quarter of what I know now about combat sims if not for MP. I think the case that MP helps a sim stay alive is an open and shut one. I am not sure of the numbers, but IL2, Aces High, WW2 online all have thriving MP communities. Then there are al the obvious BF, COD, WOW. These games would not be what they are today if not for MP.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Crunch

First off, Hello All. Long time lurker and only now decided to engage in the conversation.

 

Long ago, I was involved in the evaluation process for the original Lock-on. I unfortunately was so disappointed with it, mainly due to UBI not allowing ED to finish the product correctly, that the sim got shelved after just a couple of sessions.

 

Fortunatly, the Flight Sim bug bit me again this past summer and I decided to give FC2 a try. As a long time critic of ED (sorry, but true) I have to say I was really impressed. A lot of the issues we had with LOMAC seemed to have been addressed. My friends and I have enjoyed many an online session lately, with very little to complain about. Except not being able to put boats in the rivers in the ME! :) But that's just me.

 

 

 

So that begs the question what is wrong with FC2/DCS and why do so few choose to play it online? I believe there is a ton of untapped potential with flight sims in an online environment.

 

One of the main reasons we played IL-2 for as long as we did was for the large scale MP wars, ie. Iron Skies. Loved the whole concept of that event. The squad I was a member of (2GvSap) was involved in the war every week.

 

It would be nice IMO if events like these could be created for the FC2 community. I know it would have to be comunity driven, and created, which may be the problem. Or maybe it's the lack of tools, or exporting info required by the sim. That I don't know, not my expertise.

 

So to answer Grimes from my perspective, that is what is missing in FC2 that other sims like IL-2 were able to provide. My logistics mind set just doesnt let me enjoy many of the servers out there today. I spend weeks creating my own missions and enjoy those with my friends. While entertaining, I do miss the whole squads vrs squads engagements of old.

 

I enjoy reading all of your posts, most are quite informative and have helped me figure out the ME along the way. Many thanks to all of you, hope my thoughts have contributed well.

 

Crisco (previously known as Zak from Virtual Flight Productions)

One of the main reasons we played IL-2 for as long as we did was for the large scale MP wars, ie. Iron Skies. Loved the whole concept of that event. The squad I was a member of (2GvSap) was involved in the war every week.

 

It would be nice IMO if events like these could be created for the FC2 community. I know it would have to be comunity driven, and created, which may be the problem. Or maybe it's the lack of tools, or exporting info required by the sim. That I don't know, not my expertise.

 

So to answer Grimes from my perspective, that is what is missing in FC2 that other sims like IL-2 were able to provide.

Hello Crisco, I think the amount of time you spend with your chosen sim is obviously going to relate to how much you learn about what goes on inside its world.

When you first started playing IL-2 you probably never heard or knew of anything like 'Iron Skies', I for one have played IL-2 for years and have never heard of anything as such but my interest in the sim has been limited like yours with Lockon.

 

As it happens there have been numerous community driven events more recent to my knowledge are

'LOCERF'

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=54309

http://www.159thgar.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=20 (i think you need permission to view this page)

running this month

and

'The Crimean Incident'

http://www.51st.org/campaign/

http://www.51st.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=45&sid=1129612ff9fde30186b2db28ca943fef

which was built up on FC1 and ran every 2 weeks if possible.

 

It takes some digging around but if you have an interest in the sim and get to know the community, like all communities there are plenty of experiences that you could not have imagined.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Frostie