I'm guessing there must be something I don't get about how these parts interact, but...the emphasis on single-player (SP) vs multi-player (MP) baffles me.

For example - I really don't understand the continued work on DGEN instead of NGEN, or the existence of the 'Dark Blue World' mod (which seems a GREAT addition to UP3...except it can't be used in MP)

Does anyone really just fly single-player anymore? Co-op campaigns are SO much more interesting! Heck, even Microprose appeared to realize that more than a decade ago when Falcon 4.0 came out.

And, even so - and this may be the part I'm missing - even with SP as a focus...why wouldn't it be better to put that effort into the MP campaign rather than SP, anyway? Any MP campaign or mission can always be played SP...just let AI pilots handle the other 'player' slots.

So why wouldn't the most efficient use of work be to just work on the game from an MP-perspective...MP mission focus, co-op campaign focus, online play focus, etc...and then just let the SP players run that with AI players in the other player slots. Rather than focusing on SP, only, that...can only then be used for SP.

What am I missing, here?

I suppose the answer is that there are far more of us single-players than is estimated, which you would see for yourself if you visit the SAS site (and you will be welcome) and we like to do our own thing. Yours is a good point about making MP campaigns which could be adapted for SP use. If this is easily done, it would certainly save a duplication of effort.

Lol, yes I do Exclusively. I did try to fly online but never liked it.

Multiplayers always seem to underestimate the number of single offline players.


Indeed, I believe the ratio is somewhere around 3:1 OFFLINE, believe it or not. There was a post somewhere back from the developers (here or elsewhere) that mentioned the majority were offline players. Multiplayers simply make more noise.

Well I fly only off line and have for a long time. Reason is that I have limited time and when I do fly I want to be able to chouse the campaign, of which I have a lot. Yes Co-op campaigns are interesting and so are many of the off line campaigns.

Xander, I note that you are located in Portland, as I am. This coming week starting Monday to Thursday I will be working and then leaving for the New Year weekend to the coast near Seaside. The following week I will be working and teaching 2 classes in the eveing. So for me off line campaigns are the way to go. I suspect it is the same way for many off liners.

To all MP and SP have a great remaining hoilday season.

There is sometimes a kind of snootiness that comes up from multiplayers to the effect of "pffft... why would you want to play that when you can just come online and play with other people!" In some cases there is a bit of a gulf between the two camps. I go both ways and I play both sides of the game depending on what I want to do and what I'm interested getting myself into.

I think there are many good reasons to play single player missions. The experience is very different and having crafted numerous single player campaigns... I can safely say that a well designed mission can be a very interesting and indeed gratifying experience that you just don't get online. You can also take your time and get into the fiction/history of the scenario more-so than if you're doing a dogfight scenario or even a coop. Coop campaigns are neat but I rarely have the time to play them or organize them.

With the AI upgrade coming for 4.11 I think single player folks will have a lot to enjoy. Multiplayer folks will too with the MDS and coop scenarios also benefiting.

But that's the question - why would that be so?

If the mission/campaign/etc was designed for co-op, you could just play it single-player, and have the exact same experience you are referring to, here. It just gives you another option of playing with some of your friends if you wanted to.

ESPECIALLY when you are looking at small groups (3-4), who would tend to fly as part of a single flight, anyway.

Why wouldn't a mission or campaign designer (or mod creator, or patch author, etc, et al) focus on the multiplayer first, since you lose absolutely nothing in what can be experienced by individuals playing offline, and you also get the bonus of having a great co-op mission/campaign/mod/etc.

Whereas the current method of single-player-only just means that a healthy chunk of the community is ignored.

Which is, I guess, why I've always felt...



...that this is actually the opposite of the truth. That the 'snootiness' you refer to, if it exists at all, is entirely in the other direction. I mean, how many times have I read on these forums things along the lines of 'I don't play MP, it's just air-Quake'...which makes no sense to me at all, as it COULD be the exact same missions as they are advocating single-player, just with other humans in the AI slots.

Boggles the mind. To me, it's the MP-focus that would be the most inclusive. MP-focused work gives those of us who want to play compelling stories with others a chance to do so...and those that want to play compelling stories/campaigns/etc on their own can do so, as well. Nobody loses.

SP-focus, though, is much more exclusive. It's very much "well, I don't like to play with others, so I'm going to do all the mod/mission/campaign work I'm doing the way I want to play, only, and if you don't like that - tough". There is, after all, no such thing as a 'multiplayer-only' mission. The only mission types are either 'singe player' or 'multi-player OR single-player'. So it seems like it's exclusivity for exclusivity's sake focusing on SP, only.

At least, as far as I know - again, that's kind of an open question. There is so much focus in mods and campaigns on single-player vs multi-player + single-player (as noted, NGEN hasn't been updated in forever, while DGEN is frequently), and I don't get why.

Is there just something I'm missing that would be lost in changing direction?

Because there are lots of us that don't give a crap about multiplayer. There used to be a study that Oleg posted over at Ubi (I think) that showed by his own figures that the number of MP versus SP is actually smaller. I don't recall the exact figures, but if I remember correctly it's well less than half. Could be different, now though.

Smart-@ss question from me Xander: Why should anyone bother with MP development when 90% of the onliners do want Air Quake and nothing else?

Simply put I can't be arsed to go online anymore, I get enough kindergarten at work so I don't want to deal with that in my spare time, either. And besides I am interested in historical details - which mostly fall prey to "balance" online. At least the AI won't whine when it doesn't get to fly the latest über-plane.

I agree with csThor I often pursue my offline campaigns (flying an Oscar over New Guinea now).

The people I normally fly online with deliberately avoid the Air Quake scene. However, to agree with Xander , once you have found a group of people who share your own perspectives, then multiplayer can be very rewarding. The problem for me is that the standard MP tools lack so much campaign depth/richness, so you either have to dig deeper to find something better or you just stay offline and build your own world around that experience.

Cheers,
4S