Buzpilot what have you said...

Run away before the offline pilots get the pitchforks out...

I agree :D

*pulls pitchfork* :twisted:

Pardon the strong words, Buzpilot, but utter BS. ;)

This attitude is one of the things I don't like about some onliners. They think online is inherently superior just for the presence of other human players, but while nobody denies that AI will never be as unpredictable as a human being that is not a sign of inferiority - just difference. Because, IMO, online is simply sportive competetive flying without much regard for history (varying in degree, though, and in varying disguises) while offline I can actually enjoy what I like about PC games - the story behind the operation(s).

Quite true csThor.

To be honest the only thing not working in cod online at present and ignoring the low 45-50 fps is the sound issues, if only they could get a temporary fix fir that I would've happy.

You are one of the pilots from the Staffel assigned to support a Stuka airstrike to fend off the T34 attacking our main airfield. You`re short on fuel, with only two 109G10, the rest being 109G6early. If you fail, the AF falls to the red side and you`re forced to retreat another 50km of the frontline to the west. This will also rid your tank columns residing near Moscow of any resources. How`s that for a story?

Player attitude would still ruin it. ;)

csThors a cheat... ;)

The reds have uber Russian aircraft...

Why does the fw190 have a bar covering half the front window...

One day this is the moaning that will fill this forum.

Oh no! I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. LOL

What I dont like specially in MP is some types of crazy things. Some examples of my experiences:

-I have finded Zeros over Stalingrad

-Battle of Britain with players in P-47 Thunderbolt.

-In some mission V-VS vs Luftwaffe , 90% of the Luftwaffe(blue) pilots were in Yak-3s.

-FW 190s in combat patrol over Okinawa.

Etc, etc, etc

Exactly for that I prefer Single Player, correct and historical accurate.

That, you find ONLY on Air-Quake (TM) Servers!
Those are worlds apart from Mission-oriented Servers and usually have WW-View (TM) enabled.

I think csThor is being a bit too negative towards MP. I've only ever flown in a couple of full switch servers back when we didn't have CoD yet, but i didn't see so much of a problem with player attitude.

Yes, it exists to a certain degree and yes, some times concessions have to be made to get a level playing field for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's completely ahistorical. I think csThor just had some bad luck and happened to encounter more of it than i did :grin:

On the other hand, there are also MP fans who are too dismissive of the SP aspect and i disagree with them as well.

The way i see it is very simple:
SP is for getting a realistic depiction of a theater of operations and realistic behavioral patterns of air forces and pilots on a strategic and tactical level, for example RAF flying in Vic formation early on in the battle or Luftwaffe ignoring the airfields and going after London later on. It's for things like orders of battle, stations/squadron placement and mission profiles.

MP is for getting a realistic depiction of pilot behavior within the actual combat engagement. It's for getting a believable set of responses by the guy in front of your guns.

The only way to successfully merge the positive points of both is to fly in a dynamic online campaign with players that will agree to do things like they were done back then even if it gives them a disadvantage. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but good luck maintaining that on a large enough scale to have MP qualify as historically accurate in the majority of cases.

A significant number of people do fly that way in online wars but another significant number fly the way Danelov described and as such, i can't just ignore the statistic and claim MP is accurate by default. MP is as accurate as the players themselves and the mission designer/server host want it to be, in fact, even if the mission designer does set out to do things a certain way it still doesn't work out if the players don't go along with it.

That's the main point csThor is arguing and in that he is entirely correct: the AI will shut up and do as its told within the constraints of its ability, while a human player will do what it takes to win. This is what makes human vs human competition more thrilling but at the same time it results in the RAF not flying in Vic formation ever and the Luftwaffe never changing their targets and keep hammering the airfields: we get believable piloting while the battle/operations in the theater play out in a way completely different to history.

I still like it because a properly orchestrated MP event is the ultimate "what-if time machine" available with today's technology, but it's a far stretch calling it a recreation of the actual battle. It's a recreation of the means used to wage the battle and not the battle itself, because the means end up getting used in a different manner 99% of the time.

I like both SP and MP because they are different, but neither one can give 100% of what's needed in 100% of the cases to be considered the pinnacle of realism. And this is why i don't only consider them equally important (each one tends to complete what's missing from the other one), but i also like to alternate between the two.