4.09 Dedicated Server Security & Distribution

[LEXX]

hmmm....I would be interested in an immersive dynamic Online War hosted through the publisher, but...

ElAurens::

...the netcode would have to be a lot better than it is now, and there would have to be a massive developer run server capable of putting thousands of aircraft up at once on a map the size of oh, the world..

...which describes exactly what Oleg would do -- perhaps for BoB And Beyond. Although a Channel map would be sufficient for the first releace, and for later theaters, later maps, all sized less than, "oh, the world."

Can't see that happening in a niche market like WW2 flight simulation.

It already has, to some degree, and profitibly so, although not done by Oleg Maddox, which would be key to generate my interest in something like this.

The only issue I may have is that Oleg has said he thinks dynamic campaigns are arcade by being non-historical, while a true Online War is a dynamic campaign. UBI or 1C could pay me a Monthly Fee and I still would not join a static Online War with a never changing fixed outcome that cannot be affected to at least some degree by the playing sides.

[msalama]

join a static Online War with a never changing fixed outcome that cannot be affected to at least some degree by the playing sides.

Wha...

I'm so sorry, but what the HELL are you on about? In an online war (such as the AFW, see http://www.war.by-airforce.com ) the outcome certainly isn't fixed, since the side who gathers more tactical and strategic victories (and thus either gains sufficient territory or destroys the enemy's supplies and production) will win the map - and they can only do it when their combined arms work together!

So what "never changing fixed outcome" is it that you're talking about - say, the Reds, always winning regardless of how the Blues wage their war, or what?

[LEXX]

Spot on! Dynamic campaign outcome is needed, but Oleg has said he prefers historical campaign outcome...ie...fixed outcome static campaigns.

In case you missed our discussion last page...

LEXX (last page)::

The only issue I may have is that Oleg has said he thinks dynamic campaigns are arcade by being non-historical, while a true Online War is a dynamic campaign. UBI or 1C could pay me a Monthly Fee and I still would not join a static Online War with a never changing fixed outcome that cannot be affected to at least some degree by the playing sides.

[msalama]

Yeah, but as I pointed out none of the current OL wars to my knowledge _are_ static - whereas you OTOH stated that:

I still would not join a static Online War with a never changing fixed outcome that cannot be affected to at least some degree by the playing sides.

And hey, fair enough, neither would I for that matter... but as I said there is NO NEED FOR THAT because all of them _are_ nowadays dynamic!

Capiche?

[msalama]

...and thus you're more than welcome in joining us playing AFW at will, because as I stated the individual episode / map outcomes most certainly are dynamic - and thus should suit your stringent offliner criteria 100%, now shouldn't they

[msalama]

...or, yet in other words, you wouldn't NEED to join a static OL war w/ a fixed outcome because they're NOT static BUT dynamic! U catch my drift, eh?

[msalama]

...which, again, brings me back to the original reason for my bewilderment, namely: WTF are you talking about static OL wars because they're not static but DYNAMIC???

[Avimimus]

1. Il-2 will not be fixed (due to difficulties with code and financial calculations)
2. Bob will everything (especially online security)
3. Oleg has suggested that it is likely Bob could well have several modes for online play:
- without security and allowing mods
- with security and only allowing official releases
- finally a 'pay for use' massive multiplayer dedicated historical campaign

Now go back to sleep...

[Rama]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

1. Il-2 will not be fixed (due to difficulties with code and financial calculations)

It's your saying.
OM never stated that. last time he told about this problem (On October 26) he stated M:1C was looking for a solution to secure online game, and that he wasn't sure it was possible with the limited amount of ressource he could dedicate on this.
Here the exact words: "I can't promise now... but my guys in research what is possible by minimal human/month busy schedule... ", written on 10/26 in Oleg Maddox's Room thread of this forum (answer #211)

Thats something he allready told for other problems... that finally found a solution.

So nothing is sure, neither that there will be a fix, or that there wont be.
I can still hope.