Rebuilding the flight sim community. Do we need a new "Hyperlobby"?

[Mysticpuma]

For the long time flight simmer, I think most of us will remember "Hyperlobby" and how easy it made it to find a server or join your squad mates, create a Co-Op event, etc, etc. 

I used the term "rebuilding" because while it's obvious it still exists, having that central hub where all gamers went to, gave the opportunity for them to see other communities but all centralised around "Hyperlobby". 

Whatever the developers do with Combat Pilot, I think it is integral they consider making server software that has some type of "Co-Op" option that can be easily implemented to encourage teams or Squadrons. 

However aligned with that, what do people think of 'bringing back' or at least considering integration for a new Hyperlobby? 

Edited July 19 by Mysticpuma

[Trooper117]

We have needed a new 'Hyperlobby' for many years... I had so much fun there when the old IL2 was at it's height!

So easy to use, whether you wanted co-op fun, or join one of the big online wars with your squadron, great times.

I just can't understand why no-one ever thought to bring in a modern version...

[Sea Serpent]

This was before my MP time, but I am familiar with some of the games of so long ago, like the original IL-2.  IMO, The reason there were so many “flight simmers” back then wasn’t because of hyperlobby, it was because games like IL-2 1946, while cool at the time, was an arcade game by any modern standards, and any Tom, Dick, or Harry could play.  I’m familiar with the arguments old timers bring forth about the online scene of the late 90’s, but I just don’t see it working like that anymore.  I remember some guy lobbying hard for Co-Op mode in IL-2 Great Battles, because those were the “good old days.”  So they did it.  And it was a total waste of resources, because the community as a whole didn’t bother with.  Hyperlobby, as well, seems like a thing that was good for its time.  But in this modern day, people really don’t seem to have that much of a problem finding where the action is, or meeting up with their wingmen.  If they aren’t playing, it’s because the game bores them, not because they need some central hub outside of the core game. I don’t know for sure obviously, and I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think If CP is good, it will attract the right people in sufficient numbers, without any of this.  

[Chief_Mouser]

Definitely agree that Hyperlobby wasn't the reason there were so many flightsimmers, but it was the reason why so many played multiplayer. 

One easy to navigate central point where you could jump in with people you knew or didn't; find your mates in the chat or in the list of players not yet joined a game. Both co-ops and dogfights were highly populated whereas the official Il-2 lobby had precisely no-one using it.

Also, the hosting and mission building in the original Il-2 was so simple compared with the over-complicated horror that is GB that there were many more folk wanting to launch missions and servers. People not flying MP in GB aren't necessarily bored with the game, but have no easy access point to find whatever suits them because not many know how to build or host it.

Co-op mode in GB was necessary, and it was/is used by squads on a very consistent basis. What there isn't are the casual co-ops that Hyperlobby provided. Put up your server with a mission and see who fancied it. Launch when it's full or approaching full. Simple.

Combat Pilot needs a Mission Editor that we can all learn easily, and a central meeting place like Hyperlobby. If Jason and co. want us to participate full-time in MP then they'll include just that. It shouldn't need/rely on a third party to do so.

🍻

[Sea Serpent]

I disagree that squads needed a Co-op mode in IL-2.  They just had their own locked server, that ran just like any other.  I don’t think it was even widely used for organized tournament events.   Also, if you’re playing a particular game, what’s wrong with simply clicking the MP button and seeing all of the active servers for the game, inside the game?  Why is some external place necessary?  And in this day and age, everybody has access to Discord, or TS, and it’s no big deal to find where the people are.  I’m not trying to be disagreeable, I just don’t see the point of going back to some 1990s social networking solution for a “problem” that I’m not sure actually exists.  
 

edit: Carrier ops, being cyclical, might benefit from something like a co-op mode, depending on how the game is designed and intended to be played.  I’m not against it, but it would be for functionality, not to facilitate or “encourage” more game participation.   Things need to be designed for today’s requirements, not to meet nostalgic perceptions of a vanished Golden Age.  I definitely see no reason for a Hyperlobby, whatsoever.

Edited July 19 by Sea Serpent

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

For the long time flight simmer, I think most of us will remember "Hyperlobby" and how easy it made it to find a server or join your squad mates, create a Co-Op event, etc, etc. 

I used the term "rebuilding" because while it's obvious it still exists, having that central hub where all gamers went to, gave the opportunity for them to see other communities but all centralised around "Hyperlobby". 

Whatever the developers do with Combat Pilot, I think it is integral they consider making server software that has some type of "Co-Op" option that can be easily implemented to encourage teams or Squadrons. 

However aligned with that, what do people think of 'bringing back' or at least considering integration for a new Hyperlobby? 

Or they could just set up a currently existing generic comms app like Discord or Teamspeak.  It has almost all the functionality of Hyperlobby.  That’s why there will not be a new Hyperlobby.  It already exists.

[Chief_Mouser]

@Sea Serpent.

As I said 

13 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

 

Combat Pilot needs ... a central meeting place like Hyperlobby. If Jason and co. want us to participate full-time in MP then they'll include just that. It shouldn't need/rely on a third party to do so.

🍻

So we're on the same page here.

But regarding co-ops, SEOW and other massive campaign co-op series all used HL and no-one ever suggested anything other, especially in the absence of anything meaningful from 1C:Maddox. It worked perfectly for co-ops as well as dogfights. This is what Combat Pilot has to learn from. Make the game lobby extremely user friendly.

🍻

Edited July 20 by Chief_Mouser

[BraveSirRobin]

16 hours ago, Chief_Mouser said:

Combat Pilot needs a Mission Editor that we can all learn easily, and a central meeting place like Hyperlobby. If Jason and co. want us to participate full-time in MP then they'll include just that. It shouldn't need/rely on a third party to do so.

🍻

The original Hyperlobby was third party.  So anything used for Combat Pilot can absolutely be third party.

[wheelsup_cavu]

Just went to the HyperLobby forums. What a ghost town. Only 7 players in game and as of today, June 20, 2024, even Jiri hasn't posted in a year.

 

He last updated the HyperLobby program in February of 2022.

HyperLobby 4.3.7 development thread: https://hyperfighter.sk/ftopict-10445.html

HyperLobby 4.3.7 development thread: https://hyperfighter.sk/ftopict-10445.html

 

Wheels

[BlitzPig_EL]

An easier to use mission editor is a key element to bringing back larger numbers of mission makers and servers.  In the old days of original IL2 we had several members of the BlitzPigs making DF and co-op missions for the Pigs.  Now I am the only one making missions for GB for us.  Why?  The editor, while very powerful in what you can make, is also overly complex with too many repetitive steps needed to do even simple things, like put a flight of enemy AI on the map.  I took the time and effort to do it, but I'm a nutter when it comes to my hobbies.  Most are not.  Unleashing a cadre of new players who can build missions easily is one of the major steps needed to invigorate multiplayer in our modern sim world. 

 

If you build it they will come.

[BraveSirRobin]

The best way to get everyone back is to have ALL the other computer games install Crowdstrike.  Then just wait for another update.

[ZachariasX]

Love point 8.6 of their EULA:

[…] THE OFFERINGS AND CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE NOT FAULT-TOLERANT AND ARE NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE IN ANY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE OR OPERATION. NEITHER THE OFFERINGS NOR CROWDSTRIKE TOOLS ARE FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION, NUCLEAR FACILITIES, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, WEAPONS SYSTEMS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, OR ANY APPLICATION OR INSTALLATION WHERE FAILURE COULD RESULT IN DEATH, SEVERE PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. […]

Ah, well. Nobody reads EULAs.

Damage from Petya: 10 billion USD.

Damage from Crowdstrike: 24 billion USD.

If we don‘t get Crowdstrike, then a HL could be made in Office 365? That would help as well bringing everyone together.

 

It makes one wonder what IT execs actually do professionally.

 

[CPT Crunch]

Yeah, it was with a strong combo of mission builder access, there were web sites dedicated to churning out missions and hosting on the Lobby.  I remember Methalusko's Missions site and mission files, what got me started in the online, no coms but the same bunch of regulars in it every weekend, got to where you'd automatically join a strike package and coordinate, the site briefs were that good.  The missions were fun and had great utility, the old 46 sim had greater capability than Great Battles, float planes, torpedoes, snow skis, you name it leading to fantastic mission scenarios.  Oleg pushed the boundaries and constantly gave us easy access with great tools.  Never saw the like since.

[ZachariasX]

I very much hope for a straightforward and powerful mission editor. The rest can be done on Discord etc.

[Talisman]

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I very much hope for a straightforward and powerful mission editor. The rest can be done on Discord etc.

Noooooooo!  Please not Discord.  😬

Happy landings,

Talisman

[ZachariasX]

40 minutes ago, Talisman said:

Noooooooo!  Please not Discord.  😬

Fair enough. I hope there is a non-destructive alternative.

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Talisman said:

Noooooooo!  Please not Discord.  😬

 

+1

[Boba Fett]

I don't think it has to be a full Hyperlobby.

There should be two more tabs in the in-game server list. One for active co-ops. The other with two columns for every active player online by name and squad. Now you can search by most active server, co-op, or buddy. Not sure how difficult the co-op tab would be but server list is already standard and buddy lists seem pretty straight forward.

In reality, if there is someone you hate flying with/against there could be a third sub header in the buddy list for blocked player that would limit the servers those blocked players are in at the moment.

OK, so now I've complicated it with a clickable list of buddies/not buddies and demonstrated how feature creep works.

Otherwise, it's a solid idea......

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, Boba Fett said:

I don't think it has to be a full Hyperlobby.

There should be two more tabs in the in-game server list. One for active co-ops. The other with two columns for every active player online by name and squad. Now you can search by most active server, co-op, or buddy. Not sure how difficult the co-op tab would be but server list is already standard and buddy lists seem pretty straight forward.

In reality, if there is someone you hate flying with/against there could be a third sub header in the buddy list for blocked player that would limit the servers those blocked players are in at the moment.

OK, so now I've complicated it with a clickable list of buddies/not buddies and demonstrated how feature creep works.

Otherwise, it's a solid idea......

Most online flight sims currently have about 2-3 active servers.  If you want to limit yourself to servers where people you don’t like are not flying, you might as well not bother playing MP.  
 

Also, no one flies co-ops any more.  A bunch of guys tried to resuscitate co-ops in RoF.  They were organized.  They were confident.  They were determined.  They gave up after about 3 weeks.

[Sea Serpent]

I used to both cherish and cringe at the moments when somebody would get on comms and you would tell them off…😂. The good old days of flight sim, indeed!

[Boom]

Thoroughly enjoyed my years flying on Hyperlobby. It was the place to be. The single stop shop concept.

[CountZero]

On 7/22/2024 at 1:53 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

Most online flight sims currently have about 2-3 active servers.  If you want to limit yourself to servers where people you don’t like are not flying, you might as well not bother playing MP.  
 

Also, no one flies co-ops any more.  A bunch of guys tried to resuscitate co-ops in RoF.  They were organized.  They were confident.  They were determined.  They gave up after about 3 weeks.

if games like GB or ROF had lobby like hyperlooby coops would have better chance, you have ppl in waiting room, you have chat, ppl can see your server ask what mission you plan to run, ask for some other, on HL coops were usealy 15-20min missions, mission planer was user frendly edits were easy, you could control your wingman and AI airplanes had use... most of things GB and RoF do bad, so no wonder coops were nonexistant...

I remenber in HL while i would wait for DF server slots to open up i would join some random coop that would be listed , ppl would advertaise it everyone was in same place, in modern games this is nonexistant, when CB or WoL is full i just sit in DF part of game or just do random DF on berloga, you dont know who is hosting coop where why what mission and so on... no option to ask and so on... in Korea it looks they gona just have same mission planer like GB and same MP lobby, so nothing will change there, here who knows, ability to run coop sp campaign, more userfrendly mission planer and HL type lobby would be great but its so early now.

I remenber when we were doing some seoa campaign, they were advertaised on forum but not hosted on HL, i was pushing to host them on HL to get more players, and after we run them from HL coop section we got more players interested in that seaw coop campaign, back then it was place where most online players were, most of them never visited games forums. Now its same most players will not go on games forums, or discorts and so on, having in game lobby where you have list of players who wait and ability to chat would incress MP interest.

I remenber when Mongoos made B-24 for IL-2, he run coops on HL, we had missions where you were just in gunner positions and shooting down AI zeros and so on... i just saw them on coop section didnt know who they were or why they run missions but heck they would advertaised it in chat, i had time betwen DF sesions and tryed it, still remenber thouse missions more then some kill streaks or good DFs on DF servers, in modern games with coop options i would never knw they even hosted, everything is separate, you cant even know if there is 1 or 50 ppl waithing to play and so on...

Edited July 24 by CountZero

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

if games like GB or ROF had lobby like hyperlooby coops would have better chance, you have ppl in waiting room, you have chat, ppl can see your server ask what mission you plan to run, ask for some other

You can do all of that on Discord or Teamspeak.  And yet co-ops are still not popular.  The problem isn’t the lack of a lobby.  The problem is that Dogfight style servers are much more popular and there aren’t enough people to populate both.  In fact, even if we forced all the people who fly dogfight style servers into co-ops it would probably still fail.  You need lots of people constantly starting new missions in order to keep co-ops populated.  If there isn’t a new co-op mission ready to go when the current mission ends, then people are going to leave.  Or they’ll jump into a dogfight server.  

[Chief_Mouser]

The problem is there aren't enough co-op missions being made. People can't fly what isn't there.

The only co-ops we've flown as a squad were PWCG generated ones.

I made all sorts of stuff for Il-2 46, co-ops, campaigns, historical recreations, what-ifs. It was easy to knock them out, and also easy to host. The abominably difficult FMB in GB means that I've produced nothing for it. Absolutely zilch. My hats off to those that have been prepared to put the time in to learn it - I just didn't have it.

Edited July 24 by Chief_Mouser