[HOUNDS] CptTrips

There is UI to kick\ban a player from the player list on the server UI. But I don't see any way to set rules. A server owner can not necessarily spend every second of the day babysitting their server. Should a griefer be free to ruin a server for hours? Since this would be a voluntary setting, I really don't see what your problem is.

Without scripting? Can you point me to the UI for that?

In the two "options" I suggested above, in a perfect world, if there are no griefers on the server, those options being on wouldn't be noticed. No would would be trying to ram, no one would be trying to shoot friendlies. You wouldn't know they are on. On a well behaved server, they would be invisible. No additional burden on white-hat players. In an imperfect world, they would protect innocent players from having their fun held hostage by a jerk. There are excellent scripts out there, but a player ought to be able to throw up a server and have those basic gameplay protections in place just with what ED provides and not need external scripts. If they want more complex fine-grained control, they can turn them off and use scripts instead. However, the option would not be on by default. So if you don't want it, don't click those options. If those options are on a server and you don't like it, then don't play on that server. Other than that...thanks for your input.

How else would you control a griefer if you were running a simple server and didn't want to get into scripting? It would be a server "option" so don't click it if you don't want it.

Possibly even consider a "no-friendly collision" option. Blame on collision is a lot harder to weigh. If griefers die when shooting friendlies and can't ram them, then whole chunks of MP admin scripts can be discarded. Some might say that is too unrealistic, but if people are playing properly it will never be an issue because it shouldn't happen, if people are griefing, it prevents harm to the innocent.

In other MP games I've played, there was a concept of killshooter. If a player shoots or bombs a friendly, the friendly does not take the damage. The damage is reflected back on the shooter. The shooter takes the damage. That has always proven to be a pretty effective anti-griefing tool. It'd be nice to have that as a MP server setting option for DCS. Saves all the complexity of have scripts keeping track of infractions and kicking and banning. Griefers would learn very quickly it is not to their advantage. And when mistakes do happen? It's fair play that the shooter takes the damage rather than the friendly who made no mistake. And it is better to get blown up than banned. It's a learning opportunity. $0.02.

I understand what you were trying to do. My point is, if the gunners will not defend against anything other than an long slow noob approach from dead 6 oclock, then in my opinion, no, the gunners are not "working" correctly. Hopefully the devs will fix it, but just to be clear, side slashing attacks is how I will judge any "fix". Long slow approaches from dead 6 o'clock is NOT a meaningful test for anything other than a day one noob case. The kind of pilots DCS has would expect more competent gunners (at least when on ACE level). Currently, IMHO, it is just not fun attacking WW2 buffs formation if I know attacking from the sides is just shooting fish in a barrel. Because that is the way I attack 90% of the time. Fingers crossed for what the devs come up with.

@NineLine I think I see the difference. Notice on my film I am NOT just crawling up from dead 6. I would never choose to attack like that. Lowest survival probability approach. Experienced interceptors would never attack like that. I always using side slashing attacks from above or below to present the highest deflection shot possible for the gunners. I would ONLY approach from dead six if I thought the gunners were dead or out of ammo. Otherwise, that would just be dumb. Try like mine, where you start out at about 1000yd line abreast and then make slashing approaches from the side instead of trying to just crawl up their six. Watch my film. I am never just crawling up their six. My normal attack would be an oblique slash attack from above or below. When attacked with oblique slashing attacks like in this video, the top and belly gunner refuse to shoot 99.999999996% of the time. Attack like I do in my video and post the film please. *****My guess is this is a code cheat to avoid the difficultly of avoiding hitting the other buffs in formation. Rather than do that calculation, the hack is to simply restrict the fire to a narrow cone of fire dead six or dead 12. Which is why the chin and tail gunners fire most often. If the buffs are staggered in height in formation, dead six and dead 12 would be safe cones of fire. From the side, well that is hard to calc so just don't shoot. But once you know that, they are helpless. If that is the case, I'd rather them shoot and just have a hack that buffs are invulnerable to rounds from other buffs. That would be better than them refusing to shoot at all.

Had to redo my first test. So I'm not seeing any improvement with the B17 @NineLine. Chin and tail gunner are adequate (barely). Waist gunner will occasionally shoot. Horribly bad aim. Top and belly refuse to shoot 99.999996% of the time. (see attached.) HD may still be processing...(I'm pretty sure it was the chin gun there at the last that squirted a round. Should be in the trk.) b17testgun.trk gunfixtest.miz

Nope. I guess this last patch was too far along to throw something in.

That would be fun. Not sure if it would be $70 worth of fun for me, but it is certainly something I will watch for on 1/2 price sale later.

Correction. I have seen it mentioned that they will be releasing some Pacific War assets in parallel with the Corsair release. That's smart. While that would be a Necessary Condition for me to consider purchasing the Corsair on release, it might not be a Sufficient Condition. I'll probably hold off until there are playable Zeros to fly PVP against.

You are not imagining things. You are not doing it wrong. It's apparently already fixed internally. It should come out soon with one of the patches hopefully.

That's what they are banking on. That's your coin. If they don't release a useful complement of at least AI Japanese fighters and bombers, I'll forgo the purchase for now. I might pick it up in a couple of years when those are added, or it goes half price on a Summer sale. If they had release a Stuka instead, or an ME410, I'd snatch it up day one. Because it has a sufficient complement of ETO planes to make good use of it. To each their own.

That statement is a little arrogant. I've been doing software development for 30 years and I've been involved in online WWII sims for longer than that. I also know that other companies have produced Japanese WWII planes for their sims and the world didn't end. FC3 models are in DCS. Are they "perfect?" Should they be removed? Really good shouldn't be the enemy of perfect.

I do not think WWII enthusiasts would prefer NO models at all, rather than a really good model based on imperfect data. Models can be improved over time. If there is not enough data to make it perfect, there is also not enough data to prove it isn't perfect. With ED's physics even a good educated guess could be a lot of fun and profitable. Really good, shouldn't be the enemy of perfect. If you are going to think that is an AI model they are adding despite no mention, why not go all the way and think it is a flyable model they are going to add with no mention? Dream big if you are going to dream. MEh. That could be just a stock model they imported as a mod to make a screenshot. They could say after the Corsair we are considering a Zero as the next project. You'll get it in 5-8 years.

Agreed. It will be an even more gaping, bleeding hole it the lineup after they release the Corsair. What is the Corsair supposed to fight? FW190? Yes, I know, someone will dig up an exceedingly rare instance of Corsairs fighting in ETO, but that is not the matchup people who would buy the Corsair want. I'll watch as see if at least a handful of AI Japanese models are released with the Asset Pack at the same time as the Corsair, otherwise I couldn't justify a $70 hangar queen. The obvious pairing should be the Zero. I've not heard of an ongoing project. If they start today, you might see it in 5 years. Mods are problematic for public servers. At the very least I'd need to see AI assets delivered in the WWII Asset Pack at the same time to justify the corsair purchase. Zero, Ki-43, N1K2-J, Ki-43. Probably need some bombers to shoot at too. Val, Ki-67. But even that would only give you offline or PVE. IMHO, it would have been better to flesh out the ETO more instead. You already have at least a minimum stable there to work with. Fleshing it out further would be a cherry on top. Unless they have a massive surprise in store for a complete Pacific lineup co-released with the Corsair. IMHO, WWII should be the next genre ED conquers. They dominate Helo and modern jet. They do NOT dominate WWII. They could though. If ED put the same effort into WWII as they do the modern computery stuff, they could take that space over too. That is the ripest ground to grab new users. They could grab other sims pilots that are looking for something better. They could be better with the right effort. They have probably reached near saturation of the modern market. WWII is a much gentler on-ramp for new customers. The other sims have provided armies of potential customers trained up and ready to go if presented a better option. Much easier for newcomers to get up to speed on that a massively complex system like an F-15. They have to be cheaper and easier to develop. You don't have the classification issues you have with modern stuff. So much ripe fruit just sitting there ready for the plucking. All ED has to do is to decide to reach out and take it.

Well, I think that is actually a Wags quote. I think I heard him say that in an interview. I might be wrong, but I don't think so. However the popular servers are probably popular for a reason, not just random chance. I think they were popular by providing a good design that balances between air-quake and neck-beard-sweaty-try-hard. If you build the right server, it will fill itself, and stay filled. At least it looks that way to me. What "seeding" does Enigma's CW server do? Looks filled a lot of the time to me. I think the first thing is to design a gameplay loop that a lot of people find fun. You will never satisfy everyone no matter what design you choose. So there will always be a couple of popular ones and they might take different approaches. Each might serve a different cohort. Some like cold starts and 40 minute flights to FEBA, some want quicker action than that. It's good to have both. The ones that are empty and stay empty, might be for a reason to do with their core gameloop, not because they had no "seeding". But if you find the right balance of gameplay that appeals to a lot of people, filling it doesn't seem to be much of a problem. Word of mouth. Something fun gets around quick. If it's not fun, no design trick in the world is going to make it successful. Especially if their are competitor servers delivering more fun. It's a Free-Market of fun. It will reward those that strike the right balance and punish those who don't. $0.02.

So what remedy are you suggesting?

LoL. As I said, I have no problem with cold starts. I enjoy learning it offline. SP missions or campaigns or me just futzing around. I just don't feel the need to use MP time for that. But if they have both types of slots, each can choose their poison.

Well, I guess if time is no object for you, you could use the hot start opportunity to run your manual shutdown checklist and then start your manual start up checklist. Twice the checklists, twice the fun for you. And no, I don't want to use auto start. That is the worst of both worlds. Near the same loss of time, and no training accomplished. Luckily, the solution is for different server to take different approaches and the marketplace will decide who gets the traffic based on which people like.

I agree. Ideally a server would be approachable by both new and experienced pilots. And peoples gaming time is precious. I'm not a huge fan of cold start on MP. At least I wouldn't want it to be my only choice. Why? I don't have anything against cold starts. But it has little to do with me interacting with multiple players, so I don't need to do that part on a MP server. I can practice cold starts alone offline to my hearts content. That task does not require other players, so doesn't not require me to be on a MP server. If I am on a MP server, I want to spend my time interacting with other players and less time staring at my checklists. $0.02.

I believe the difference is that ED is asserting that all the known "GAME BREAKING" bugs have been culled from stable. Not ALL bugs. There are probably bugs in stable that are years or even a decade old. OB on the other hand may very well have "GAME BREAKING" bugs initially. There is value in separating the two. If you've ever released large scale software you'd seen that no amount of internal team testing or even closed beta can come close to the exercise software can get in the "wild". Just the sheer variety of hardware and drivers can not be feasibly reproduced internally. It's also my experience that users are evil. They can come up with the weirdest use cases you never thought of. Like, "Why would you do that??? OK we'll tighten that down. " So, to summarize IMHO, Open Beta: "We fully expect there might be GAME BREAKING bugs exposed in this cycle. We just don't know what they are yet. Find them, and hopefully we'll fix them quick." Stable: "We believe all GAME BREAKING bugs have been culled, as far as we currently know. We're not expecting you to find any. Prove us wrong. " The trade-off to the OB risk is that it might also have bug fixes that players want that haven't migrated to Stable yet. Choose your poison. $0.02.

It would seem to me a mistake to put up a firewall instead of using MAC as a feeder-league, on-ramp to the DCS ecosystem. Even at mid-fidelity, it is already probably higher fidelity than they are used to from other game. Get double use and value out of the development effort by making it a funnel to bring in new players to DCS proper. And add a WWIIAC too so we can get a bundle on mid-fidelity WWII planes to fill out the gaps. $0.02.