Jump to content

ED please make option to block this Cheat??


CoBlue

Recommended Posts

On 4/20/2019 at 10:00 AM, HiJack said:

It is a navigation aid and is supposed to simulate a manual map with a pen so you can mark out where you are.

Then let the pilot do the mark - not have it auto-placed.

  • Like 8

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 9:14 PM, philstyle said:


It's only a problem for multiplayer where the server operator wants players to use skill and airmanship, navigation being one of the fundamental skills.
That's it. A narrow application.
Making it a server option for those who want it so harms no other players.
Just in the same way that restricting air frames, or maps, or weapons or external views on a server harms nobody else.

Some people want the OPTION to force it off for their server, just like all the other options that are available. Why not let them have it?

 

 

This is a very astute description, and I tend to agree that we should let them have this option. AND we should also acknowledge the following

  • someone who wants this wants it in order to force their own opinion on how to fly a mission on all who partake on their server. Fair enough, it's their server; but it's not one I would fly on.
  • Someone who wants this suspects others of cheating. I recommend to not play with people whom you suspect of cheating. They usually aren't worth your time.
  • If I cheat, I'm cheating myself more than the others. All of us here know that, that's why we don't do it. If I suspected others of trying to cheat, and then pre-emptively tried to prevent them from doing what I wouldn't do myself, that only cheapens my relationship with them; I try to avoid that. 
  • I only fly with friends, and they don't cheat. At least I trust and believe them when they say so. They are my friends after all

 

That's why I'm not against that feature, and I'm not disappointed if it doesn't get implemented either: I sincerely believe I wouldn't need it.


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this a cheat? Real pilots can navigate with a compass, stopwatch, and dead-reckoning. Some of us can do that, some of us can't because, SURPRISE, we aren't real pilots. Removal of this feature is pure gatekeeping to weed out those who are less skilled or otherwise have difficulty with traditional navigation. 

 

Or should we also have a DCS setting whereby our virtual pilot's visual accuity matches that of the player's real-world visual accuity? Because having perfect uncorrected vision in the sim is a "cheat" for those of us with poor eyesight, if we extrapolate the same line of thinking going on here.


Edited by Nealius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nealius said:

How is this a cheat? Real pilots can navigate with a compass, stopwatch, and dead-reckoning. Some of us can do that, some of us can't because, SURPRISE, we aren't real pilots. Removal of this feature is pure gatekeeping to weed out those who are less skilled or otherwise have difficulty with traditional navigation. 

 

Or should we also have a DCS setting whereby our virtual pilot's visual accuity matches that of the player's real-world visual accuity? Because having perfect uncorrected vision in the sim is a "cheat" for those of us with poor eyesight, if we extrapolate the same line of thinking going on here.

 

how is it a problem if its and OPTION to take it off or leave it on?

 

You can Always enable maps F10 Options to "your plane", and you can leave the navigation to the computer.. but if full realism is implemented then the full immersion of not knowing where you are unless you do the math should be there...

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baco said:

but if full realism is implemented then the full immersion of not knowing where you are unless you do the math should be there...

 

I can't pull 3G in real life without getting lightheaded so my virtual pilot shouldn't be able to sustain much more than 2Gs, then. If you apply "the player has to do the math himself/herself" logic to any other aspect of the sim you will immediately see why the concept is flawed.

 

1 hour ago, Baco said:

how is it a problem if its and OPTION to take it off or leave it on?

 

If it's server-enforced then it isn't an option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
If it's server-enforced then it isn't an option. 
It is. People aren't forced to play on that server. And since it's a private server, the owner should be able to choose what aids etc they want available on it.

Also, how does doing mental math equate with tolerating G forces, in a video game? DCS simulates navigation systems and the mental math is one of the things we can actually do, from our desk chairs. This is like saying that certain milsim fps games should have bullet drop assists, map and compass assists etc.
  • Like 3

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we seriously discussing here if this should stay or not?
If the server owner decides to simulate RL navigation than it should not be available.
If you don't like playing DCS as hard-core, then join servers that do offer unrealistic aids, as to your liking.
From what I understand, cheating is doing something that is not allowed. So how is having a magic position marker on a server where the F10 map navigation was turned off, not cheating?


Edited by Cmptohocah
My English sucks
  • Like 3

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically this feature isn’t “cheating” since everyone on a server is able to do this equally. 
 

But I agree with having a full real navigation setting for those servers that want to enforce a certain style of gameplay. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 11:48 AM, Nealius said:

How is this a cheat? Real pilots can navigate with a compass, stopwatch, and dead-reckoning. Some of us can do that, some of us can't because, SURPRISE, we aren't real pilots. Removal of this feature is pure gatekeeping to weed out those who are less skilled or otherwise have difficulty with traditional navigation. 

 

That is a strawman.

 

No one is here saying that it should be removed. People are here talking that it should be a game setting that is either opt-in (non-default) or opt-out (default).

IMHO it should be opt-in option, just like a infinite weapons, unlimited fuel or if just would be possible, 3 min repair etc. 

Those should be settings that mission designer can enable to make the gameplay easier and maybe funnier for those who are less skilled, who doesn't have time etc.

 

 

On 6/12/2021 at 11:48 AM, Nealius said:

Or should we also have a DCS setting whereby our virtual pilot's visual accuity matches that of the player's real-world visual accuity? Because having perfect uncorrected vision in the sim is a "cheat" for those of us with poor eyesight, if we extrapolate the same line of thinking going on here.

 

That argument doesn't really work, but I bite....

 

What you are talking about really is the g-effects for the virtual pilots. Now they are almost totally gone. The hypoxia is partially properly simulated, but g forces are very mild to almost non-existing. People would hate that they would be victims of the more realistic g forces effects when they fly, as their air quake gameplay would almost end there. No more trackIR looking to 6'clock when pulling high g, no more easy visibility outside as you see in black and white and have blurred peripheral vision with all other effects. 

 

At this moment TrackIR users do not need to do much to look their six, at unrealistic manner. VR users are at least more restricted by reality to require them to turn their body to see actually to their rear (my limitation is the virtual cockpit chair and all). Or just a hat players using a hotkey to switch to camera looking to their six or even track automatically where enemy plane flies!

 

Things gets more interesting when realistic things are required for everyone if so wanted. And navigation is one of those that should be for decision is it assisted or not. 

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Technically this feature isn’t “cheating” since everyone on a server is able to do this equally.

 

It is a cheat when the mission is to be flown with a realistic limitations and requirements from the pilot. 

 

We can debate that is it cheating that it exist on the server and no one use it as everyone has said to not to use it and honors their words, but if someone uses it regardless, then he can be called cheater even when everyone could have used it but didn't. 

 

It is just one of those options that should be for enforced or not enforced. Like one can make a mission where labels are not enforced, but they are not denied either. So it is up to player to activate them mid-game or not. And everyone here likely would call labels as cheats... (or switch it to unlimited weapons or fuel etc). 

  • Like 2

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Things gets more interesting when realistic things are required for everyone if so wanted [by the person running the server]

 

I took the liberty of completing your assertion with a relevant tidbit to make the part that some people have problems with more visible. I'm not convinced that things always do get more interesting (as your phrasing seems to make out, but I belive you probably meant 'Things can get..'), but I think that's not what this discussion is about. To me, it's about forcing one's choice on others; the implied assumption that if I didn't enforce, other people would take advantage of a feature that *I*, the server's owner, disagree with. There's not too much wrong with control-obsessed owners, and since we are talking about an option, I don't mind.

 

To me it's the mindset of people who want to dictate terms to others that I find questionable. Then again, I have the luxury of (hosting and) playing only with my friends whom I trust not to 'cheat'; I'm not blind to the fact that there is a sizable number of people on the Internet who are not above cheating, especially if they don't know the other people they are playing with. On this minor issue (lost & found), though, I feel that I couldn't care less if and when someone retrieved their location by other means than I intended. To me, the goal is to have fun together. If I have fun determining my location by dead reckoning, why should I care how the other people whom I play with are doing it? Then again, I'm not about to tell you how you should have fun, but if it includes telling other people if and how things are done, we probably wouldn't play together much 🙂

 


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

To me, the goal is to have fun together. If I have fun determining my location by dead reckoning, why should I care how the other people whom I play with are doing it? Then again, I'm not about to tell you how you should have fun, but if it includes telling other people if and how things are done, we probably wouldn't play together much 🙂

If you want to discuss the mindset I can follow. I think it's part of the fun that one can get lost in the air. It's also fun and challenging that you can die or fail the mission, right? Do you care if your friends use invulnerability? Maybe they don't find it fun to crash or be taken down?

 

The ask for the OP option is not taken out of nowhere or from some sick thought to just humiliate the newbs. It's part of the big set of rules that create sense for a study sim genre to exist and it's called realism. If you find post about removing some aids or against some "easy AAR" implementation it will also be all about that.

 

btw: there's also the other cheat to locate oneself - ATC comms menu is shown in range order - and we also cannot do anything about it.

  • Like 3

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, draconus said:

If you want to discuss the mindset I can follow. I think it's part of the fun that one can get lost in the air. It's also fun and challenging that you can die or fail the mission, right? Do you care if your friends use invulnerability? Maybe they don't find it fun to crash or be taken down?

 

I think that is the heart of the matter, thank you for pointing it out more clearly. So, this is how I play with my friends: we agree on the rules beforehand -- perhaps: we would choose to not use invulnerability today. If someone took so much exception to being shot down, they will say so and voice their preference for flying invulnerable and probably then choose to stay on the ground. They may even go up, and tell everyone that they are flying invulnerable - and it would be on us to see how we could come to terms with that. If it spoils the game, we'd say that as well, and try to work a compromise. I would not, however, enforce any of that. I respect my friends, and they usually repay in kind. 

 

9 minutes ago, draconus said:

The ask for the OP option is not taken out of nowhere or from some sick thought to just humiliate the newbs. 

 

I'm not going to flat out state that (although aptly put: desire to 'humiliate the newbs'), but to me it surely looks like some desire to control. As you rightly point out, the recurring AAR debate is pretty much about the same: people caring about how other people fly their plane, something that - in my mind - they shouldn't bother about. It's a game, in which we fly our own planes. The AAR debate in particular reminds me of religion vs. non-religion debates, so I try to stay out of it. But is is, fundamentally, similar to some religions: about someone trying to exert control over the way other people may or may not act. That's why I'm ambivalent about this particular option. I'm not strictly against it (any option is valid, as it is by nature inclusive), but I would not like to fly on a server that enforces something that should really be up to me. Why is it skin off your nose how I locate my plane? I guess that's the fundamental disconnect I have, what I can't wrap my mind around.

 

28 minutes ago, draconus said:

It's part of the big set of rules that create sense for a study sim genre to exist and it's called realism.

 

To wit: a study sim that allows optional aids is not a contradiction terms. Moreover, good study sims (I'm including 1200$/hour sims now) do allow for unrealistic aids to allow students to approach the matter more easily. So enforcing an erstwhile option on others in the name of realism feels... wrong?

 

I know we don't see eye to eye on this subject, and I'm really having issues understanding why some people feel so strongly about how other people play a game, and why they would want to control their experience. It's really bewildering to me. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I know we don't see eye to eye on this subject, and I'm really having issues understanding why some people feel so strongly about how other people play a game, and why they would want to control their experience. It's really bewildering to me. 

 

It's not about pushing other people to do what you want, it's about having the same rules for all. If the server doesn't allow something and has it disabled as an option, then no one should be able to access it - what is wrong with that? It's about consistency, nothing more and nothing less.
In this case, there is clearly an exploit, where one can use "tricks" to gain information that otherwise should not be provided by the sim. No one stops you from having a second person sit next to you while you fly and act as a navigator (just an example), but this is not what we're discussing here.
 

  • Like 2

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is such a big deal. Maybe it will be on the Marianas map, but for most maps in the game pretty much everyone knows "exactly" where they are just by looking out the window. This is not true for "newbie" players, and they will get lost initially. Still, if people want to prevent new and inexperienced players from joining their servers, then by all means, give them the option to do so. 

  • Like 1

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cmptohocah said:

It's not about pushing other people to do what you want, it's about having the same rules for all. If the server doesn't allow something and has it disabled as an option, then no one should be able to access it - what is wrong with that? It's about consistency, nothing more and nothing less.
In this case, there is clearly an exploit, where one can use "tricks" to gain information that otherwise should not be provided by the sim. No one stops you from having a second person sit next to you while you fly and act as a navigator (just an example), but this is not what we're discussing here.

 

I now realize something that I've overlooked for a long time (since I never fly PvP): there are people who engage in a sense of competition. And there I do see that a set of rules, just like in a soccer match, a set of rules should be enforced to make the competition fair. OK, I get that, thanks! 

 

So for competitive servers, yes, that does make sense to me. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Still, if people want to prevent new and inexperienced players from joining their servers, then by all means, give them the option to do so. 

That's not true. No one wants to prevent new players joining. It's about playing with the same set of rules for everyone. And it's really not that big of a deal.

  • Like 3

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

It's not about pushing other people to do what you want, it's about having the same rules for all. If the server doesn't allow something and has it disabled as an option, then no one should be able to access it - what is wrong with that? It's about consistency, nothing more and nothing less.

There is one problem with that, though, although that's mostly a very silly and long-lasting bug in how server options are handled: there is no way not to enforce server settings, even in the cases where there is meant to be a choice. The way the game currently works, you can't avoid pushing other people into doing exactly what you want because the game simply doesn't allow for that freedom of choice.

 

Even if you set an option to be non-enforced, it is still enforced, just with a value you cannot (easily) control or check. The entire left row in the mission editor where you set whether mission options should be enforced or not is entirely pointless in MP.

 

I'm not saying that you're wrong in what you write — just that, the instant we start talking about options in the context of MP, any reasoning along the lines of “you can choose/you can choose not to” falls apart when it comes in contact with the realities of what DCS is currently capable of doing: it give you the impression of having that freedom to choose, but in practice, you don't. So it's worth being careful with that type of argument. Sure, you get consistency, but you get in even when you don't want to — you have no choice, which somewhat defeats the point of having options to begin with.

 

It's such a dumb bug because of all the consequences it creates. 😕

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

That's not true. No one wants to prevent new players joining. It's about playing with the same set of rules for everyone. And it's really not that big of a deal.

 

You are right, it won't prevent them from joining those servers. My bad. Most new players don't even know about this "feature" of the kneeboard map. I agree that it's not a big deal, if people want to play DCS as hardcore as it gets, then yeah this should be an option. 


Edited by Lurker
  • Like 1

Specs: Win10, i5-13600KF, 32GB DDR4 RAM 3200XMP, 1 TB M2 NVMe SSD, KFA2 RTX3090, VR G2 Headset, Warthog Throttle+Saitek Pedals+MSFFB2  Joystick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Even if you set an option to be non-enforced, it is still enforced, just with a value you cannot (easily) control or check. The entire left row in the mission editor where you set whether mission options should be enforced or not is entirely pointless in MP.

Doesn't it work like that if not enforced by mission it should take local/user option instead?

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

I took the liberty of completing your assertion with a relevant tidbit to make the part that some people have problems with more visible.

 

IMHO it is not about servers as dedicated ones, it is as well about a single player missions where mission designer decides how the mission is to be played (SP, CO-OP or MP). 

 

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

I'm not convinced that things always do get more interesting (as your phrasing seems to make out, but I belive you probably meant 'Things can get..'), but I think that's not what this discussion is about. To me, it's about forcing one's choice on others; the implied assumption that if I didn't enforce, other people would take advantage of a feature that *I*, the server's owner, disagree with. There's not too much wrong with control-obsessed owners, and since we are talking about an option, I don't mind.

 

It is same as with any weapon, unit etc. The mission designer decides that what weapons are available and how many. What units are available and how many. Is there unlimited fuel, ammunition, is there a NAV system available, are there external views, can you see everyone on the map etc. 

If someone wants to deny a unlimited weapons for air-quake server, then it is their option. If someone denies a NS430 navigation system, it is their option. 

Just having a opt-in to enable the unrealistic automatic map marker fixes everything (not opt-out). Those who want it for the training purposes can enable the feature.

 

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

To me it's the mindset of people who want to dictate terms to others that I find questionable.

 

Do you recall anyone supportive for disabling it saying that it should be forced to everyone by removing the feature from the game?

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

IMHO it is not about servers as dedicated ones, it is as well about a single player missions where mission designer decides how the mission is to be played (SP, CO-OP or MP). 

 

Interesting. So it is indeed about control. I understand and agree that mission designers strive to set a tone, to put together an experience, much like a composer of a musical piece, a cinematic director, or the writer of a novel. And I know that there are artists (and yes, to me missions are pieces of art) that also strive to control how their oeuvre is consumed. The latter I have issues with. I agree that an artist (mission designer, musician, director) should be able to give directions on how best to consume their offering so as to get the best experience. But I would not look too kindly on a director who proscribes that I have to consume their movie uninterrupted simply because they feel that's how it should be and disables the pause key. If my tech allows me to use that options I want to be able to use it at my discretion. Now this is a highly artificial example, but anyone who has ever had to sit though the interminable un-interruptible, un-skippable 5 minute lead-in of yesteryear's DVDs knows how infuriating it is to have their control wrest away from them for no good reason.

 

A designer can decide how a mission should be played for best experience. And I should be abler to override their decision. If that then breaks the game, that is my fault. 

 

22 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Do you recall anyone supportive for disabling it saying that it should be forced to everyone by removing the feature from the game?

 

No, and I'm not against that option. I merely stated that I'd be unlikely to enjoy playing on a server where an (IMHO unnecessary) decision on how I can play the game was made for me. I do see the sense on competitive servers. In a simple mission, I'd limply uncheck the box, and all is well. In a campaign that I can't edit for encryption, I'd hate it simply because someone is needlessly trying to control my experience 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

Interesting. So it is indeed about control. I understand and agree that mission designers strive to set a tone, to put together an experience, much like a composer of a musical piece, a cinematic director, or the writer of a novel. And I know that there are artists (and yes, to me missions are pieces of art) that also strive to control how their oeuvre is consumed.

 

It should be like any other option in the mission:

 

Easy Communication.jpg

 

If the server wants to support Easy Communication for those clients who need it, it is then opt-in for those clients for their own and everyone who has it disabled will not have it.

Then it can be disabled for everyone, or it can be enforced for everyone regardless their setting to have opt-out from it. 

 

- Not for anyone

- Only for those who want it

- For everyone

 

And everyone would be happy, it is still a thing that cheaters couldn't use it if it is disabled and so on disallowed for everyone. 

  • Like 5

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Doesn't it work like that if not enforced by mission it should take local/user option instead?

That's the intuitive understanding of how it should work, but it's not how it plays out in practice.

 

If you tick the “enforce” box, the mission correctly enforces whatever you've set the option to (on, off, or some enumerated setting).

If you don't tick the box, the mission instead enforces the difficulty setting the mission maker has set on their local machine at the time they save the mission, which is stored in and retrieved from a options.lua file (a copy of the editor's own local settings) that is included in the mission file. If you remove the options.lua from the .miz file, DCS will consider it incomplete and will not load the “corrupted” mission.

 

So in practice, and completely contrary to all expectations, you have a choice between enforcing a known and explicitly shown option, or enforcing an implicit and hidden option. There is no option to enforce nothing. There are indications that a lot of MP strangeness are bourne out of the same underlying issue, where it picks settings from that lua file, and thus from the mission-maker's private settings, rather than anything that is set up (or not set up) in the mission editor.

 

It's a lovely little bastard of a bug, all in all. 😄 

 

e: Sorry, the difficulty settings in the options.lua — not the difficulty.lua. It's been so long since I fiddled with this thing that I've forgotten what goes where.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...