Allow user to decide whether ramp starts are hot or cold (proposal to merge waypoint takeoff types)

[nootshell]

There's been plenty of times where I join a random server and stumble upon there only being hot start slots, with optionally some cold start slots far far away from the AO. Hotstarts are immensely immersion-breaking for me and take away a great part of the experience of using DCS, namely going through the whole startup sequence. First shutting down a hotstarted aircraft is not an option, imho.

To alleviate this issue and that of mission makers having to add two slots to accommodate for those wanting cold starts and those wanting hot starts, I'd like to propose to allow the user to decide whether ramp/ground starts (Takeoff from ramp, Takeoff from parking hot, Takeoff from ground, Takeoff from ground hot) are hot or cold. Essentially merging the types leaving us with Takeoff from ramp and Takeoff from ground.

I'd imagine one way of allowing a user to decide would be to show a checkbox or combobox for ramp start slots which allows the user to select which type they'd like. Naturally, startup types should still be enforceable for mission makers and to preserve backcompat with older missions.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Nootshell

[SharpeXB]

Most servers include the start condition to influence a certain style of gameplay, those that want to deter “air-quake” combat typically enforce a cold start. So I think letting the player decide isn’t in keeping with how servers want to run. If you want cold starts simply select servers which do those. Try DDCS or Blue Flag. 

[Tippis]

15 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Most servers include the start condition to influence a certain style of gameplay, those that want to deter “air-quake” combat typically enforce a cold start. So I think letting the player decide isn’t in keeping with how servers want to run. If you want cold starts simply select servers which do those. Try DDCS or Blue Flag. 

You're missing the point of what the OP is asking: an option to let the players choose cold starts in situations where they currently can't. And the mission-maker would still be able to control whether they want to enforce cold starts — they'd just have far more options for starting positions since they could also use those that are hot-start only at the moment.

So your “concern” is completely inapplicable since the situation that the OP wants to create is the exact opposite to the one you're worried about.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

28 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You're missing the point of what the OP is asking: an option to let the players choose cold starts in situations where they currently can't. And the mission-maker would still be able to control whether they want to enforce cold starts — they'd just have far more options for starting positions since they could also use those that are hot-start only at the moment.

So your “concern” is completely inapplicable since the situation that the OP wants to create is the exact opposite to the one you're worried about.

 

I think most mission designers/servers set the start condition to influence the desired gameplay style. That style may very well include options for both at different airbases. That being part of the mission design as well, you don’t want cold start slots too close to the action which makes you a sitting duck target. As far as I’ve even seen playing flight sims this is always something built into the mission design and not just chosen by the player unless they choose it on a specific slot that’s offered. 

[Tippis]

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I think most mission designers/servers set the start condition to influence the desired gameplay style.

…and this would not change that. In fact, it would allow them to do so ever more.

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

As far as I’ve even seen playing flight sims this is always something built into the mission design and not just chosen by the player unless they choose it on a specific slot that’s offered. 

No. Allowing the player to choose exactly where, when, and how to start the mission is a very common capability in sims. In fact, a fair few of them don't even have “slots” to speak of. DCS is just unusually stingy and lacking in options in this regard, and shouldn't be taken as representative of the the genre. Hence the desire to expand and improve on its capabilities and make it a better game.

And again, if you read the OP, your concern is just not relevant because it inherently does not exist. That's what the whole thing does: it completely removes and invalidates all such problems. It's kind of what always happens when you give players and mission-makers more options, after all…

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

35 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Allowing the player to choose exactly where, when, and how to start the mission is a very common capability in sims

And you can already do that in DCS (subject to the mission design) so what’s the point of this discussion?
This all seems moot because I’ve never seen a hot start in DCS multiplayer. I’m not sure what server the OP was on but every one I’ve ever seen has all cold starts on it. So if that’s the preference it’s not hard to find. 

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And you can already do that in DCS

No.

You can only assign hot-start slots to valid hot-start locations. You can only  assign cold-start slots to valid cold-start locations. You can only pick hot and cold start as assigned and as required by the location. The point of the discussion — and I can't believe we have to go back to this old chestnut with you — if you would just read the op, is to have an option to transform one into the other and to allow the client to pick whichever they want.

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This all seems moot because

…you have never actually bothered to investigate the matter and just go by what others provide without understanding why they provide that and how they're limited in what they can provide. What servers you have seen is irrelevant. That is not the point. Your experience does not matter because it is entirely from the wrong perspective — from the wrong side of the equation.

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

So if that’s the preference it’s not hard to find. 

That is not the preference. Again, read the OP.

The preference discussed here is not just hard to find — it is impossible because DCS simply does not provide it. Hence the OP asking for it to be provided.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You can only assign hot-start slots to valid hot-start locations. You can only  assign cold-start slots to valid cold-start locations

Because that’s how the mission designer/server intends it. If you want something different you can make your own server. And why would you want to cold start near to the AO? You’ll get zapped on the ground. That’s why those locations are farther away. 

[Tippis]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because that’s how the mission designer/server intends it.

No. Learn how DCS works, please.
It's because DCS cannot do anything else. The mission designer's intent (this has nothing to do with the server) is limited by what DCS has on offer.

Also, if you were to read the OP for once, you'd notice that this wouldn't change anything about intended mission design. This would simply allow the mission designer (it has nothing to do with the server) to intend more. Or not. It's an option. The intent is not altered or forced or subverted in any way.

So, again, just to make the very simple logic clear to you: the intent of the mission designer (this has nothing to do with the server) is limited by what options DCS can offer. By increasing the options on offer, the mission designer (this has nothing to do with the server) can in turn offer a wider array of intended ways to play the mission they're designing. Whatever intent they had before, they can still have. If they have a different intent, with this kind of option, DCS could be made to accommodate that intent as well rather than be limited. And you do like the mission designer's intent (because, again, this has nothing to do with the server — that's not how DCS works) to be realised, right? You're not just using a very specific and very narrow intent to hide behind because you can't think of any actual reason why the game shouldn't be made better, right? Right?

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If you want something different you can make your own server.

This has nothing to do with the server.

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And why would you want to cold start near to the AO?

Who cares. That is you making narrow-minded and wholly false generalisations from your own personal and irrelevant preferences. You might not want to cold start near the AO. The OP does. Others might. And what was that line of yours? Oh right: “that's how the mission designer intends it” (it has nothing to do with the server), so no, you won't get zapped on the ground. Or maybe you will, and that's the whole point of doing it? Either way, it does not matter — the whole point of this kind of option is that those who want to start close can; those who don't, don't have to, and if that's the designer's intent, the client gets to choose. This are all good things.

Why are you so dead set against improvements to the game? And why can you not understand that your preference is not universal or normative?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, Tippis said:

The mission designer's intent (this has nothing to do with the server) is limited by what DCS has on offer.

DCS already gives the mission designer the ability to create hot or cold spawn points. They could place those wherever they like. But it’s up to them. 

29 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You might not want to cold start near the AO. The OP does. Others might.

Most players would be wise not to. There are lots of ground attack pilots which dream about finding an F-18 on the ramp just sitting there aligning its INS

[Tippis]

38 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS already gives the mission designer the ability to create hot or cold spawn points. They could place those wherever they like. But it’s up to them. 

No. That's not how DCS actually works.
But we can now safely conclude that you approve of the OP's idea since it would allow mission designers to do exactly that. In fact, it seems like such an obvious thing that should be in the game that you're just flat out assuming that it's in already.

38 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Most players would be wise not to.

There's nothing to suggest anything of the kind. Mission designer's intent, remember? Or did you already forget about the non-reason you tried to use to oppose this idea for no rationally explained reason before flip-flopping and showing that you really approved it after all? And again, your feeling exposed in such a situation is not relevant. To anything. Well, tbh, it's really yet another argument in favour of the OP's idea…

But on the off chance that you're just tripping over yourself again because you forgot to read the OP and didn't understand what he's asking for, do you have any actual reason to be obstructive in yet another wishlist thread — any kind of argument why the game should not be improved with this added capability for the mission designer to offer a wider difficulty scope and intent?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. That's not how DCS actually works.

So you’re saying mission designers can’t design where and how aircraft start? Why do I think you’re wrong…

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

So you’re saying mission designers can’t design where and how aircraft start?

No. Try again. Read what I actually write (and what the OP is suggesting).

[SharpeXB]

48 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. Try again. Read what I actually write (and what the OP is suggesting).

What you’re asking for is an option for the player to circumvent the mission design. 

[Tippis]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What you’re asking for is an option for the player to circumvent the mission design. 

No. Read it again.

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. Read it again.

The mission designer determines where and in what state you spawn into the game. You want to make that player-selectable.

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The mission designer determines where and in what state you spawn into the game.

…and this would not change that, but would rather allow a wider range of options for the designer.

What is your argument against allowing that extra level of freedom in the design?

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You want to make that player-selectable.

No. Read it again.
Actually read it this time. Stop assuming things and argue against what has actually been said and described.
Stop relying on strawmen as a replacement for your lack of an actual argument against improving the game. Form a real argument instead, if you have one. Otherwise, you're just going down your usual route of obstructionist trolling.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Actually read it this time.

Already did. I think this one is done. 

[Tippis]

45 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Already did.

So you understand that this has nothing to do with circumventing any kind of design intent, but to allow that intent to be more dynamic, responsive, and open to player choice. You understand that the subversive intent you ascribed to me was entirely of your own invention and not something anyone but you has actually suggested — it was a silly strawman and not any kind of reasoned or rational objection.

And yes, seeing as how you have yet to actually present any kind of argument against this idea, and have only managed to accidentally demonstrate how useful and sensible it would be, we can (still) safely conclude that you're actually on board, in spite of your protestations that the game should not be improved.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, Tippis said:

So you understand that this has nothing to do with circumventing any kind of design intent

If the intent of the mission design was that players should spawn in at a certain place or state then yes it would be. Except it’s likely that such a feature would be server controlled anyways. Like it is now. So for the OP to have what they want doesn’t require any changes to the game, it would just require a mission which was designed that way. With a mix of hot and cold start points at equally various locations. That could be done now if someone wanted it. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

If the intent of the mission design was that players should spawn in at a certain place or state then yes it would be.

No, it wouldn't.
The reason why it wouldn't is explained in the OP.
You should read it.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Except it’s likely that such a feature would be server controlled anyways.

No, because it's not a server option. You may have noticed I kept repeating “this has nothing to do with the server”. That's because it has nothing to do with the server. It's a waypoint option; it's something you set in the mission; it's something the mission designer chooses.
This is pretty clearly explained in the OP.
You should read it.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Like it is now.

There is no such controls in the current set of server options, so no.
Well, except yes: just like now, it wouldn't have anything to do with the server, since it would be a mission (and even more specifically, a waypoint) option, as explained in the OP. You know what this means you should do next…

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So for the OP to have what they want doesn’t require any changes to the game, it would just require a mission which was designed that way. With a mix of hot and cold start points at equally various locations. That could be done now if someone wanted it. 

It can't be done now because DCS doesn't allow it.
It doesn't allow it because we are talking about an artificially limited resource that has no reason to be limited to begin with (at least not in this particular way).

A spawn point is set to a specific hot/coldness, and once that point is set, it is… well… set. There is no way to double-assign it so it can do both.The options are mutually exclusive, and using one will often make the other impossible to use at all. Not to mention — again — that the hot and cold starts aren't equally available. What you're talking about is an ugly, cumbersome, more-than-doubling-your-workload, and often simply not available (because there aren't enough available spawn points, and “start on ground” will not cover all bases) workaround. It specifically does not offer the flexibility and wider intent that the OP's suggestion would offer, and the workaround is far too cumbersome to be practicable except in the most uselessly minute circumstances.

So, once more with feeling: you haven't actually presented an argument against the OP's suggestion — only a suggestion for a workaround that shows you have not actually tried to do what you're suggesting, much less tried to accommodate what the OP wants.

The lack of this very simple option, and the ugliness of the not-actual-workaround makes this a fair bit different from the kind of flexibility (for both the client and the designer) simulators often have. It makes DCS a lesser game. Suggesting that mission designers put in twice the work to ultimately fail to provide a very sensible user choice is not a solid argument against improving the game. Quite the opposite — as always, you're only managing to prove the OP's point.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

OMG give it up already

[Tippis]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

OMG give it up already

Why? Because you must have the last word or ensure that any wishlist item you do not approve of must end up getting locked so you kill the conversation that way? You're on an open forum. You do not get to dictate how other people discuss a topic, even if (especially if) you don't like that topic.

Present an actual argument to keep the game bad and maybe I will stop.

But since your goal here — and let's be very clear about this — is to keep the game less capable; to give mission-makers fewer tools to design missions with; and to generally keep everyone from playing the game in the way they like, it needs to be a spectacularly, mind-blowingly good argument.

Just note, things that do not qualify as arguments (much less spectacular or mind-blowing ones) include: strawmen, misunderstandings of game mechanics, inventing problems that don't exist and/or are already accommodated in the suggestion. Very bad workaround sort of work as arguments, but only to the opposite point of the one you want to make…

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

37 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Present an actual argument to keep the game bad and maybe I will stop.

Because it’s already possible to create a mission like the OP would want without adding extra settings. Just create a map with equally interspersed hot and cold start locations. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Because it’s already possible to create a mission like the OP would want without adding extra settings.

Nope.

Respond to the points made earlier — don't just repeat the same nonsense over and over again. That is not an argument.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Just create a map with equally interspersed hot and cold start locations. 

Unfortunately, players do not have the tools required to do that.
Yes, I know what you were attempting to say, but you have long since exhausted any good-faith, charitable reading — so no, creating maps is not something mission-makers can do.

And again, multiplying the workload is a laughably stupid workaround to something that shouldn't even be a problem to begin with — a workaround that isn't even possible or applicable in many cases. You would know this if you had actually attempted what you're suggesting. Again, you need to actually respond to the points being made, or you will only ever end up proving the exact opposite point to the one you're (not really) trying to argue.

Remember what you were told the last time? “This is a wishlist item, if you dont like it or dont want it, dont comment on it” — and yet, here you are, desperately trying to shut down yet another conversation about a topic you do not understand and do not like by just repeating the same disproven thing over and over again, because for some unfathomable reason, improvements to DCS must not be allowed to happen.