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

[SharpeXB]

39 minutes ago, Tippis said:

making it a server option would make it a whole lot worse for everyone

The start state is an important factor in some mission designs like I mentioned earlier. So servers should be able to set whether or not this player-selected option is available. 

39 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Because DCS servers do not work like that

Servers in any game including DCS have server-side settings for anything that effects the gameplay like using icons, external views etc. So yes they do work like that. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by SharpeXB

[HC_Official]

19 hours ago, Frederf said:

This is a cool idea. The mission could choose between three states:

1. Hot start
2. Cold start
3. User choice

If #1 or #2 then it's forced. If it's #3 the user chooses. Everyone wins.

^ this is the way , allowing the person creating the mission to either force the start type or allow end user on server to select which way, it is a win win for everyone

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The start state is an important factor in some mission designs like I mentioned earlier.

…and as mentioned, this idea will not in any way affect that in any way.

See, now I'm starting to doubt that you actually read the OP again. You almost had me convinced there for a while.

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Servers in any game including DCS have server-side settings for anything that effects the gameplay like using icons, external views etc.

Nope. You can see the full list of DCS server settings in my earlier post. You'll note that those options do not control any actual gameplay (unless you count voice chat). In many games, there are server settings like what you describe, but DCS servers do not work like that. This is why making it a server option is a strictly and categorically worse idea than what the OP is suggesting, and would more than anything cause the kind of problem you're needlessly trying to prevent.

You may think the DCS server works like that, but as has been demonstrated repeatedly, what you think, and how things actually are, are two very different things. This is where you need to learn to listen to those who have actual experience with the matter at hand and not rely on your own guesswork.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, HC_Official said:

this is the way , allowing the person creating the mission to either force the start type or allow end user on server to select which way, it is a win win for everyone

Agree. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Nope. You can see the full list of DCS server settings in my earlier post. You'll note that those options do not control any actual gameplay

DCS servers also control all of these, like the use of external views, unlimited fuel, labels etc. All of which control and affect the gameplay.

Servers also decide where you can start and how because this also influences gameplay.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS servers also control all of these, like the use of external views, unlimited fuel, labels etc. All of which control and affect the gameplay.

No. That's not the server controlling anything. Something else is. Can you guess what?

As a hint, there's a reason why I have consistently and at every turn asked you to read the OP since it already explains who sets up these things, and where.

In a very funny twist, in that picture, you've managed to get the whole thing entirely backwards: you've marked the things that aren't server options, and have skipped the things that are. The problem you're running into here is that you have only ever been a client. You have never looked behind the curtain. You have not tried to deal with the kinds of issues, considerations, design constraints, and even outright resource limitations that this thread revolves around. I can tell this from how you talk about the different puzzle pieces involved (and, more tellingly, which ones you don't talk about). You're only assuming that things work a specific way because you're drawing from some experience — personal or vicarious — from completely different and unrelated games. DCS is not those game. DCS does not operate the way they do.

What you need to realise is that those of us who have done all that know a fair bit more about the inner workings of DCS, and especially its multiplayer component, than you do and that when we tell you how things actually work, you need to stop trying to contradict or refute that based on nothing but guesswork and… well just general contrariness. We know these things. You don't. If you want to contribute in any meaningful way, listen and learn; ask a question about the things you don't know or understand; respond with facts, not assumptions.

Otherwise, you're just a troll.

So… would you like to know what it is that control the things you incorrectly attribute to the server? Or would you like to guess a few times first?

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Servers also decide where you can start and how because this also influences gameplay.

No. The server doesn't decide any of that. Again, that's a very different function — same as before. Guess which.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's not the server controlling anything. Something else is. Can you guess what?

You’re just playing semantics. Bottom line you are restricted to using those settings when playing on that server. 

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. The server doesn't decide any of that. Again, that's a very different function — same as before. Guess which

Again you’re just being pointlessly argumentative. 

[Tippis]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re just playing semantics.

No. It's not semantics in much the same way as confusing a drill and a hammer is not a matter of semantics: they may both be tools to insert metal bits into wood, but the purpose, method, and outcome are very different. Same thing here. There is a pretty clear separation and distinction, and it matters.

I'm explaining to you that your entire complaint never mattered from the very start, since it was already something the OP's suggestion handled. I'm asking if you understand why this is, since you keep bringing up this irrelevant point about “server options” to still try to project an air of objection to the idea, even though in practice, you are full on board with everything the OP said.

Every post you've made in this thread has been unnecessary, simply because you're confused about how DCS operates and how it handles its various restrictions and options. If you want to blame that confusion on semantics, then sure, fine, that's nonsense but you do you. And in that case, rather than remaining confused and trying to deflect that problem, you could just ask for clarification. We might be able to explain to you the distinctions and why they matter. You've chosen to be contrarian because you don't get what the OP is saying because you don't understand how DCS works, and rather than trying to remedy that, you're constantly trying to shift to new (deliberate?) misunderstandings to not have to admit that you cannot come up with any kind of reason why this shouldn't happen.

The bottom line here is that your clamouring for a server option is at the same time both unnecessary and not what you actually want. You can stop squirming. This idea already satisfies everything you need.

So, again, would you like to know what it is that control the things you incorrectly attribute to the server? Or would you like to guess a few times first?

Edited November 11, 2021 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

@TippisOk, enough already. You’re back on my ignore list. Please stop quoting me. Have a nice life. 

[Tippis]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

@TippisOk, enough already. You’re back on my ignore list. Please stop quoting me.

Nah.

But I suppose that answers the question: you have no interest in learning how DCS works or in being capable of contributing to these kinds of threads, since you will steadfastly cling to your position of wilful ignorance so you can make very silly complaints about imaginary issues with improvements to the game.

Still, at least it was nice that you finally came around to supporting the OP's idea, because it's a pretty good one.

[cfrag]

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re just playing semantics. Bottom line you are restricted to using those settings when playing on that server. 

Unfortunately, @Tippis has a point. 'Server Settings' is a defined quantity for anyone who runs MP servers: they decide if the server allows tainted clients, makes sessions private via passwords, and other purely server-related items (IP blocking, player limit, chat filtering etc). These settings aren't exposed to the mission, they are part of the server instance, the entity that encapsulates the hosting network authority. The server code has no access to the mission code itself, and is firewalled off from the mission that runs. The server code is not the mission code, and the server code has no access to the mission that runs, except for the "userFlag" namespace that is shared between server and mission instances. Server options remain the same while the server runs. When the mission dies/crashes, the server continues.

You are talking about mission options. These are options like Map View, unlimited fuel and labels. They are defined and contained within, and change with, each mission. Unlike server options, their values disappear when the mission ends. They change with each mission while the server and it's options remain unchanged. Unlike the server, a mission runs as a separate instance on every client, and mission options do define some rules. Since all players play a local copy of the same mission (which is being served up by the server), some mission options give the illusion that they are a global cross-client setting (a 'server setting') when they are, in fact, local to the client - and merely all are set to identical values on all clients. Also, you will find that these mission options are merely overrides for your own settings that you find on the "GAMEPLAY" tab of DCS's global settings menu. A mission designer can, through mission options, decide to override your own settings for the duration of that mission. That is what Mission Options are mainly for (there are a few select exceptions, like civ traffic).

Now, people - me included, and I should know better - confuse or conflate server options with mission options, and you would have been forgiven that slip - if you hadn't, in your previous posts, established a strong propensity to be very literal about selective items yourself, and using visual aids to prove the wrong point did not help. Perhaps this is a cautionary tale - sometimes it may be better to relent and concede a minor point rather than digging in and choosing the wrong hill to die on

Now, the current suggestion is for start up slots to be neither server nor mission option, but to be a waypoint option (i.e. controlled by the individual unit's first waypoint) - which is indeed a very cool idea that has all the advantages I am looking for AND gives full control to the mission designer. What's there not to love?  

Edited November 12, 2021 by cfrag

[Tippis]

58 minutes ago, cfrag said:

You are talking about mission options. These are options like Map View, unlimited fuel and civil traffic. They are defined and contained within, and change with, each mission. Unlike server options, their values disappear when the mission ends. They change with each mission while the server and it's options remain unchanged. Unlike the server, a mission runs as a separate instance on every client, and mission options do define some rules. Since all players play a local copy of the same mission (which is being served up by the server), some mission options give the illusion that they are a global cross-client setting (a 'server setting') when they are, in fact, local to the client - and merely all are set to identical values on all clients.

Aww… spoiler

58 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Now, the current suggestion is for start up slots to be neither server nor mission option, but to be a waypoint option (i.e. controlled by the individual unit's first waypoint) - which is indeed a very cool idea that has all the advantages I am looking for AND gives full control to the mission designer. What's there not to love?

Indeed. The only downside I can see is exactly the trap SharpeXB fell into: there's already a fair amount of confusion (especially on the client end, but us server managers get it mixed up too in casual talk from time to time as you point out), and having to also remember specific waypoint options adds another layer of “what option are you talking about?” But in relation to the benefits such a deep flexibility would bring, that's such a minute downside that it's barely worth mentioning.

The implementation side, as to whether it should be a ˘hot / cold / client choice” selection box, or whether it's the same as we have now but with an added “allow override” checkbox is a matter of balancing backwards compatibility against clarity and ease of use against flexibility. Given how seemingly easily they got the different “start from ground” tasks going, it certainly looks like a simple override switch would be the quickest variant, even if it's perhaps not quite as “clean” as just rationalising the number of startup variants.

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

You are talking about mission options. These are options like Map View, unlimited fuel and labels.

Fine the the point remains the same. It’s up to the mission options how you should start if it’s relevant to the design. 

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

Now, people - me included, and I should know better - confuse or conflate server options with mission options,

Everyone here generally does that. Saying “server-side” or “server settings” we all know what they’re talking about unless just being deliberately argumentative. 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, cfrag said:

Also, you will find that these mission options are merely overrides for your own settings that you find on the "GAMEPLAY" tab of DCS's global settings menu

Yes, that’s obvious. I have to notice most all servers tend to run the same settings for these as it’s their intended style. Since the topic here influences game play it belongs in the mission options.

[Tippis]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Fine the the point remains the same.

Indeed it does: the point is that your concern was dealt with from the very start and was never a potential problem. It was just something you made up to be argumentative and contrarian, but didn't notice was a particularly dumb hill to die on since you hadn't read the OP and what it really asked for.

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes, that’s obvious. I have to notice most all servers tend to run the same settings for these as it’s their intended style.

You don't have to notice anything of the kind since that's just one more thing you've made up from your admitted small biased sample. That is not “most all” servers — it's “the small selection of servers you play on”, which is a very different and utterly irrelevant thing.  It is also clearly not as obvious as you now want to suggest since you spent the entire thread being confused by it and not understanding where the setting should go.

Oh, and as pointed out above, making it a mission setting is also not a particularly good thing compared to what the OP is suggesting, even if it's still better than trying to make it a server setting. So no, it does not belong in the mission settings. It belongs where the OP is suggesting it should go: as one of the starting WP options along with parking slot, starting time, and those kinds of things.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Tippis

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Saying “server-side” or “server settings” we all know what they’re talking about unless just being deliberately argumentative.

My point here was more trying to give you a gentle nudge in the direction of practicing a perhaps more restraint and less assertive style. Many people here do indeed say "server options" when they mean client-side (mission options); the term conveys sufficient meaning for others to understand the intent even when it is factually wrong. The same can't always be said for other assertions you have made - assertions that are often quite broad, seem to be mainly based on your personal experience and appear to be unnecessarily incendiary. Also, stating "Yes, that's obvious" in a discussion where you seem to be the only one who did not know the very obvious fact that entire groups are forced to the same startup state is - for me - coming surprisingly close to trolling.

Then again, accusing other people of being 'argumentative' when oneself is contributing almost a quarter of all posts is a good (if trollish) joke, though  

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

My point here was more trying to give you a gentle nudge in the direction of practicing a perhaps more restraint and less assertive style. Many people here do indeed say "server options" when they mean client-side (mission options); the term conveys sufficient meaning for others to understand the intent even when it is factually wrong. The same can't always be said for other assertions you have made - assertions that are often quite broad, seem to be mainly based on your personal experience and appear to be unnecessarily incendiary. Also, stating "Yes, that's obvious" in a discussion where you seem to be the only one who did not know the very obvious fact that entire groups are forced to the same startup state is - for me - coming surprisingly close to trolling.

Then again, accusing other people of being 'argumentative' when oneself is contributing almost a quarter of all posts is a good (if trollish) joke, though  

 

 

Everyone can tell what I’m talking about. There’s no point in continuing this. Have a nice day. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Everyone can tell what I’m talking about.

Not everyone, and certainly not you. That's the problem with speaking from a position of ignorance.

You were asking for something that was a pretty significant reduction in functionality and value compared to what the OP was suggesting. However, since you weren't familiar enough with the topic (or with the OP's suggestion), and instead of listening to what people were telling you, you got stuck in this contrarian loop where your point must absolutely be the correct one, in spite of it not actually making sense the way you wrote it.

Maybe you thought you were being clear, but in actuality, you were using a very ambiguous language in regards to a design decision where precision was needed.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s no point in continuing this.

You say this a lot. Yet, you still continue almost every time.
Let's see if it actually sticks for once.

[BIGNEWY]

Hidden arguing, 

please do not bump old threads just to argue. 

thanks