Jump to content

Another comp nerfs the 14 because of 'issues'


Kula66

Recommended Posts

Hi @IronMike, you asked to be alerted to any particular perceived 14 issues in parts of the competitive community.
Tomcat ECM has been banned in SATAC: 'many are saying that tomcat jammer makes 120s new seeker behave rather dumb at times, making tomcat too survivable when ECM is used. On top of this, it isnt fair when all other AC are affected by jammer but not tomcat itself! Especially since f14 also has the best missile in DCS at the moment'

I'm not saying its true or false, but  would appreciate it if you'd comment, thanks.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RustBelt said:

So the AMRAAM won't Home on Jam? 

 

The F-14 jammer blinks so quickly that it denies the missile's ability to HOJ as currently modeled on both ends

  • Like 1

Heavy Fighter Elitist
AIM-120 Best Missiletm
AWG-9 Gaslighter
Diagnosed with terminal Skill Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Southernbear said:

is this intended behaviour that causes issues due to how ED has the AMRAAM currently or is the Jammer also part of the problem?

I personally cannot say, nor do I have the clearance or legal means to confirm the behavior of what should be realistically modeled, but an educated guess would tell you: No, this interaction should not be happening. It's an issue with the code and how the missile switches between HOJ and standard tracking guidance.

  • Like 1

Heavy Fighter Elitist
AIM-120 Best Missiletm
AWG-9 Gaslighter
Diagnosed with terminal Skill Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish ED would create a separate environment for the "competitive" part of the player base. A "DCS Air Quake" module (😛), if you will. Or, add a "competitive mode" to "simplified" and "simulation" modelling.

In any case, those who want their gameplay to be "fair" or "balanced", start DCS in such a mode, or load/ choose that module/mode (or admins implement it on the respective servers), and bam! no more ECM and all missiles behave exactly the same, all modules get "nerfed" accordingly, to the point of relative parity. Fair and balanced. 

Those who cherish the challenges of dissimilar areal warfare can simply continue playing "normal" multiplayer.

That way, those who are simulation enthusiast can enjoy the specifics of their favorite module(s), with all strengths and weaknesses, while the competitive crowd can enjoy whatever they enjoy. And the devs don't have to deal with the constant nagging, arguing - sometimes outright whining - about the perceived artificial advantages or disadvantages, and can be left in peace to focus on finishing their - some still very much WIP - early access modules (which is the vast majority of modules in DCS) and missile API!

That being said, ECM modeling was, is and most likely will remain to be the most iffy part of DCS. All the juicy details are still highly classified, and that includes stuff from the early 1950's! I heard an interview with Gero Finke (True Grit) some time ago, and he was highly uncomfortable talking even about the barebone basics of electronic warfare (probably stuff that you could find on Wikipedia).

I don't see any way of meaningful EW integration into DCS, with ED's current focus on systems simulation, due to the classified nature of the technology. From my layman's POV, the only viable approach would be "effects simulation", but that in itself can be rather subjective, and may not meet ED's standards for quality simulation.

 


Edited by Jayhawk1971
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

In any case, those who want their gameplay to be "fair" or "balanced", start DCS in such a mode, or load/ choose that module/mode (or admins implement it on the respective servers), and bam! no more ECM and all missiles behave exactly the same, all modules get "nerfed" accordingly, to the point of relative parity. Fair and balanced.

Such mode already exists: just play the same module vs the same module. It can hardly be more fair and balanced than that!
However, I suspect they won't like it. They want it "balanced up to a certain point". They want it "realistic", but "not too realistic" because too realistic is imbalanced by definition. But they don't want the most fair and balanced solution because that's "too fair and balanced".

Assuming all the issues about missiles and ECM will be fixed, leading to a good compromise between common sense and the availability of resources and documentation, this won't work for ""comp"" players either because most modern, top of the line modules, will always have an edge vs the older modules. What they need is a game similar to DCS, so they don't feel they are playing an arcade, but with the compromises and configurability of arcade games. Who knows, perhaps some day we'll get a heavily modded version of DCS that'll make them happy.

That being said, I have a question: if the goal is measuring the skill of players, why not using the same aircraft and ordnance? When you level the field, the only variable left is the ability of the players.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'they won't like it' ... Why the passive aggressive response? If you have nothing useful to add, why do you bother to comment?

You play the game your way, let others play it their way.


Edited by Kula66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Kula66 said:

'they won't like it' ... Why the passive aggressive response? If you have nothing useful to add, why do you bother to comment?

You play the game your way, let others play it their way.

 

It's not passive-aggressive, it's a fact, albeit a bit of a generalization. Nevertheless, I'm not particularly smart, so I doubt I'm the only one that though of that option. In such a case, why, if it that solution is so popular, hasn't been adopted and maintained? On paper, it solves all of your issues, innit?

I have a long history of playing competitive games with pretty good results until a few years ago, and from this perspective, DCS atm is a quite awful game. Unless, of course, house rules patch its many flaws in terms of balancing. What rules can't do, however, is sorting the awful lot of bugs, bad netcode, exploits and so on, that affect this game. They are not too big of a deal as long as people play as the game was conceived (usually), but then competitions comes into play, DCS is a bad game.
I'm sure ED and other 3rd party devs will sort things out, piece by piece, but I play since 2008 and the status quo has changed only in the last few years. ED needs more time to make this game a solid title that can also be reliably played competitively. Bugs, netcode, replay system broken, not enough options for customizations (e.g. disable ECM entirely). These are just a tiny bit of the long list of fixes and features that such a game requires.

That being said, where I start to have a problem, is where the thread number **integer_overflow** is opened, requiring an answer from the devs, ergo taking time from them (among other things). In fact, they said they are working on it, right? Yep. Is there any feedback to discuss? Nope. Is this thread providing documentation about the ECM? Niet. Is this a thread with suggestions about how the ECM can be implemented? Neither. So, what is this, besides the somewhat disguised complaint number **I_need_long_int_to_keep_track**? Perhaps I'm wrong, but the "are we there yet?" vibe is incredibly strong here.
In fact, you opened this thread as a request of comments from IM. Why not a PM, then? Also, why are you asking me if I have anything to add when, following your logic, the only thing that matter is a comment from IM and any other answer doesn't matter in the first place?
(in b4 IM gets the blame lol)

Also, please note that I haven't said anything about how you should play this game. As a matter of fact, I always say to play DCS the way you want it: as a de facto warthunder, as a military simulation, in PvE or PvP, in tournaments and whatnot. So, please, don't put words I haven't said in my mouth, that's a really poor attempt, mate.
On the other hand, you haven't answered my question: there are ad interim workarounds but are not used. Moreover, if the ECM is the problem, why are you guys not enforcing a "do not use the ECM" rule? I see a plethora of complaints from the so-called ""pros"" but, oddly, very few suggestions. I'm looking forward to reading your answers buddy 🙂

  • Like 7
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Many players don’t want to face human opponents flying identical equipment because it removes the built in ego saving argument of dissimilar equipment. 

Well, thinking about it, one of the most popular games in history is played with the same set of pieces...

 

Re-reading my previous post, I may have been too harsh. I have nothing against @Kula66 and others and I understand their frustration. On the other hand, many are growing quite tired of the complaints. We all want the same thing, a stable, fun, flexible and simulative game. Unfortunately, ED is not microsoft, and addressing these issues takes time. We can either find a way of working around them, or getting more and more frustrated.

Speaking of which, besides flying all with the same module, another idea can be a sort of draft&ban to get rid of some aircraft and see how flexible teams really are (One ban and 2 picks per team - I would actually watch this!). Then the teams are either mirrored, or swap the teams after the first round. Bugs and exploit will still be there, but everyone gets their share equally.
Point being: there are ways to offset the issues until they are resolved. It's not ideal, but it is not the end of the world.

full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know why this thread is talking about balance when this is not simply about balance for competitive events. The ECM on the F-14 is just blatantly breaking the current modeling of the AIM-120C. You may look at it as balance where I see it as fixing game breaking features.

  • Like 3

Heavy Fighter Elitist
AIM-120 Best Missiletm
AWG-9 Gaslighter
Diagnosed with terminal Skill Issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prez said:

I don’t know why this thread is talking about balance when this is not simply about balance for competitive events. The ECM on the F-14 is just blatantly breaking the current modeling of the AIM-120C. You may look at it as balance where I see it as fixing game breaking features.

Lots of reasons. Just sticking to this thread, I can give you a couple:

1- because this is not a bug report, if that was the purpose, this is not in the appropriate subforum either;

2- because the title says: "Another comp nerfs the 14 because of 'issues'". The context sounds clear to me;

3- because the OP's quote says: "On top of this, it isnt fair when all […]". Same as point #2. I don't see how fairness does not involve balance;

Bonus note: the AIM-120 is heavily WIP, and the ECM in the F-14 was temporary and is being reworked. Both dev teams are aware of the issues and are working to improve the game, so this is not a "heads-up" post either.

I can continue, but I don't see the point tbh.

  • Like 7
full_tiny.pngfull_tiny.png
full_tiny.png

"Cogito, ergo RIO"
Virtual Backseaters Volume I: F-14 Radar Intercept Officer - Fifth Public Draft
Virtual Backseaters Volume II: F-4E Weapon Systems Officer - Internal Draft WIP

Phantom Phamiliarisation Video Series | F-4E/F-14 Kneeboard Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow so a lot of mudslinging going on in this post.

We've said once ECM and its effects are fully implemented in the F-14, we're more than happy to remove all restrictions from it, a fact that I feel has been purposely removed from the context, from a thread that seems is here just to cause trouble.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prez said:

I don’t know why this thread is talking about balance when this is not simply about balance for competitive events. The ECM on the F-14 is just blatantly breaking the current modeling of the AIM-120C. You may look at it as balance where I see it as fixing game breaking features.

 

If ED thought it was breaking the AIM-120, they'd tell them to turn it off.

Instead, all actual signs show ED will be adjusting the 120 as appropriate to deal with a correctly modeled ECM function, because that's how things are handled in a simulation.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rich said:

Wow so a lot of mudslinging going on in this post.

We've said once ECM and its effects are fully implemented in the F-14, we're more than happy to remove all restrictions from it, a fact that I feel has been purposely removed from the context, from a thread that seems is here just to cause trouble.

The original Discord post has subsequently been edited, so doesn't match my partial original quote, but as you are aware, I was asked to post here by your team: 'Our only reasoning is that until Tomcat itself is affected, its a fair solution. So get on HB to do so! '.  It was not posted to cause trouble, it was posted to get a response from HB/ED.

As I said on Discord, I think its disappointing, but Its your competition, and you can make the rules as you choose and I will try my best to abide by them - the opening rounds look awesome BTW, and I look forward to taking part.

I fly the 14 pretty much exclusively, so have no idea if the 14s ECM causes more issues for the 120 than other ECM ... hence my original comment that I'm not saying its true or false; hence@Karonits not a bug report and therefore not posted in the bugs sub-forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rich said:

Wow so a lot of mudslinging going on in this post.

We've said once ECM and its effects are fully implemented in the F-14, we're more than happy to remove all restrictions from it, a fact that I feel has been purposely removed from the context, from a thread that seems is here just to cause trouble.

 

5 hours ago, Kula66 said:

The original Discord post has subsequently been edited, so doesn't match my partial original quote, but as you are aware, I was asked to post here by your team: 'Our only reasoning is that until Tomcat itself is affected, its a fair solution. So get on HB to do so! '.  It was not posted to cause trouble, it was posted to get a response from HB/ED.

 

If competitions that receive sponsorships from firms within this community- including third party developers, find an unfair or "balancing issue" within their frameworks for modules, it is their responsibility to present their questions and concerns themselves, not beg players to function as their champions and take the heat.

Otherwise it looks like a play for plausible deniability- especially when the request is changed after the fact. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kula66 said:

The original Discord post has subsequently been edited, so doesn't match my partial original quote, but as you are aware, I was asked to post here by your team: 'Our only reasoning is that until Tomcat itself is affected, its a fair solution. So get on HB to do so! '.  It was not posted to cause trouble, it was posted to get a response from HB/ED.

As I said on Discord, I think its disappointing, but Its your competition, and you can make the rules as you choose and I will try my best to abide by them - the opening rounds look awesome BTW, and I look forward to taking part.

I fly the 14 pretty much exclusively, so have no idea if the 14s ECM causes more issues for the 120 than other ECM ... hence my original comment that I'm not saying its true or false; hence@Karonits not a bug report and therefore not posted in the bugs sub-forum.

 

I apologies for taking your post as provocative. The thread title made me wonder, but now I understand how this wasn't your intention. The quote is still correct as of this post; the edits made were before this thread's publication. We indeed encourage people to post about adding these features, but asking for these features in the correct sub-forum and not referencing us in your thread title would've been more appropriate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, it is all good. Event organizers need to do what they think is appropriate for their event. Let me drop this rather harsh line: PvP events must care about gameplay more than about realism (unless specifically tailored for the latter). We, as developers, must care about realism most and foremost. We do 100% ofc also care about gameplay, but I hope you all can see how these two things can be in conflict at times.

The point where I start caring specifically, is when the Tomcat is treated unreasonably, or banned entirely for "no good reason". Then we need to look into either something that can be improved on our side, or if we can help the event organizer to understand why this or that is done how it is better. However: in the end it is 100% always the organizer's decision how they go about their events, and as I mentioned before, I appreciate getting informed about it (because I care about the PvP community greatly), but we will never mix into the decision making of event organizers.

The ECM is currently implemented as is, because it is the most logical thing a jammer developer would do within the possible scope of the jammer that is available in DCS. It is meant to break the 120 or other missiles. It is meant to mess with their guidance. This is what a jammer is supposed to do. If this is deemed not great for a specific event, then banning this feature is all fine by us. If you want my personal opinion: I would ban ECM entirely in PvP events, because imo it does not add anything useful, I would even argue that even the standards FC3 ECM puts the user at a disatvantage, but that is a whole other discussion.

To get back on the side that does concern us: implement ECM as close to reality or in the DCS' ECM "what would be most reasonable" - we will revisit it, once we improve all ECM/Jamming related issues with the Tomcat. Thank you for your kind patience in the meantime!


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frostie said:

Hi Mike

I'm with you on all you have posted but I think the glaring issue here is that a Tomcat can jam other aircrafts radar/missiles but doesn't get affected by jammers itself.

 

 

 

Because the HB AWG-9 doesn't work like that.  The HB AWG-9 needs the know the ECM strength, pulse patterns, direction, etc so that it knows what range and doppler bins to fill and how full to make them.  A binary on/off flag (DCS ECM prior to the Hornet and Viper update) does not do that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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