Question for ED regarding the MP set up and mindset

[SoW Reddog]

Hi, just wondering if you could share what the rationale was behind the current MP set up is, specifically;

1) the way the slot selection screen is visible to both sides, with the aircraft available and taken, who's flying what from where completely unobfuscated.

2) the way that slots are created and assigned, rather than a more generic setup which may have someone say I want x plane from Y place, and be spawned in the first available position. (I get that the current way is very nice for mission makers to ensure that flights spawn together, or that specific areas of the field are used/not used)

 

I'm asking as they're not the immediate solution to the problem I would have reached for (with my obviously low understanding of the code and experience in creating successful niche software) so very interested in the thinking behind the scenes if you can help.

[Grimes]

I think the "current" setup is a bit of a misnomer because it is more or less the same general idea of how its functioned since LOMAC. The spreadsheet design we see today listing every slot has been around since Black Shark. I don't think it has scaled particularly well over the years from typically small player count co-op servers of two aircraft types before DCS World to PvP with hundreds of aircraft slots.  If you want 4 Gazelles of each type at a base that means 16 client aircraft, which are multicrew so its really 32 lines. If your mission has multiple bases for them to spawn at or has progression involved then it can explode the list just for versions of an aircraft. 

IMO there are two solutions. One is the UI presentation and the other is the UI coupled with a more drastic overhaul of how slots exist. The former would involve showing basic statistics for a given team listing the aircraft types available, number of players, and number of a given type available. Ideally it exists as a mission setting because the format of information can be different for co-op missions vs PvP vs neckbeard PvP.  Then you are given a map view of bases that you can click on to select an aircraft type. Could have a filter to highlight ones with available aircraft you want to fly so you aren't searching base by base to find what you want. A problem point is all of the methods that the community has created for blocking slots due to a base being unavailable and slots being exclusive to squad members or patreons. So maybe in the end the user is still given a spreadsheet limited to that base and those aircraft to make their final selection. 

The other thought would require a redesign of how clients are placed and triggers work. Relying on the warehouse system or just a set value of number of spawns available at a base and a client simply spawns into an aircraft that wasn't placed in the editor. Which is obviously a problem if you want to use "unit in zone" trigger to do something. 

 

In general yes I do believe the whole UI/UX between a player joining a server and spawning needs a dire overhaul. 

[SoW Reddog]

Thanks for the reply @@Grimes, given your background and involvement over the years you're far more likely to understand the nuance better than I.

I'm not sure what your distinction between PvE vs PvP vs neckbeard PvP is but I'm intrigued - Slightly off topic though.

Personally I'd favour a way of masking who and what the enemy team were. For PvE/Coop it isn't necessary of course, but a UI/UX design that could accommodate the former shouldn't negatively impact the latter. I think we're both on the same lines, join a server, pick a "side" (and be able via scripting to prevent someone switching if you wanted to), see the spawn base options, click a base and pick a plane. That would work but I see your point about the slot blocking etc. My experience is in Cliffs of Dover, which worked much that way, but once the aircraft was spawned you could punt the player back to the spectators/plane selection if you didn't want them there. The DCS slot blocker is slightly less work for the server as it never creates the plane in the first place but it's essentially the same. In Cliffs I was able to create restricted aircraft numbers and types so there could be between 0 and >0 aircraft of a type at a spawn location, and each aircraft was tracked so when it landed it went into that spawn locations inventory. It worked well, and for our campaign gave some interesting facets such as the requesting of replacement aircraft (and justifying why YOU needed the limited supply rather than another unit  )   and made players value not only their life or "career", but also the airframe.

The reason I'm asking is I'm trying to understand whether there was a definite reason why ED went the route they went, other than some poor developer was asked "we need a MP lobby system" and went off and did what they thought was best at the time.

BTW, as much as in an ideal world I'd tear it up and start again I'm absolutely not expecting any change in this regard, I don't think ED have the capacity for making changes like this to the core product that only a third of their playerbase actually uses apparently and I'd prefer they spent the time fixing the bugs/mistakes in modules (Sabre guns, dora engine bug etc etc). I suspect they also don't really understand the needs of the niche communities like ours.

 

[philstyle]

Interstingly, I have just noticed that my vey first post on the ED forums, when I was considering getting invovled in running MP in DCS, was to probe this very concenpt. Grimes was one of the few people who responded then, too. . .  Such a shame that 5 years later we are still asking the same unanswered questions. 
 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by philstyle

[Rudel_chw]

Glad to see you here Phil  .. just wanted to tell you that I miss your YT channel dearly,  I don't do MP but love warbirds. 

[Grimes]

54 minutes ago, SoW Reddog said:

I'm not sure what your distinction between PvE vs PvP vs neckbeard PvP is but I'm intrigued - Slightly off topic though.

Think of it as a scale with how seriously one might take the PvP experience that was purposefully labeled to kick up rather than down. More often than not the suggestions in the name of balance, forcing longer rearm/repair times, forcing no auto-start, and the like tend to come from one end of the scale. I'm simply stating that it would be a good idea if we ever got a UI update to have granularity of choice in what is displayed. Maybe on one end it displays "5x F-16C, 2x F-14B (max players 30)" while at the other end it might display raw numbers similar to an FPS like 7/30.  

[Proof]

For what it's worth, apparently an overhaul is already planned. 

[SoW Reddog]

56 minutes ago, Proof said:

For what it's worth, apparently an overhaul is already planned. 

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen that as I don't trawl the Russian language forums (like I clearly should!) as for what it's worth, well, that's made me chuckle this morning at least

[burritto]

Approaching 10 years for an update then. It must be just round the corner.

[Proof]

15 minutes ago, burritto said:

Approaching 10 years for an update then. It must be just round the corner.

Both the request and reply were made on April 29, 2021. The thread is for all wishlist items spanning back 10 years, not just this one request. Unless I'm missing your point, in which case, sorry. 

[burritto]

My bad then.  Sorry, I misunderstood your link in the previuos post. We’ve many more years to wait for any fix then.