Many servers, few players?

[Kang]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Players treat it as the de facto release version though, so in practice it’s not a “test”. If ED wanted viable multiplayer, the first step would be to eliminate the OB. Now that might not be the best from a testing standpoint but in order for mp to flourish everyone needs to be playing the same version. 

 

That's not wrong at all. I am convinced a lot of it has come from literal years in which the two options were virtually identical, except that 'Stable' was two months or so behind on new content.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

On 7/4/2023 at 5:45 PM, Kang said:

That's not wrong at all. I am convinced a lot of it has come from literal years in which the two options were virtually identical, except that 'Stable' was two months or so behind on new content.

I believe the difference is  that ED is asserting that all the known "GAME BREAKING" bugs have been culled from stable.  Not ALL bugs.  There are probably bugs in stable that are years or even a decade old.

OB on the other hand may very well have "GAME BREAKING" bugs initially.  There is value in separating the two.

If you've ever released large scale software you'd seen that no amount of internal team testing or even closed beta can come close to the exercise software can get in the "wild".  Just the sheer variety of hardware and drivers can not be feasibly reproduced internally.

It's also my experience that users are evil.   They can come up with the weirdest use cases you never thought of.  Like, "Why would you do that???  OK we'll tighten that down. "  

So, to summarize IMHO, 

Open Beta:  "We fully expect there might be GAME BREAKING bugs exposed in this cycle.  We just don't know what they are yet.  Find them, and hopefully we'll fix them quick."

Stable:  "We believe all GAME BREAKING bugs have been culled, as far as we currently know.  We're not expecting you to find any.  Prove us wrong. "

The trade-off to the OB risk is that it might also have bug fixes that players want that haven't migrated to Stable yet.

Choose your poison.

$0.02.

Edited July 7, 2023 by [16AGR] CptTrips

[SharpeXB]

On 7/4/2023 at 5:45 PM, Kang said:

That's not wrong at all. I am convinced a lot of it has come from literal years in which the two options were virtually identical, except that 'Stable' was two months or so behind on new content.

They’re not “virtually identical”. One is a test release. That should be obvious. 

[probad]

one of the problem with mp sim games is the act of populating a server -- everyone wants to play in a server with people to fight, nobody wants to spend possibly hours waiting to build up the population. its exacerbated by the nature of dcs where each flight is relatively costly compared to, say, an fps. there's a reason why casual (and regardless of whether or not you think its prestigious enough for your tastes, more popular) multiplayer games all find it desirous to minimize downtime between action. seeding is particularly unattractive for a lot of players who look at server population as a form of blind matchmaking, where they believe at least there is a good chance of attaining an advantage through incidentally encountering less skilled players or profiting from the distraction of another friendly player. the greater focus on individual performance can create a perception of unfairness during the seeding phase which often results in the seeding attempt failing as the server hemorrhages players as fast as it gains them.

 

in the end most gamers would rather wait 1 hour in a queue to a popular server than spend 1 hour seeding an empty server because the former bears the more secure outcome

Edited July 7, 2023 by probad

[Wing]

Join a proper vFighter Squadron that does weekly flight nights. Problem solved.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

7 minutes ago, probad said:

one of the problem with mp sim games is the act of populating a server -- everyone wants to play in a server with people to fight, nobody wants to spend possibly hours waiting to build up the population. its exacerbated by the nature of dcs where each flight is relatively costly compared to, say, an fps. there's a reason why casual (and regardless of whether or not you think its prestigious enough for your tastes, more popular) multiplayer games all find it desirous to minimize downtime between action. seeding is particularly unattractive for a lot of players who look at server population as a form of blind matchmaking, where they believe at least there is a good chance of attaining an advantage through coincidentally encountering less skilled players or profiting from the distraction of another friendly player. the greater focus on individual performance can create a perception of unfairness during the seeding phase which often results in the seeding attempt failing as the server hemorrhages players as fast as it gains them.

I agree.  Ideally a server would be approachable by both new and experienced pilots.

And peoples gaming time is precious.  I'm not a huge fan of cold start on MP.  At least I wouldn't want it to be my only choice.

Why?  I don't have anything against cold starts.  But it has little to do with me interacting with multiple players, so I don't need to do that part on a MP server.  I can practice cold starts alone offline to my hearts content.  That task does not require other players, so doesn't not require me to be on a MP server.  If I am on a MP server, I want to spend my time interacting with other players and less time staring at my checklists.

$0.02.

 

[Kang]

1 hour ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

I believe the difference is  that ED is asserting that all the known "GAME BREAKING" bugs have been culled from stable.  Not ALL bugs.  There are probably bugs in stable that are years or even a decade old.

OB on the other hand may very well have "GAME BREAKING" bugs initially.  There is value in separating the two.

If you've ever released large scale software you'd seen that no amount of internal team testing or even closed beta can come close to the exercise software can get in the "wild".  Just the sheer variety of hardware and drivers can not be feasibly reproduced internally.

It's also my experience that users are evil.   They can come up with the weirdest use cases you never thought of.  Like, "Why would you do that???  OK we'll tighten that down. "  

So, to summarize IMHO, 

Open Beta:  "We fully expect there might be GAME BREAKING bugs exposed in this cycle.  We just don't know what they are yet.  Find them, and hopefully we'll fix them quick."

Stable:  "We believe all GAME BREAKING bugs have been culled, as far as we currently know.  We're not expecting you to find any.  Prove us wrong. "

The trade-off to the OB risk is that it might also have bug fixes that players want that haven't migrated to Stable yet.

Choose your poison.

$0.02.

 

I'm not saying that's wrong, all I'm saying is that there was a long, long, loooong time in which said 'severe bugs' got fixed in situ on the OB after a week or so, whereas the otherwise exact same version got pushed to 'Stable' months later with no further fixes. I know that ED has improved on that a bit since, but at least a majority of the multiplayer community has switched to OB entirely at that time and hasn't seen much reason to go back.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

I agree.  Ideally a server would be approachable by both new and experienced pilots.

And peoples gaming time is precious.  I'm not a huge fan of cold start on MP.  At least I wouldn't want it to be my only choice.

Why?  I don't have anything against cold starts.  But it has little to do with me interacting with multiple players, so I don't need to do that part on a MP server.  I can practice cold starts alone offline to my hearts content.  That task does not require other players, so doesn't not require me to be on a MP server.  If I am on a MP server, I want to spend my time interacting with other players and less time staring at my checklists.

$0.02.

 

It’s amazing people can’t wait the three minutes it takes to start up and have to blast down the taxiways. Gaming must contribute to ADHD we need cold starts as a form of therapy I suppose…

Getting shot down a bunch of times online will make you an expert at cold starts in no time

Edited July 7, 2023 by SharpeXB

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s amazing people can’t wait the three minutes it takes to start up and have to blast down the taxiways. Gaming must contribute to ADHD we need cold starts as a form of therapy I suppose…

Getting shot down a bunch of times online will make you an expert at cold starts in no time

 

 

Well, I guess if time is no object for you, you could use the hot start opportunity to run your manual shutdown checklist and then start your manual start up checklist.  Twice the checklists, twice the fun for you.

And no, I don't want to use auto start.  That is the worst of both worlds.  Near the same loss of time, and no training accomplished.

 

Luckily, the solution is for different server to take different approaches and the marketplace will decide who gets the traffic based on which people like.

 

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

 

Well, I guess if time is no object for you, you could use the hot start opportunity to run your manual shutdown checklist and then start your manual start up checklist.  Twice the checklists, twice the fun for you.

And no, I don't want to use auto start.  That is the worst of both worlds.  Near the same loss of time, and no training accomplished.

 

Luckily, the solution is for different server to take different approaches and the marketplace will decide who gets the traffic based on which people like.

 

I don’t need a checklist, I can start the aircraft up as fast as it can be rearmed, since I get shot down a lot I’ve become an expert at this

[Hiob]

36 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s amazing people can’t wait the three minutes it takes to start up and have to blast down the taxiways. Gaming must contribute to ADHD we need cold starts as a form of therapy I suppose…

Getting shot down a bunch of times online will make you an expert at cold starts in no time

 

When you do a cold start in three minutes, you can just as well do a auto start or hot start. All equally realistic.

Why can’t you just let all play to their own rhythm without diagnosing them with ADHS?

I really hate that attitude „only my way of playing is the RIGHT way of playing“.

People can use DCS as a frickin‘ walking simulator if they want to. Who are you to deny them that?

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t need a checklist, I can start the aircraft up as fast as it can be rearmed, since I get shot down a lot I’ve become an expert at this

LoL.

As I said, I have no problem with cold starts.  I enjoy learning it offline.  SP missions or campaigns or me just futzing around.   I just don't feel the need to use MP time for that.

But if they have both types of slots, each can choose their poison.

[Raisuli]

2 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

LoL.

As I said, I have no problem with cold starts.  I enjoy learning it offline.  SP missions or campaigns or me just futzing around.   I just don't feel the need to use MP time for that.

But if they have both types of slots, each can choose their poison.

Back when I tried on-line it would take about as long to cold start and get a mission plan together as it did to take off, fly into the TO, and get shot down.  Then I got smart and stopped flying online.

I did a cold start on the F-18 a few weeks ago just to see what had changed, but otherwise don't bother with it.  It's very, very tempting to take those controls off the simpit because I simply don't use them enough to bother with it and I can interact with the aircraft by mouse the once or twice a year it might be necessary.

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Why can’t you just let all play to their own rhythm without diagnosing them with ADHS?

Don’t you agree using the taxiways as runways is about the most annoying thing anyone can do in MP? 

15 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

it would take about as long to cold start and get a mission plan together as it did to take off, fly into the TO, and get shot down.

You get shot down in three minutes? Patience man…. patience. 

[silverdevil]

29 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Why can’t you just let all play to their own rhythm

amen hiob

i personally think PvE is best for MP. my squad partakes in this. i can never make the sessions because of time of day. they run some team against bots each week. i play SP and enjoy it. i run the missions they make on my PC and have lots of fun.

[Raisuli]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Don’t you agree using the taxiways as runways is about the most annoying thing anyone can do in MP? 

You get shot down in three minutes? Patience man…. patience. 

When I say 'I suck' getting shot down isn't the part I suck at.  I could give master level classes in falling to earth in flames.  Icarus was an amateur compared to me.

So I do look with some awe at the youtube videos where people actually do well in MP.  In the mean time I work on skills in SP, where my demise isn't met with glee by the score-padders.

[probad]

its not about the startup, its about the entire gameplay loop like raisuli observed. whats the % of shooty tooty action to all the logistical actions? i dont care if you do hot start cold start or autostart, they're actually about the same in the end of the day in that the entire sequence of strapping in, taxiing out, flying to the ao consumes like 90% of the time spent. if you add in mechanisms that encourage players to bring the airplane back, that ratio gets even more lopsided in favor of all the 'backend' tasks.

this is what "gaming time is precious" really means. the majority of players flying public mp are in it for that 5% moment of shooting the missile. people want it so bad they'll eat the cost of friendly fire penalties, that's how scarce and precious it is. if we want to drive behavior in a different direction, you need to make it worth all that time they're being denied their golden seconds of shoot time.

idk why i bother writing this though because you guys are incredibly myopic like any topic will always get bogged down in the most inane minutae probably because that's the best way to avoid actually figuring out whats going on

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, probad said:

its not about the startup, its about the entire gameplay loop like raisuli observed. whats the % of shooty tooty action to all the logistical actions? i dont care if you do hot start cold start or autostart, they're actually about the same in the end of the day in that the entire sequence of strapping in, taxiing out, flying to the ao consumes like 90% of the time spent. if you add in mechanisms that encourage players to bring the airplane back, that ratio gets even more lopsided in favor of all the 'backend' tasks.

this is what "gaming time is precious" really means. the majority of players flying public mp are in it for that 5% moment of shooting the missile. people want it so bad they'll eat the cost of friendly fire penalties, that's how scarce and precious it is. if we want to drive behavior in a different direction, you need to make it worth all that time they're being denied their golden seconds of shoot time.

idk why i bother writing this though because you guys are incredibly myopic like any topic will always get bogged down in the most inane minutae probably because that's the best way to avoid actually figuring out whats going on

A CFS really can’t be constant action like an FPS. Unless they’re literally sky shooters like War Thunder arcade mode. So given the preponderance of attention deficit afflicted gamers, A CFS sim will never be popular online. Plus there are just real life barriers to playing that long without a pause. It is what it is. And I don’t think modern era DCS lends itself to air start dogfight style gameplay. A sim really wants to encourage full flights that encompass takeoff and bringing the plane back otherwise again it’s just going to be a lame sky shooter which isn’t worthwhile. 

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

12 minutes ago, probad said:

idk why i bother writing this though because you guys are incredibly myopic like any topic will always get bogged down in the most inane minutae probably because that's the best way to avoid actually figuring out whats going on

 

So what remedy are you suggesting?

[probad]

im not suggesting the way to cater to more engagement is to do airstarts because the people who signed up for dcs already have the expectation of it being this whole sequence of taking off and stuff. i have casual friends who dont even like hotstarts because it wasnt what they feel like they signed up for.

the nature of the game is not a problem to be solved, but it is a consideration to design around.  so for example, maybe servers can encourage more engagement by making seeding more rewarding, like giving vip slots to players willing to spend time seeding. we are asking for players to spend precious time, so there should be some value exchanged at least.

more attention can certainly be paid to even having some kind of seeding state for a server. scripts or native support to freeze ground asset destruction may make low pop servers less liable to that-one-sead-player-that-destroys-the-map-unopposed and kills the match before it starts.

someone else had pointed out in a different thread that dcs is a great simulator but a poor game. that is pretty true i think, the game lacks actual structures that mate the simulation part into a bigger game with a start and end. right now the phenomenon we see of everyone squeezing into a few max populated servers i think is the result -- we're getting around the lack of a game start phase by simply avoiding it. so to change that we'll need to think about what kind of structures we need to actually bridge the gap from an empty server to a pvp experience.

so no its not about the actual simulation, that part is fine.

Edited July 7, 2023 by probad

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

23 minutes ago, probad said:

someone else had pointed out in a different thread that dcs is a great simulator but a poor game. that is pretty true i think, the game lacks actual structures that mate the simulation part into a bigger game with a start and end. right now the phenomenon we see of everyone squeezing into a few max populated servers i think is the result -- we're getting around the lack of a game start phase by simply avoiding it.

 

Well, I think that is actually a Wags quote.  I think I heard him say that in an interview.  I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

However the popular servers are probably popular for a reason, not just random chance.  I think they were popular by providing a good design that balances between air-quake and neck-beard-sweaty-try-hard.  If you build the right server, it will fill itself, and stay filled.  At least it looks that way to me.  What "seeding" does Enigma's CW server do?  Looks filled a lot of the time to me.

I think the first thing is to design a gameplay loop that a lot of people find fun.  You will never satisfy everyone no matter what design you choose.  So there will always be a couple of popular ones and they might take different approaches.  Each might serve a different cohort.  Some like cold starts and 40 minute flights to FEBA, some want quicker action than that.  It's good to have both.

The ones that are empty and stay empty, might be for a reason to do with their core gameloop, not because they had no "seeding".

But if you find the right balance of gameplay that appeals to a lot of people, filling it doesn't seem to be much of a problem.  Word of mouth.  Something fun gets around quick.  If it's not fun, no design trick in the world is going to make it successful.  Especially if their are competitor servers delivering more fun.  It's a Free-Market of fun.  It will reward those that strike the right balance and punish those who don't.

$0.02.

[Hiob]

10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Don’t you agree using the taxiways as runways is about the most annoying thing anyone can do in MP? 

Domestic authority I‘d say. If someone wants to maintain a serious server („mil-sim“) and demands and enforces „realistic“ behavior…. more power to him/her.

But in an open server where more „casual“ players just want to have some fun… let them take off from the taxi way. I mean there isn’t any realistic ground traffic/atc anyway…. I couldn’t care less 

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, Hiob said:

Domestic authority I‘d say. If someone wants to maintain a serious server („mil-sim“) and demands and enforces „realistic“ behavior…. more power to him/her.

But in an open server where more „casual“ players just want to have some fun… let them take off from the taxi way. I mean there isn’t any realistic ground traffic/atc anyway…. I couldn’t care less 

This practice is against the rules on any server I’ve seen so I’m not sure how it constitutes fun. It’s indeed the most idiotic behavior and so I don’t feel harsh in suggesting that these players suffer from some mental condition. If you can’t spend a minute to taxi, yeah the ADHD shoe fits. How such players have the attention span to figure out a DCS module is puzzling. 

[Steel Jaw]

People who take off on taxi ways, or land non carrier planes on the CV, have NO place on public servers.  Full stop.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Steel Jaw

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

This practice is against the rules on any server I’ve seen so I’m not sure how it constitutes fun. It’s indeed the most idiotic behavior and so I don’t feel harsh in suggesting that these players suffer from some mental condition. If you can’t spend a minute to taxi, yeah the ADHD shoe fits. How such players have the attention span to figure out a DCS module is puzzling. 

Yes indeed, some attitudes are puzzling. I feel the same.