not planned Easy/Medium/Hard/Realistic refueling options.

[PhantomHans]

1 minute ago, PawlaczGMD said:

OK, so you're just admitting that you don't want a training aid, you want to circumvent learning AAR and just have AI do it for you so that you can continue in a campaign because you can't do a necessary task. So when you can't win some fight, will you also ask for a refund?

I'm just gonna...There was a word in there that, had you understood it, you'd realize...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preferred

8 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

As I said before my preferred method would be something that could be turned up or down to accommodate various skill levels.  Hopefully eventually I'd get to a point where I did it all myself. 

If ED said "The best we can do is let the AI take control.  Ask to be cleared contact and the AI pilot will fill her up for you." I would also be perfectly happy. 

 

[PawlaczGMD]

3 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

OK, but where does the idea that AAR assists can't coexist with all these other things come from?

If you want a really, really simple example of both coexisting with no negative impact to your list, here it is:

Add DC, AI, damage, SAM's first, then add AAR assists later.

This is why the against argument seems so ridiculous. Wanting something more than something else is absolutely reasonable. Acting like adding a specific feature will shut off other features of the game makes no sense at all. Being completely against something without even considering a workable solution for all sides comes across as being against something for the sake of being against it and nothing else.

 

Based on what though? ED is not a 1 person developer. Work on one project does not mean resources are taken from another. If people were genuinely interested in friendly discussion I'd expect that people would at least make room for an idea instead of trying to shoot it down at every opportunity. Also what if a large portion of people disagree with you? Does that mean your desired features should be barred from the game?

 

People that like to speak for other people are the kind of people that probably shouldn't speak for other people.

I think it's fine to give your opinion, but if someone else says that their ways work better for them, well people generally know themselves better than strangers.

 

OK, add AAR assist after these features. This will be never, so I'm fine with that.

The problem is that the feature proposed is quite complex, so it will definitely take time from something else.

>Also what if a large portion of people disagree with you? Does that mean your desired features should be barred from the game?

Most people disagree with you, though. I care more about making an argument from first principles then how many people agree either way.

>I think it's fine to give your opinion, but if someone else says that their ways work better for them, well people generally know themselves better than strangers.

They don't know what works for them. It is clear that they gave up on learning AAR too early, and cope by imagining some feature that will make it all better, but people who learned AAR have more authority to say that such feature will harm learning more than help. You just refuse this opinion because you don't like it.

[PhantomHans]

Just now, PawlaczGMD said:

The problem is that the feature proposed is quite complex, so it will definitely take time from something else.

BUT WHEN I SAY THAT I AM OPEN TO A QUICKER SIMPLER SOLUTION YOU CLAIM THAT IT SHOWS I DON'T WANT IT AT ALL?!?!

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, PawlaczGMD said:

OK, add AAR assist after these features. This will be never, so I'm fine with that.

OK I guess we're getting somewhere if you can see that development can be planned in an ordered fashion now.

1 minute ago, PawlaczGMD said:

The problem is that the feature proposed is quite complex, so it will definitely take time from something else.

You're not in a position to say that unfortunately. It's a reasonable concern to be sure, but not something that can you can say with certainty without information on how DCS is developed.

2 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Most people disagree with you, though. I care more about making an argument from first principles then how many people agree either way.

Where is the counter for these disagreements? In any case since I'm not the one arguing for majority rules, I don't care how many people agree or don't. What I care about is finding solutions to various user desires. Something more helpful and less short sighted than "I don't personally want this, so it can be never be added."

5 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

They don't know what works for them. It is clear that they gave up on learning AAR too early, and cope by imagining some feature that will make it all better, but people who learned AAR have more authority to say that such feature will harm learning more than help. You just refuse this opinion because you don't like it.

You know even less what works for them, so your advice isn't worth much. Feel free to share it, but try to realize when it's not helping. Learning AAR gives you no authority because it still doesn't make you the person requesting the feature.

[Tippis]

13 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

None, just as AAR aids would serve no purpose.

The purpose of AAR aids has been explained extensively. So your purposeless examples (which, again, the game can already provide) are not analogous to the purposeful addition of AAR helpers (which the game currently can't do).

15 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Again, you point about the definition of "needed" is tedious.

Then don't bring need up as an argument. If “need” was somehow a determining factor in what should be done to DCS, then nothing would ever be added. Or changed. Or fixed. It's a vapid argument.

16 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Sound like you went into some gimmick for the general public, and not something real pilots would practice in.

Argument from incredulity, huh? No, it was a real one. You see, real simulators come in a whole assortment of classes for different purposes and with different demands on fidelity, and they can all be set up to make the pilot experience situations of higher or lower difficulty. That's kind of the point of having them.

17 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

Unlimited ammo saves you time, it does not change the way you bomb

It certainly changes the way you bomb when you can just dump 15× the number of bombs to get your hit in, as opposed to only getting one chance per pass…
Unlimited fuel, on the other hand, doesn't change how you AAR other than to potentially make it impossible.

21 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

As someone who learned AAR, I believe that these aids as proposed here would not help anyone, and just be negative training.

Again, that's just an argument from incredulity. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that being shown things helps. Being able to break a task down into smaller bits helps. Being able to gradually increase difficulty helps. Negative training happens even more when you try to learn on your own without guidance. These are not beliefs.

As for the F-5, yes, its early state made you doubt whether it had rubber on its wheels or something far more fruity. It was quite fun, in it own way.

15 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

he problem is that the feature proposed is quite complex, so it will definitely take time from something else.

There's very little so suggest that this is the case. And even if it were, again, we're talking about functionality that is fully in line with what the game is supposed to provide. If it takes time, so what? It's time spent on making the game do what it's supposed to.

[SharpeXB]

38 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

We have aids that change the game physics to make it easier...

 

Game flight mode,

Game flight mode is gone. Or in the process of being removed. I don’t think it exists anymore. 

27 minutes ago, PhantomHans said:

As I said before my preferred method would be something that could be turned up or down to accommodate various skill levels.  Hopefully eventually I'd get to a point where I did it all myself. 

You can practice right now without any additional aids. Why do you need the plane to magically fill with fuel? How does that help? It doesn’t. That’s why this suggestion never makes sense. 

[Exorcet]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Why do you need the plane to magically fill with fuel? How does that help? It doesn’t. That’s why this suggestion never makes sense. 

It helps by making AAR more approachable. More missions can be built around AAR, allowing more practice, allowing for faster learning. It has been explained many times how it is helpful.

[freehand]

So if this feature was implemented would it be allowed on server missions people create ? 

[Exorcet]

Just now, freehand said:

So if this feature was implemented would it be allowed on server missions people create ? 

Depends. I think it would be nice to have a way to force disable it.

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, freehand said:

So if this feature was implemented would it be allowed on server missions people create ? 

It would certainly be a lot more useful and beneficial if it were.

Edited April 12 by Tippis

[freehand]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

Depends. I think it would be nice to have a way to force disable it.

Interesting because when people start to ask for dog fight assistance for ED to implement that could cause all sorts of problems I would imagine.    

[Tippis]

Just now, freehand said:

Interesting because when people start to ask for dog fight assistance for ED to implement that could cause all sorts of problems I would imagine.    

Not really. It can be done already, and it's already not causing any problems.

[freehand]

Just now, Tippis said:

Not really. It can be done already, and it's already not causing any problems.

I am not so sure I would like some help with dogfighting on peoples server missions would give more an even chance.

[PhantomHans]

19 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Depends. I think it would be nice to have a way to force disable it.

I think you'd have to have a way to force disable it for multi-player.  It's not the same as unlimited ammo or invulnerable but, still, level playing field and all.

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, freehand said:

I am not so sure I would like some help with dogfighting on peoples server missions would give more an even chance.

Then you'd have several options, a bit depending on how it's implemented.

You could just not run the mission (or ask the server manager not to). Maybe set up a rotating schedule between symmetric and asymmetric dogfighting setups.

If it's slot-bound — and that would probably be how I'd implement it — you could pick a slot that gave you the advantage or handicap you'd prefer for yourself. Or it could be done on a zone level, so you could choose to stay in (or out of) the zone where the assistance is in effect according to preference. There are some O(N²) scaling issues here that would make you want to keep it a pretty limited affair either way.

Or, ultimately, just pick a different server and/or play with people you know who you can trust to honour a “fair fight” according to how you all agree to define one of those.

 

…but of course, those are mostly hypotheticals. Just because it can be done doesn't mean its done a lot, or even at all, so it's really more of of the opposite problem. You'd have to actively search for, or set up for yourself, a server where such assistance was in effect. It would probably be something you'd build a small community around or at least have as a special-occasion event. This is why it's already not causing any issues even if it's technically possible to do.

Edited April 12 by Tippis

[freehand]

mm interesting so if you allow refuelling assist why not dog fight assist as both are bending the fairness of completing the mission.

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, freehand said:

mm interesting so if you allow refuelling assist why not dog fight assist as both are bending the fairness of completing the mission.

Because the refuelling assist would not have any appreciable impact on fairness in the scenario where I'd leave it on. And that has no relation to whether a dog fight assist would be active or not.

They're two different and separate things that aren't connected in any way. Each would individually be allowed or not on its own merits and according to different needs. There is no “if one, then also by absolute necessity the other (or not)” equivalence between the two.

[freehand]

7 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Because the refuelling assist would not have any appreciable impact on fairness in the scenario where I'd leave it on.

I see so you would leave it on if people did not really need to refuel because if they cannot refuel and need to then it would have an impact obviously. 

[Tippis]

Just now, freehand said:

I see so you would leave it on if people did not really need to refuel because if they cannot refuel and need to then it would have an impact obviously. 

No. I'd allow the refuel assist because I'd want the players in our community who struggle to struggle less, and it wouldn't affect those who don't struggle since they wouldn't have the assist turned on anyway. And when we run dogfight scenarios, there has never been any request for assists. Well… other than “could I at least get to shoot you once before exploding [grumble grumble]?!” and the other guy would let them because we're nice to our community members that way.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

It helps by making AAR more approachable. More missions can be built around AAR, allowing more practice, allowing for faster learning. It has been explained many times how it is helpful.

Seeing your plane magically fill with gas 1,000 yards from the tanker from a giant sized basket or a 1,000’ long probe has no value in training anyone. 

1 hour ago, freehand said:

So if this feature was implemented would it be allowed on server missions people create ? 

People would certainly want it disabled online. That’s another reason there’s no point in having it. 

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Seeing your plane magically fill with gas 1,000 yards from the tanker from a giant sized basket or a 1,000’ long probe has no value in training anyone.

Good thing that no-one has asked for that, then. Well, other than you, just now.

Strawmen are a fallacy for a reason.

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

People would certainly want it disabled online. That’s another reason there’s no point in having it. 

People would also certainly want it enabled online. Just because some would want it off doesn't mean there's no point in having it. After all, if they have it off, then its existence does not affect them so for all intents and purposes, for them, it doesn't exist even though for others it does.

Options are kind of neat that way.

Oh, and remember what you said earlier: multiplayer is a tiny tiny utterly minute minority so their opinion is wholly irrelevant anyway. Right?

Edited April 12 by Tippis

[Exorcet]

38 minutes ago, freehand said:

mm interesting so if you allow refuelling assist why not dog fight assist as both are bending the fairness of completing the mission.

There isn't anything unfair about a refueling assist since refueling isn't a competition. Though if the person running the server wanted only people who could AAR, then the option to disable it would be needed.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Seeing your plane magically fill with gas 1,000 yards from the tanker from a giant sized basket or a 1,000’ long probe has no value in training anyone. 

People would certainly want it disabled online. That’s another reason there’s no point in having it. 

You'd have to get 1000 yards from the tanker, requiring more skill than using unlimited fuel, so it would still help even if you make up an arbitrary number.

And as for disabling it online, there is no real need since it doesn't provide an advantage, but the option should exist to suit the needs of whoever runs the server.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

You'd have to get 1000 yards from the tanker, requiring more skill than using unlimited fuel, so it would still help even if you make up an arbitrary number

You can practice getting closer and closer and steadier without your plane magically filling up. That doesn’t have any training value.

23 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

And as for disabling it online, there is no real need since it doesn't provide an advantage

It would absolutely affect the gameplay since it’s almost akin to giving everyone unlimited fuel. Easy effortless hockey stops at the tanker “fill-up zone” and running around the game on burners. Plus it would act as a noob magnet. It’s a challenge to keep servers free of team killing noobs crashing their planes into each other taking off down taxiways and such. 

[Exorcet]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

You can practice getting closer and closer and steadier without your plane magically filling up. That doesn’t have any training value.

Unless you consider finding the tanker with something like TACAN, and remembering to set your radios properly to communicate, or managing fuel to know when to go to the tanker. There is plenty of training value.

Just now, SharpeXB said:

It would absolutely affect the gameplay since it’s almost akin to giving everyone unlimited fuel.

No it's not.

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

You can practice getting closer and closer and steadier without your plane magically filling up. That doesn’t have any training value.

You have to make up your mind. Either practice has a value or it doesn't. If you can practice and also get fuel at the same time, then that has more value than practising without getting fuel.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

t would absolutely affect the gameplay since it’s almost akin to giving everyone unlimited fuel

No, it's the exact opposite of giving everyone unlimited fuel. It means everyone gets to manage their fuel the same way.

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Easy effortless hockey stops at the tanker “fill-up zone” and running around the game on burners.

That would be a function of having a tanker in the mission — the presence of refuel assist would not be a factor. If it were true for those who had an assist turned on, it would be equally true for those who had it turned off. Of course, in actuality, it's blatantly false for both.

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Plus it would act as a noob magnet.

Good.