MP and Mods - Balance vs Realism

[Vekkinho]

I would prefer realism then nothing else, let the skills sort it out in DCS skies. Balance is for arcade players. If I would like balance, I would be playing Hawks, which I don’t...Bring back to life the F15C and all its "inclusive" glory;)

 

Makes sense...however...bear in mind that lots of folks believe there's hordes of MiGs in the FC air and in RL today like there was Luftwaffe over Canal 70 years ago so when they talk of realism they talk of 100 MiGs and Sukhois vs 20 A-10A + 10 F-15C in the perimeter. If we talk LEAVU balance than this equasion makes sense but if we talk LEAVU realism we're talking BS based on wrong assumptions!

 

:smilewink:

 

Remember, there's more airworthy Eagles in Lakenheath than airworthy and combat ready MiGs in entire Russia!

[GGTharos]

... or I can be a skillful player and fly the better aircraft too. Works for me. ;)

 

^^^

then be a skillful player and fly less capable aircraft to fight more capable aircraft ;)

[Frostie]

... or I can be a skillful player and fly the better aircraft too. Works for me. ;)

Pipe dreams.:P

 

--

One of the problems is that there are more people in HL that think realism is boring, they don't know it but they give that impression. :)

Edited December 8, 2009 by Frostie

[RvEYoda]

Remember, there's more airworthy Eagles in Lakenheath...

 

... that have leavu :P

[Kuky]

... or I can be a skillful player and fly the better aircraft too. Works for me. ;)

 

when you have to use scripts and extra software I wouldn't call that skill :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

If that makes you feel better ...

 

when you have to use scripts and extra software I wouldn't call that skill :music_whistling:

[Kuky]

If that makes you feel better ...

 

if that makes YOU better :thumbup:

[A.S]

Pipe dreams.:P

 

--

One of the problems is that there are more people in HL that think realism is boring, they don't know it but they give that impression. :)

 

Hihi....good one....you have two directional options

 

1 is you go full real

2 is you go full Hawx

 

balance? balance what? .......you choose :lol:

[Grimes]

You can't force people to fly or play a game a certain way. You can subtly reward them or nudge the idea that playing a certain way will create better results, but unfortunately that isn't entirely possible or even true. People will naturally gravitate to the most powerful, effective, or favorite aircraft to fly. One could reward realistic flying by a stats engine, yet it wont have much effect those who don't care about stats. Each pilot has their own personal goals, be it to shoot something down, to simply survive, or to do both. You can realistically model the game as much as you want but people will still take off from taxiways, spam missiles, and other "unrealistic" tactics many advocates of online realism preach against.

[Panzertard]

You can't force people to fly or play a game a certain way. You can subtly reward them or nudge the idea that playing a certain way will create better results, but unfortunately that isn't entirely possible or even true. People will naturally gravitate to the most powerful, effective, or favorite aircraft to fly. One could reward realistic flying by a stats engine, yet it wont have much effect those who don't care about stats. Each pilot has their own personal goals, be it to shoot something down, to simply survive, or to do both. You can realistically model the game as much as you want but people will still take off from taxiways, spam missiles, and other "unrealistic" tactics many advocates of online realism preach against.

 

Indeed - Any real combat pilot or force would use the "exploits" available to them to win their battles. It all come's down to the tools being available at any given time.

Thats the reality of warfare. :)

 

What about simulators - simulating reality?

Depending on the audience of the simulator - it will probably have to cater for several target groups / audiences / goals.

Here's a sample of Target-groups, scenarios or goals.

- For Squads; Realistic scenarios / PvP / Coop.

- For public servers; Mass Coop / Mass PvP Red vs Blue / Balanced / Realistic.

- For private servers; Short flights / Training / Fun.

- SP; Leisure flights / 30 mins of "fun" / Campaigns / "Eyecandy"

- Pitbuilders; Realism / Full simulator / It's a hobby.

 

Each of the different target groups silently agree on whats their baseline - their "contract" for flying together.

- SP no problem, he is alone.

- Squads often use the same Mods / Addons.

- Public server - tend to rely on anti-cheat and "Vanilla" Framework.

- Private sessions - tend to use the same Mods / Addons.

 

So to sum it up;

The framework is the simulator and it's current abilities. This is the "Vanilla" Framework that everyone expects to find "online".

The mission designer need to make decisions based on which target group, audience and scenario he's aiming for.

The Mod-makers need to find the target group as well, but equally ensure the mod doesn't come in conflict with other target-groups. :)

 

Anti-cheat mechanisms

- Their current role is to prevent anyone getting a advantage / exploit beyond whats defined in the "Vanilla" Framework + Addons.

Scope most often used; "Public Servers"

 

Mods that seek to extend the "Vanilla" Framework;

- Must ensure that it doesn't break other scope's or target groups expectations of the Framework.

- Must ensure they can be controlled through current anti cheat mechanisms.

 

Because as we know - if someone *can* abuse something - it *will* be abused.

This is true in warfare - as well in virtual environments.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Panzertard

[A.S]

Well Grimes, overall thats right.

 

My personal believes are, as long it goes for simulations, you should try to simulate the most real scenario possible. And if possible THIS in a balanced way.

Arcadian compromises are really not my goals.

 

But all that good and fine..i have bigger concerns.

 

Back in days we had Mods, F14s shooting 54s around, we had tacview life monitoring, we had certain other mods, we had CLISD swapings..i dont know what else...the list goes on and on..and i dont wanna even recall all of it.......sick of it...

 

Then LRM came and caused many discussions, but the good part about LRM was, the HOST could dictate what settings matter. The client was depending on that.

 

With LEAVU everything changes. Not only that only people who own a 2nd monitor or a MFD-device can benefit from it, no, as that wouldn´t be enough, whose who use it can use it undetected, indepentend from serversettings, accessing externaly in the events of the host and generate

a whole new data-network.

Even the new file-check in 2.0 based on md5 or crc will not change it.

A filechecking tool might check the files, but it cant track a external data-net work creating a total new "awacs-like" picture if you will for those who are using and connected with it.

 

I have heart argumentations like

 

08.12.2009 05:25:25 xxxxx> TIR is not a global thing for all to use either ..."
"08.12.2009 05:25:36 xxxxx > would you consider it a cheat to use it against someone who doesn't have one ? :)"
"08.12.2009 05:25:52 xxx > a road is not illegal, driving too fast is"
"08.12.2009 05:25:54 xxx > thats all i saty"
"08.12.2009 05:43:56 xxx > im giving it away for free and you can block the people using it from your server thats your choice"

[color=red]EDIT:[/color]
[color=red]that s not true because leavu does not care about server settings, it shares the network between the clients[/color]

[color=red]it is also wrong, that leavu can only share data, delivered by your wingman´s radar who is using same tool in same time.[/color]

"08.12.2009 05:44:04 xxx> if you find it offensive AS"
"08.12.2009 05:44:10 xxx > for me I like having clickable pit :)"
"08.12.2009 05:44:15 xxx > Thanks"
.
.
.
"08.12.2009 05:44:26 A.S > no offense...valid question about misusage and security"
"08.12.2009 05:44:29 A.S > As YOU KNOW"
"08.12.2009 05:44:31 A.S > by yourself"
"08.12.2009 05:44:33 A.S > ;)"
"08.12.2009 05:44:39 xxx > well AS"
"08.12.2009 05:44:41 xxx > tell that to ED"
"08.12.2009 05:44:50 xxx > I cant do more than allow to block it"
"08.12.2009 05:44:52 A.S > ah..i see..go ED now huh? ok"
"08.12.2009 05:44:52 xxx > its not possible"
"08.12.2009 05:44:57 xxx > mathematically impossible"

or using TS is also an external tool ..etc etc..etc

 

 

but those arguments are not compareable. Using devices is one story, using an application which can read-out and generate a whole new data-structure not meant to be in the core of the game (speaking of "balance") is something totally different. I dont understand why this is so hard to understand. Just because its cool? ..I dont know.

 

It is promoted, that it is used to "produce" datalinks only but the problem is you can use it for way waay waay more.

 

To my question in post

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=42942&page=47

 

So Leavu supports displaying your flight (wingmen) ? Do i understand that right?

 

you get the answer

 

Simulating key commands is not required.
LEAVU has a direct lua input bus through ERI radar :)

LEAVU sends "X,Y\n" to ERI,
and if X and Y are numbers, it is interpreted as 
LoSetCommand(X,Y)

Havent tested it yet though. Could be interesting!

 

I give you one analogy what might help understand.

 

Lets assume i give you a program, what allows you to fly with "easy radar" despite server settings, and it would allow you full picture of everything airborne including the missiles, would you use it?

Honestly would you use it?

Lets assume this program is called LEAWOW and its setted in such a way, that you only have datalink, in case of you dont change the settings of course?

So would you change and use it? or are you just a good guy sharing a new program like i did it in this hypothetical example?

 

To make it even worse, this developement comes from DevTeam supporters as an 3rd party application, and i really do wonder why there is no conflict of interest between DEV core and DEV supporters regarding the community feedbacks and the risk this provides.

 

 

I hope the moderators dont get angry about this post seeing it as offtopic or such, but soo many voices are expressed by many meanwhile (as you can see in other posts too) but the main question is either ignored or unclear distracted.

Sorry to say that...for me this is a clear (even made in good will) cheating-application. If you want to call it cheat or MOD....i dont know..up to everyone himself.

And if you ask about the risks, the answer i got was ..."i use what i can, if it is not save, go ED and tell them to block it" ..kinda..

 

Well...i just did :) i hope.

[Kuky]

^^^

well...exactly...

 

Yes we want realism but this is a sim after all and the majority of things that matter most in real life can't be put into a sim (you don't wanna die and you fly and fight the way you are trained, not trying to find any kind of tricks, with exception of outsmarting the enemy tactically)

 

The aircraft realism should be on equal standard level... and I too wonder why developer is not concenrned with 3rd party application that can have such negative impact on it's product... just my humble opinion/logic

Edited December 8, 2009 by Kuky

[A.S]

One question to add:

 

Can filecheck in 2.0 can be used to disable export.luas in clients (EnableExportScript = false/true) in order to block clients from sharing lua-files and in order to prevent leavu working for any clients joining to the host? Yes or No?

 

If this is a solid solution, then ok. If not, still problem.

Edited December 8, 2009 by A.S

[Panzertard]

One question to add:

 

Can filecheck in 2.0 can be used to disable export.luas in clients (EnableExportScript = false/true) in order to block clients from sharing lua-files and in order to prevent leavu working for any clients joining to the host? Yes or No?

 

If this is a solid solution, then ok. If not, still problem.

 

That seems to be the idea for now regarding LEAVU, yes.

Export.LUA on client != Export.LUA on server

Client will be disconnected.

[Grimes]

The issue revolving around this now is simply the communication of the failed to connect message which simply states "Integrity check failed."

It doesn't say which file failed the test, nor whereabouts the failure occurred. Furthermore neither the server nor the client can have any sort of mod that changes the export.lua. It doesn't matter if the mod is 100% legit or a complete hack, you won't be allowed to connect.

[Case]

It doesn't say which file failed the test, nor whereabouts the failure occurred.

It will probably mean that multiplayer servers will either have to run the default version of the files or publish them somewhere so the clients can download the server versions.

[Panzertard]

It will probably mean that multiplayer servers will either have to run the default version of the files or publish them somewhere so the clients can download the server versions.

There's no download of "server/LUA/addon modules" AFAIK.

The only thing you download is the MIZ.

[Kuky]

I tried to test this integrity checking and seems it does work well... I went and changed just one digit in Config/Weapons/Guns.lua file and I would not be able to connect to a server... even by just changing number of rounds from default 260 to 290 or 230, I would still not be able to connect... the error message is just "integrity check failed" and like Grimes said, it does not say where or what failed to check... would be good to know where integrity check failed (what file at least) but I'm happy anyway... finally we can force default files on every client :)

[Case]

There's no download of "server/LUA/addon modules" AFAIK.

The only thing you download is the MIZ.

I meant that clients need to download it from the forums associated with the server. If it turns out that different servers use different setups it may mean that clients will have to move around files to be able to connect to a server.

[RvEYoda]

I tried to test this integrity checking and seems it does work well... I went and changed just one digit in Config/Weapons/Guns.lua file and I would not be able to connect to a server... even by just changing number of rounds from default 260 to 290 or 230, I would still not be able to connect... the error message is just "integrity check failed" and like Grimes said, it does not say where or what failed to check... would be good to know where integrity check failed (what file at least) but I'm happy anyway... finally we can force default files on every client :)

 

Careful what files are forced though, many may differ from english to ru version

[Vekkinho]

... that have leavu :P

 

At least ;)

[Breakshot]

Agreed to what 3sqn guys said above... most likely 51st Dedi will also run DEFAULT settings, and we will set stringent file checks to ensure this...

 

One question though to ED, will the integrity check be able to see specific lines in files? Such as for example LOD detail in graphics.cfg... because as it stands now, that value can give very unrealistic view ranges, and obviously u cant put an integrity check on graphics.cfg as everyone has different settings/rigs... Or best would be to simply limit the LOD to a maximum of 1.5 no matter what you write in graphics.cfg... that way everyone can only have the maximum potential LOD of default "High" settings...

[Kuky]

@Breakshot... this LOD value in Graphics.cfg doesn't actually do anything other then have higher level of detail in 3D model at further distance, this actually reduces visibility of aircraft at distance... the very rudimentary LOD is easier to see, which is what's seen at further out as dots.

 

I use LOD of 3 because when I am at bases the shelters have nice detail and I don't see the change to lower level LOD, but this does impact performance.

 

I think changing textures etc is not too bad, but changing performance and cofig data in these LUA files is what's needed... and of course Export.lua but need to wait till FC 2.0 comes out to see how all this fits in.

[A.S]

everything "changed" by normal settings options shouldnt be listened as "check-files" such as grahics.cfg .....makes sense...

it depends how deep we can use that tool once out...

but once smart setted up, i can imagine a good start for finally waterproof STANDART servers and gameplay.

 

finally...

 

There used to be a program based on same principle (file-check) in Falcon.

Additionally this tool could block certain keystrokes or function which unfortunatly have been used in exploited manner. Furthermore you had to register with that ACP (anti-cheat-program) in a server (license)...basically meaning...once busted...you were really done :)

I hear creditable voices telling me that this changed the flightcharacteristics of so many.

 

Im happy, lockon does have something now......im looking all the time for solutions to make a 3rd party ACP which can be configured and used for various sims.....partially im successfull but alot work...

[104th_Crunch]

Graphics.cfg will be a tough one as it needs to be locked IMO. There are other settings besides LOD that can create a visual advantage that need to be locked. I wonder how a locked graphics.cfg file would work. Would the client have to have all the same settings and the exact file as the server? It would be pretty hard to get clients to match the servers version of the file.

 

Case, yes a down-loadable "Mod Pack" from the server is a good idea. Perhaps different servers can standardize on one. We don't want to lose our 3GO Flanker, Walmis F-15 and Simmod A-10! :) you could mention this in the server debrief for the mission etc.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Crunch