Stop passwording every DCSW server

[Boberro]

 

 

As someone who runs one of these servers and has a bad habit of throwing the same old missions up there, I understand your point. Honestly the only defense for it is that we sadly can't run just any mission on an open server. Many of the missions out there simply won't work in a public server, and the missions that do work are designed with public server use in mind from the beginning. Operation Hacienda for example is a great co-op mission that any small group of players should try, but it doesn't exactly work on a public server for a multitude of reasons.

Well from what I see most servers put old same missions. Some of them are good - example 104th and few of STP. But most servers (private or public) have habit to use STP missions which are nice but they've been used for a long time. People even know what, where and how many enemy units will be deployed in third enemy convoy after destryoing second bunker in the first phase :)

 

There is also pointless tu put only A-10C, or Ka-50 in missions. I've seen a lot of them where you could fly only either GheyTen or Ka-50 together.

 

CA in missions is also a problem. Some of them have just great potential to be used with. But they aren't, even if do sometimes I see player can drive ZSU-23-2 on Ural truck only... against A-10s.

Really entertaining.

 

In one mission I was in Tunguska where 4 GheyTen was about to take over my airport. I managed to kill 2 of A-10s and hide quickly behind the building. Then killed 3rd A-10 and been killed by other which I didn't see.

It was great fun, experience. A-10C pilots learned they can't beat so easily human controlled SAM, I learned new hiding tactic and how to kill Mavericks in flight :)

 

But I rarely saw such missions over there. I don't see the potential of CA is being used very well.

 

Perhaps with CA in FC3 will be better :)

 

Incorrect.

OK, you are impressed :D

[JABO2009]

 

Our community is small .., new players are put off by seeing lots of empty but passworded servers in the master server list. These new players may have all sorts of interests, and it will take them some time to figure out what it is they want from the multiplayer environment. That process of figuring out largely depends on the interaction with other players, players of whom some will belong to squadrons that do things their way. I think the great benefit of open servers, be it A-10C only, Black Shark only, FC3 only or mixes of the different DCS titles, is that new players can try them out and figure out what they want. How else are they going to figure out that they want to do things the way your squad does?

 

I think closing servers to keep new players out is wrong for the reasons I outlined in this post and the post before. Educate new players instead.

 

I think closing servers to force people on comms is dubious; I'd prefer to ask them to join comms when they join the server and if they don't join comms, ask them to leave (or kick them).

 

I think closing servers to fly with your friends is fine, but please, take it offline or open them up once you and your friends are done playing. Why keep an empty server passworded?

 

:thumbup:

 

It couldnt be said any better.

[112th_Rossi]

Convenience I suppose...

 

I agree though, a lot more has to be done to encourage new players into the multiplayer community.

 

Hate to say it, some of this community does come across as elitist in terms of accepting new players who, initially, don't know what they are doing. It took me quite a few attempts to find a flying community that accepts players (skilled or otherwise) who just want to have fun.

 

Personally I find it a great priviledge to help new players get to grips with the game.

[Steel Jaw]

I think closing servers to force people on comms is dubious; I'd prefer to ask them to join comms when they join the server and if they don't join comms, ask them to leave (or kick them).

 

Labor intensive.

[GGTharos]

Here is my issue with mixing FC/DSC:

 

I spend 5-15 minutes getting my DCS Hawg prepped and off the ground, I then soon after get shot sown by a rinse-and-repeat FC Flanker flier who was airborne in 2 minutes and prolly couldnt care less therefroe if he gets shot down as he knows he will back up with minimum fuss. The stakes are too far out of whack. Also, With the DCS jet, my head is down alot while there is virtually no reason for the FC flier's to be so, he can focus on shooting things down. Workload is disproportinate.

 

 

You are focusing on 'the wrong part of town' here. I guarantee you that a flanker pilot wouldn't think twice about shooting your hog down regardless of how long it would take him to get off the ground. Would you seriously find getting shot down less annoying because it took him 5-15 min to start up? No, you wouldn't - in fact, to you it wouldn't even make a difference because you don't see it.

 

The situation you describe is something else, and that has to do with mission design. Of course any well designed mission can still suffer from a poor mind-set, but if your bases aren't just 50nm apart, you can hide and get to target without being spotted with some success while the 'impatient respawners' look for something they can actually attack. But the same mindset happens to occur for A-10C pilots also.

 

Finally, you should be able to have the Hog in the air in 2-3 min ... get your startup going, taxi out on one engine (by the time you reach the runway #2 will be ready for you - just don't forget to activate SAS, TO trim and anti-skid before you taxi), do alignment in-flight. Congratulations, you have just performed a scramble :)

[GGTharos]

I think a reasonable solution to all this would be locked slots. You can only get into them if you know the password, for example, or if you are on a white-list of UCIDs.

 

This way a squadron can worry less when keeping their server open: They can base their own operations in some far-away airport, if the terrain permits, while non-affiliated players fly from different airfields, effectively generating a 'play pen' for them.

 

I think closing servers to keep new players out is wrong for the reasons I outlined in this post and the post before. Educate new players instead.

[112th_Rossi]

I think a reasonable solution to all this would be locked slots. You can only get into them if you know the password, for example, or if you are on a white-list of UCIDs.

 

This way a squadron can worry less when keeping their server open: They can base their own operations in some far-away airport, if the terrain permits, while non-affiliated players fly from different airfields, effectively generating a 'play pen' for them.

 

I love that idea!

[Case]

I think a reasonable solution to all this would be locked slots. You can only get into them if you know the password, for example, or if you are on a white-list of UCIDs.

 

Excellent idea! I've not had much time to play with DCSW, but does such a feature already exist in the ME?

[GGTharos]

No, it doesn't. I will put it in as a feature internally, but I would expect it to be low priority since an interface for it would have to be developed.

 

Edit: Though I wonder if it could be accomplished as an addition to servman and/or mission scripting. It might be a bit more of a pain in the butt, but it would still work.

[NineLine]

Sounds like something we would have to wait for a dedicated server tool to get.

[SNAFU]

OT:

 

You could force certain planes to wait x minutes after spawning (other wise engine breaks or explodes or whatever) and let certain parameters only be activated by these certain planes. Would be a simple solution to keep the player-in-a-hurry off certain assets.

 

Squad flights usually take long to get started anyway, due to briefing and other flight internal preperations. Well, just an idea for a workaround...

 

BTW: Case, did your server switch to DCSW now that FC3 is available? Would be a reason to go online with DCS/FC3 again... :joystick:

[159th_Viper]

 

I think closing servers to fly with your friends is fine, but please, take it offline or open them up once you and your friends are done playing. Why keep an empty server passworded?

 

This!

[BRooDJeRo]

The same reason why my dad's Mercedes has a spot in the garage and my moms car is under the leaking tree.

 

Because he can....

[104th_Crunch]

So you're seriously trying to tell me that the FC3 style push a button and go fly is just as hard has having to know all your aircraft's systems...

 

In a way this point is moot I think. All fighters are at FC level anyway. If it is a DCS A-10C against a FC F-15, what does it matter? Now, when there is a DCS F-15 vs a FC F-15, there may be an issue. Even then, I would more than welcome the chance to be in my DCS F-15 and shoot down a FC F-15!!

[Eddie]

As things appear, for now at least, to have returned to a more civilized and intelligent discussion I'll take the time to respond with my thoughts.

 

How else are they going to figure out that they want to do things the way your squad does?

 

Well, I can only use how things go in the 476th as it's the only hard data I have. But they seem to find us just fine without any public servers, and they know exactly what we're about when they do arrive. And we've had applicant of all "skill" and experience levels, from decade plus veterans to newbies just starting out with their first ever sim. The queue of applicants waiting for a free spot in the training process speaks for itself in my opinion.

 

And again, don't forget that the flight sim community did just fine for quite a long time without any kind of public servers, even before the likes of Jane's Combat Net and then Hyperlobby. Hell, all those years ago I found my first Squadron having never even owned a PC before within 4 days when not even Google was there to help.

 

I think you underestimate people a bit.

 

I think closing servers to keep new players out is wrong for the reasons I outlined in this post and the post before. Educate new players instead.

 

We may have to agree to disagree, but I really don't see the two as in any way exclusive. In fact the "education" people receive on private servers (within structured squadrons/wings/groups espeically) is vastly superior to that received on public servers. Although that is not to suggest that help received on public servers is not valuable.

 

I think closing servers to force people on comms is dubious; I'd prefer to ask them to join comms when they join the server and if they don't join comms, ask them to leave (or kick them).

 

There is much, much, much more to it than forcing people to be on comms. For the organised groups out there at least.

 

I think closing servers to fly with your friends is fine, but please, take it offline or open them up once you and your friends are done playing. Why keep an empty server passworded?

 

Why? Well again I can only give and answer with any certainly for the 476th. Because our server(s) are provided by our members, for our members. So that they can join and fly at any time in a structured environment governed by a highly structured set of procedures and supported by very detailed and in depth training. It's not like it's hard for people to fly with us, all they have to do is apply (we don't reject anyone unless they give us a reason to) and successfully complete the established training.

 

And we have one of the most stringent application and training processes out there, most organisations are much more relaxed, some require nothing more than registering on their forums and asking to join in. Honestly, I just don't see where the difficultly lies. Compared to when I started flying online, it's almost too easy to get involved today.

[Total]

When my friends and I fly, it's always in a passworded server.

 

The reason is simple:

 

Some random yahoo coming in and playing the mission "their way" ruins it for everyone else in the server.

 

Without VOIP, there's no way to communicate except via typing and that's not always feasible when employing an aircraft in a combat environment.

 

Now, with Combined Arms, it's even more of a hassle. Pubbers join, start taking control of vehicles, and eventually degenerating into vehicle races or complete disregard for the mission objectives.

 

There's also the ones who decide to leave their designated mission area to go on the CAS aircraft hunt so they can fuel their ego and stats.

 

Password stays when we play.

[Grimes]

I think a reasonable solution to all this would be locked slots. You can only get into them if you know the password, for example, or if you are on a white-list of UCIDs.

 

This way a squadron can worry less when keeping their server open: They can base their own operations in some far-away airport, if the terrain permits, while non-affiliated players fly from different airfields, effectively generating a 'play pen' for them.

 

Edit: Though I wonder if it could be accomplished as an addition to servman and/or mission scripting. It might be a bit more of a pain in the butt, but it would still work.

 

Its technically possible with the SSE combined with an external mod like slmod. However I am not sure its worth the effort to implement at this point in time. Partly because its more interesting to develop something like an IADS script. Not actually working on this yet. ^_^ But mostly because its an overly complex solution to a rather simple problem. Of the 36 servers online only 15 are passworded, so the issue of passworded servers vs public servers has pretty much evened out. Granted that is the current status as of a few minutes ago, and it might not be the same situation 1 day from now, or 1 month, or a year. Its a moot point to convince each other that one way of hosting a server is better than another. As long as the open/closed ratio is mostly equal, I don't think there is as much of a problem. Could the open servers host different missions? Certainly, but that is up to users to build/suggest missions for the server providers to host.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Grimes

[S77th-konkussion]

Few- if any- hosts are going to change the way they prefer to do things regardless of whatever neato hack comes down the pipeline. Respect to those who have the smarts to create them- but this is simply not anything close to being a crisis. (except in the minds of a very very few)

 

Servers are personal and private property. If the owner requires your presence on comms to enter- that's the deal.

 

The idea that this simple and very beneficial requirement is everything from inconvenient all the way to a violation of human rights is.... heh..:doh:

[Frostie]

Servers are personal and private property. If the owner requires your presence on comms to enter- that's the deal.

 

The idea that this simple and very beneficial requirement is everything from inconvenient all the way to a violation of human rights is.... heh..:doh:

I haven't actually read one post here where that is a problem. The point is how to make the community closer, highlighting what are the pros and cons of passwording and not passwording a server.

[Heli Shed]

VFS choice as to whether a server is locked or not and for specific reasons. It is no ones place to question that, unless it is you that pays for extra licences and hardware and connectivity.

[RIPTIDE]

I think it's a great idea that you guys keep your servers closed. It means for those that don't, they'll get more throughput, and by direct extension get to suss out who's the hottest new kids on the block for squadron participation/recruiting. So yeah. Lock them all up, boys. :thumbup:

[Steel Jaw]

I think it's a great idea that you guys keep your servers closed. It means for those that don't, they'll get more throughput, and by direct extension get to suss out who's the hottest new kids on the block for squadron participation/recruiting. So yeah. Lock them all up, boys. :thumbup:

 

LOL... you miss the point: the VFWs that have their servers locked usually and generally have recruits coming to them/us regardless. Quite frankly, the "hottest" ones look for the high quality VFWs on their own.

[Snoopy]

I think it's a great idea that you guys keep your servers closed. It means for those that don't, they'll get more throughput, and by direct extension get to suss out who's the hottest new kids on the block for squadron participation/recruiting. So yeah. Lock them all up, boys. :thumbup:

 

LOL... you miss the point: the VFWs that have their servers locked usually and generally have recruits coming to them/us regardless. Quite frankly, the "hottest" ones look for the high quality VFWs on their own.

 

Exactly...the 476th runs a locked server and I promise you we're not hurting for recruits...as a matter of fact we have people waiting patiently on training slots to open...

[GGTharos]

I don't see the point of these arguments. Squads running closed servers have reasons to do so, and squads running open ones also have reasons to do so.

 

One side wants to play is a structured environment, the other wants to invite as many people as possible to play on their server and make things open and accessible to players new and old alike.

 

What both sides forget is that these threads are started not by squads accusing squads of not being 1337 enough, or open enough, but rather frustrated players who can't seem to find a populated open server to join. Sometimes their frustration is warranted, sometimes not.

 

Now, having looked at the server list a few times, what I see to me indicates not so much a problem with a lack of open servers, as a lack of population. How do you grow the MP community? Does the MP community advertise outside of itself? The number of SP players is quite large - how do you convert them to online play? How do you reach them to try, just to begin with?

Edited November 16, 2012 by GGTharos

[Snoopy]

Now, having looked at the server list a few times, what I see to me indicates not so much a problem with a lack of open servers, as a lack of population. How do you grow the MP community? Does the MP community advertise outside of itself? The number of SP players is quite large - how do you convert them to online play? How do you reach them to try, just to begin with?

 

Now that's a good question! :thumbup:

 

But on the subject of locked servers...I've begun the countdown until the next thread on this topic is started...:D