Modding or patching

I have modified missiles_data.lua to avoid them firing too soon.

 

I have modified missiles_data.lua to avoid that, too.

This is exactly why I would request from ED to lock the whole game and disable all modding and changing values by users

Well, that depends. If someone wants to change something to improve their enjoyment of the product - more power to them and no harm done. However, there is obvious impacts for multiplayer, wherefore some hash check or similar measure would be nice so that the server can check for changed files AND the clients can see which files the server has changed.

Much better solution than just locking it all up, imo.

Well I don't agree, I would like it all locked and not modifiable at all... apart from textures nothing should be edited by user(s) and reason more is if ED get all the proper info then why should anyone start modifying things on their own... if someone things something is different from DCS series produced by ED then they should let them know so we can ALL have the same benefit with patch(es)

Integrity check has been implemented in 1.0.1 patch, server can specify which files should be compared.

Ehm, but as is now we all can benefit, but no-one is forced to if they don't agree with that change. For example, engagement ranges of SAMs do have issues. It is possible to trick SAM sites to launch where they simply cannot hit, and (if I have understood things correctly) there are cases where you get a better SAM site through lowering their skill - simply because the lower skill site will be worse at detecting and thereby not launch outside their missiles window, which the higher skill sites will in some cases do because they are better at detection.

ED cannot satisfy the individual tastes of every single individual that buys their product. But through supplying provisions for modificiations like that, everyone can satisfy themselves. (Wow... That sounded dirty.)

But the whole notion of "we can ALL have the same benefit with patch(es)" is just strange. What is the difference in gaining benefit through applying a patch instead of a modification for me as a user? Nothing, except with the modification I get the choice.

What is the specific harm in allowing people to choose?

I can see only one - those cases where a modification might give unwarranted advantages in multiplayer. Well, in this case it would be the server that runs it anyhow - my client doesn't get to decide when those SAMsites are going to launch. And in the cases where undue advantage can be gained (like, f.ex, modifying models of aircraft and missiles to make them easier to spot) the problem can be solved through just letting the server check whether the clients have things correctly set up, or allow servers administrators to tell their server to give clients it's copies of files and mandate that those copies be used.)

(And an administrative note: if we go on with the discussion I'll have to split it to it's own thread, which I don't mind doing, but just so you're forewarned if you go back here and it's gone. :P )

EDIT: Cheers dragony, I've never run a DCS server so I was unsure of whether that was implemented. Seems ED is way ahead of me. Which reinforces the question of "what's the harm" even more. Since the multiplayer dangers are negligible it only ends up being a case of you wanting to stop people from having a choice in how their game behaves? Or is there another aspect to it that I've so far overlooked?

The difference is patch puts us all on the same page, individual changes makes all on different page... and who knows what other things people can and have come up with

Yes, but why would we want to be on the same page? How your game behaves when you're playing singleplayer has no impact on me, and vice versa. And for multiplayer there are already systems in place that server administrators can use to guard against unwanted modifications. I still don't see where the problem is.

That's true, singleplayer is different from multiplayer and I too don't see any issues with people flying F-22's if they chose to make a mod for it, but there is very thin line that's very easily crossed when modified files are used online, and with ease some lua files can be changed there is all logic point out that such things are being done.

Sure we know some things that people do but I am very sure there are more things changed than we don't know. Not all things that are changed by someone are posted and even if they were not all will read all of the posts. This is not good at all in my eyes as at least for me this modding is killing my passion for flying online. When people mod on their own there is nothing telling me that the game I know will play the same as I can never know if and what others have changed on their end.

When people mod on their own there is nothing telling me that the game I know will play the same like this as I can never know if and what others have changed on their end.

Yes there is, if the server is set up properly, then ppl with unwanted mods can not join. No offense meant, but it seems to me that you have not grasped the concept of integrity checks.

Alright, but will the server check all of the lua files for integrity as there are like hundreds of them, also does it check LOM files as they can be modified too. At first I thought mods are nice but people are changing game performance now and in my opinion it's gone too far

This is exactly why I would request from ED to lock the whole game and disable all modding and changing values by users

Dude, that is only for singleplayer and you can use it if you want and skip it if you don't like it. :doh:

It is not a cheat; It is opposite of cheat. This mod is to avoid cheats/exploits.

not the right way to do it though. So if I install the game and there are 30 people making all kinds of changes I need to get them all and install and need to continuously keep looking and keeping track of all the mods people make so I am on more realistic level... and I would "have to" get them all (and so would everyone else) if we are all to be on the same, more realistic level... then if I need to reinstall the game I need to go through the same thing again... not very good at all.

And how about you changing how hard or easy is to kill a tank with cannon... how about if now everyone starts changing their files like that to what they think is more realistic or more enjoyable level? How does that avoid cheats and exploits?

And lets not forget right now DCS only has a Ka-50 and most of online flying is COOP type. What's gonna happen when say DCS Su-27 comes out and another fighter etc and people fly online and game is still left with options to modify so many files... how does that fit into more secure gaming online in terms of avoiding and eliminating cheating and exploiting? I don't see any logic in that unless there is a file on server that is set to check all files that could be modified for consistency but that would then defeat purpose of leaving them open to change. If all files that could be changed would need to be checked then it's better to have them locked for any changes.

And I don't see how an artist (in this case ED team) would want their product (in some way you could call it work of art) being modded by many and in so many ways... it just beats me

I see that you are worried with multiplayer, like most of us.

My mods are supposed to be used for singleplayer only.

If someone wants to cheat, server does the integrity check.

Why did ED enable us to mod this game? Because simulation games (like Silent hunter - submarine sim, for example) are played by many sim lovers who like attention to details and spend more time on modding than on playing that game.

Players who do not like slow, simulation paced games, do not usually like/buy these games.

By enabling modding of sim games, developers extend life of great sim games (I am pretty sure Silent hunter 3 or Lock on games would not be played so much, even years after they have been released, if there was no modding comunity).

A word and two digits: Falcon 4.0

A word and two digits: Falcon 4.0

Very difficult to be stable for online play.

Only after Allied Force, witch btw didn't allow modding, the simulator could be played online and it's now the option of choice for most squads. :music_whistling:

IMO, moding is a good thing when within limits.

I totally understand Kuky but I'm not at all against modding. I have many great little mods. The discussion about cheating in Lock On forum looks a little scary when reading some posts but others say that it's just the people being paranoid and ignorant. I can't take sides in that subject because I've never played Lock On online.

However, IL-2 can be heavily modded these days and that is the only reason I'm still playing 4.08 version. Only once I've seen a cheater and the admins got rid of him fast. Same goes for all the games I've ever played.

Those mods made by Goldfinger are good ones in my opinion. Although they might seem like "I'll make this a little more comfortable/fun to play" mods, they do fix some real issues. Little issues that should have been fixed by ED. I understand that ED is a relatively small company and have to concentrate on the real issues of improving the sim. And by no means do I think they are serious issues that need a fix ASAP but just real little problems that have gone unnoticed in the huge world of DCS.

Since all of ED developers are busy with getting actual sim made, with even 3rd party developers working for them, maybe they should get some trusted enthusiast(s) from the community to find and fix such issues like Goldfinger did. For free! Before the fixes would be implemented in the next patch/module, ED would check them and hear the report from the person(s). If even some "random" guy (no offence Goldfinger ;)) can fix them, it can't be too big of a deal.

So if I install the game and there are 30 people making all kinds of changes I need to get them all and install and need to continuously keep looking and keeping track of all the mods people make so I am on more realistic level...

What you are talking about is, interestingly enough, not some hypothetical disastrous future scenario. What you are horroring about is the situation we have today - that is, people realized that this would be a pita, so they wrote a few nice applications that keeps track for you.

then if I need to reinstall the game I need to go through the same thing again...

Yes, the horror of first doublicklicking an icon, singleclicking twice, and then just go through the list of mods you have archived on your machine and click "apply". Even for 30 mods it would take less time than installing DCS.

Seriously, I am getting the impression that you haven't run a server - yet you still feel qualified to comment on what server administrators are able to do or not do. (Btw, the automation tools server admins use are... you guessed it - mods.) And it seems to be a similar case with mods - you are either grossly exhaggerating or you haven't used ModMan yourself.

And how about you changing how hard or easy is to kill a tank with cannon... how about if now everyone starts changing their files like that to what they think is more realistic or more enjoyable level? How does that avoid cheats and exploits?

What he changed, afaik, had the goal of making AI A10's able to use their cannon against tanks in a realistic fasion with realistic burst length.

And how it avoids cheats and exploits - through the server not allowing clients with modified files. How many times does that have to be repeated? Do you even read what people write? (You didn't read my warning in my post that I would have to split the thread off.)

And I don't see how an artist (in this case ED team) would want their product (in some way you could call it work of art) being modded by many and in so many ways... it just beats me

And I can see it. Check out the credit list in your manual. A lot of the models used in the stock game are mods that ED liked and integrated. That is the big irony here - they're already doing what you are asking for, when they deem it worth their effort.

You are basically asking them to dedicate what would be at minimum one fulltime employee to just look at what changes people want, try to collate them into a majority opinion, decide who are going to be severely disappointed by changing their singleplyer irreversibly (becuse they were in a minority)... Or how about a case where there is no majority opinion? Group A(40%) wants change X, group B(30%) wants change Y, group C(30%) want change Z. Do they decide to satisfy group A (a minority of their customers) and piss off the majority? Basically, you are asking for ED to commit suicide.

What you are talking about is first of all very expensive, and it's a running cost that doesn't bring about new revenue. ED is not a charity. Remember, after all other costs and overhead, the money you paid for the game probably paid for one man for one hour. That's it.

I don't see any logic in that unless there is a file on server that is set to check all files that could be modified for consistency but that would then defeat purpose of leaving them open to change.

No it would not.

Is multiplayer the only acceptable way to play DCS? If yes, see previously made arguments about the current security system being dynamic. Server admins can choose which files they care if people change.

If it is not the only acceptable way to play DCS, then you have just defeated your own argument.

---

The discussion about cheating in Lock On forum looks a little scary when reading some posts but others say that it's just the people being paranoid and ignorant.

The point is that the type of cheats we're talking about would be impossible. You CANNOT just make a mod that gives you 3 billion flares and three quadrillion hitpoints, because the security features introduced into DCS with 1.0.1 would say a naughty word to your packets and tell them to please bugger off.

That's the irony of this - Kuky is repeatedly raising the alarm for the need of a system that is already there. And the need for housekeeping applications that already exist. And refuses to acknowledge the singleplayer aspect. I mean, if this huge big problem he's talking about was real, I would expect to see this happening RIGHT NOW! But where is the rampant panic about incomaptible clients due to massive modding?

That's how I understood it. :)

A quick question. I haven't played BS online so this is unclear to me. If I try to join a server with mr. Goldfingers mods, would I get kicked/banned or wouldn't they just work? If kick/ban will happen, does the server/sim tell you which mods/files are causing it?

That was an awful lot of slashes.

I'm not sure what exactly happens if you use mods that get rejected by the server, since although I love my mod collection I don't have anything that would be reasonably expected to cause an issue.

In the case of these changes to AI behaviour, my expectation would be not so much that they wouldn't "work" per se, but rather that they would have been completely irrelevant from the get-go. It's the server that runs the AI, after all. A mod that changes your amount of flares (unless that's a hard-coded component, I haven't checked) could be a different matter, as would mods that change the parameters of your flight model but, again, I don't know if that's even possible. Certainly I've not seen any mod presented that would do that, which would lead me to believe that it is indeed hard-coded.

So in that sense we already have what Kuky wanted - the big cheat avenues are closed already, partially by original design and partially through the measures introduced in 1.0.1.

I do not see reason to be worried about multiplayer cheating just because you can make the AI better in singleplayer. :)

I hope you're right EtherealN

I do too. :P

But seriously, if the problem arises (say, everyone was just too busy cheating in LockOn and "moves over"), the systems are already in place to pretty much enforce a completely "clean" DCS install (as far as I've understood). So if that happens we'll just have to see if the server administrators come forward and say they need more tools.

Ok, sounds good. Thanks!

So I didn't break "the System"? Good.

:lol: