Multiseat a/c module policy

[NineLine]

Based on something wasn't done before, you think, that I think something? Sorry I don't follow.

 

 

Ok, how about this, I am of the opinion that I dont think they should give it away. There ya go.

[Tombstone]

Ok, how about this, I am of the opinion that I dont think they should give it away. There ya go.

 

I am OK with that. I'v never stated that they should give something away. It's just matter of how will they get paid for it.

 

EDIT:

 

There are many ways how to charge for multi seat module. Lets assume that pilot and RIO seats are worth $50 of development resources each.

 

1) Single module for $50, two modules per A/C in MP.

SP: $50 per A/C, missing $50.

MP: $100 per A/c, spot on.

 

2) Single module for $100, two modules per A/C in MP.

SP: $100 per A/C, spot on.

MP: $200 per A/c, extra $100.

 

3) Single module for $50, single module per A/C in MP.

SP: $50 per A/C, missing $50.

MP: $50 per A/c, missing $50.

 

4) Single module for $100, single module per A/C in MP.

SP: $100 per A/C, spot on.

MP: $100 per A/c, spot on.

 

6) Two modules for $50 each, two modules per A/C in MP.

SP: $100 per A/C, spot on.

MP: $100 per A/c, spot on.

 

As you can see, allowing two people to play with one license doesn't necessary mean, that you are giving something away fore free.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Tombstone

[skendzie]

I don't understand how this is even a debate. It is simple. You pay for one module, you can play any position of that aircraft.

 

If you don't pay for that module, you can't play any position.

 

That thought process is not complicated and this will be the case without a doubt.

[SkateZilla]

I am OK with that. I'v never stated that they should give something away. It's just matter of how will they get paid for it.

 

EDIT:

 

There are many ways how to charge for multi seat module. Lets assume that pilot and RIO seats are worth $50 of development resources each.

 

1) Single module for $50, two modules per A/C in MP.

SP: $50 per A/C, missing $50.

MP: $100 per A/c, spot on.

 

2) Single module for $100, two modules per A/C in MP.

SP: $100 per A/C, spot on.

MP: $200 per A/c, extra $100.

 

3) Single module for $50, single module per A/C in MP.

SP: $50 per A/C, missing $50.

MP: $50 per A/c, missing $50.

 

4) Single module for $100, single module per A/C in MP.

SP: $100 per A/C, spot on.

MP: $100 per A/c, spot on.

 

6) Two modules for $50 each, two modules per A/C in MP.

SP: $100 per A/C, spot on.

MP: $100 per A/c, spot on.

 

As you can see, allowing two people to play with one license doesn't necessary mean, that you are giving something away fore free.

 

 

I seriously doubt there will be separate licenses for MP and SP.

 

As it stands now, regardless of how many pit positions there are.

 

One Time Purchase License, Allows that user access to the entirety of the module, inside and out.

The Huey and MI-8 have multiple positions, just because it will be populated with Human Users does not mean it should be broken down into multiple licenses required.

Each User will purchase 1 license that allows them to use any part of the module, any seat, Pilot, Co Pilot, Gunner, Door man, Coffee Maker, RIO, WSO, etc).

Each position is vital to operation of the Aircraft as a whole, and it part of the aircraft.

 

if you want to sit in the cockpit, you need to purchase the license to do so.

 

I don't know why there's any wild speculation about a change in how the license will work or expectations that it will change all of a sudden because Multi-Position is going MP as well.

Edited March 16, 2015 by SkateZilla

[RglsPhoto]

One License, one aircraft.

 

the more simple a system is , the more steady it is.

let the DEV focus on something more important, such as bug fixing or more new modules.

[PFunk1606688187]

Ok, how about this, I am of the opinion that I dont think they should give it away. There ya go.

 

Give 'em the backseat of the TF-51 and/or give 'em the back seat of any multi seat aircraft but with no functionality beyond being able to look around.

 

DCS incentive flights are like free marketing at that point and you're still not giving the real goods away. It dovetails perfectly with the effort they went to to make the TF-51. It would be pretty awesome to be able to try and get my skeptical friends to try DCS by giving them a flight in at least the free aircraft.

 

Guys like Leatherneck could even go so far as to disable the scripted RIO to make sure you can't tag along for combat missions. Its just good and original PR in my opinion.

Edited March 16, 2015 by P*Funk

[tsb47]

I don't understand how this is even a debate. It is simple. You pay for one module, you can play any position of that aircraft.

 

If you don't pay for that module, you can't play any position.

 

That thought process is not complicated and this will be the case without a doubt.

 

This is a discussion forum. People come here to debate!

[skendzie]

This is a discussion forum. People come here to debate!

 

And my contribution to the debate is that there's nothing to debate about if we're answering OPs question :D

 

Like I said, it's going to be one module, you can fly any position in that plan. There will be no free seats or double price points. Whether or not it's a good idea is up for debate but no one ED will do this.

[tsb47]

Oh right... cos' you said so...

[Old Spice]

I plan on buying a copy for myself and one for my friend. I plan on playing RIO while letting him pilot. I don't see the issue with buying a copy to play RIO.

[Para_Bellum]

I don't understand how this is even a debate. It is simple. You pay for one module, you can play any position of that aircraft.

 

If you don't pay for that module, you can't play any position.

 

That thought process is not complicated and this will be the case without a doubt.

 

Absolutely agreed.

[Stewart]

Well Rise of Flight you can be anyone's gunner/support you just can not fly the plane. So not sure if they will be going with the same model or not.

[VincentLaw]

Like I said, it's going to be one module, you can fly any position in that plan. There will be no free seats or double price points. Whether or not it's a good idea is up for debate but no one ED will do this.

While I do think it is unlikely ED will make the L-39 back seat free, it is wrong for you to state your assumptions as if they are facts. You are not a representative of ED. Only ED can say what ED is going to do.

[blkspade]

Knowing what we know about the AI, leaves me to wonder if anyone would even be able to enjoy the back seat without a human pilot. The AI has a seemingly perfect level of sensor manipulation, but there is probably some big reason AI aircraft use the SFM. The AI does a number of stupid things as pilot (particular in jet aircraft), I can't foresee wanting to be RIO with an AI driver. That in my mind slightly diminishes the value of the rear seat in the SIM, if you're probably going to always want/need a human pilot. An AI RIO though is likely to be so OP, it might be more reliable not having a person there.

[SkateZilla]

Give 'em the backseat of the TF-51 and/or give 'em the back seat of any multi seat aircraft but with no functionality beyond being able to look around.

 

DCS incentive flights are like free marketing at that point and you're still not giving the real goods away. It dovetails perfectly with the effort they went to to make the TF-51. It would be pretty awesome to be able to try and get my skeptical friends to try DCS by giving them a flight in at least the free aircraft.

 

Guys like Leatherneck could even go so far as to disable the scripted RIO to make sure you can't tag along for combat missions. Its just good and original PR in my opinion.

 

The back of the TF-51 has no panels or controls, so the user would essentially.just strapped in for the ride lol.

[SkateZilla]

Well Rise of Flight you can be anyone's gunner/support you just can not fly the plane. So not sure if they will be going with the same model or not.

 

This isnt RoF.

[Stewart]

This isnt RoF.

 

Your kidding?

[tsb47]

I plan on buying a copy for myself and one for my friend. I plan on playing RIO while letting him pilot. I don't see the issue with buying a copy to play RIO.

 

Can you buy me a a copy too? :smilewink:

 

You can be my wingman!

[Old Spice]

Can you buy me a a copy too? :smilewink:

 

You can be my wingman!

 

Maybe, if you are pretty serious about putting in time on the game.

[tsb47]

Only 270 hours on the Mig21 unfortunately.

[Home Fries]

I posted a similar topic a while back regarding the UH-1, at least for having free door gunners. In the post I gave rationale for the free door gunner position being a marketing tool that was likely to increase module sales. I still agree with this, though I also think that the first pilot in a multi-crewed aircraft should be able to password lock the aircraft and/or be able to kick TKers or other freebie trolls.

 

That said, I don't think this should apply to the multi-crew aircraft where complex system modeling is a factor. Gun positions are fine because they can use existing textures and don't need to incorporate textures used specifically for modules. Anything that requires specific textures or additional cockpit coding should be part of the module to keep the copy protection simpler.

 

I also find the comment about "nobody would pay to be somebody's WSO" insulting. I did this in real life, and I would gladly hop in the backseat of the Tomcat with a competent pilot. I would also have no problem with the backseat of the F-15E, Tornado, or the B/N seat of the A-6. Good aircrew coordination is a reward in itself.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Home Fries

[Frostie]

I find it quite obvious that for the amount of work LN will be putting into the RIO position I would imagine that giving it away for free would be the last thing on any sane business plan.

 

The thought of mp and how selecting seats is unknown for me at least, but with a free plan I can only imagine the crazy seat hopping madness that would occur by planned pilot/Rios teams and non Dcs purchasers as young as 8 messing it up trying to bum a free ride.

[PFunk1606688187]

I think its just typical internet gamer elitism that supposes that nobody wants to be the guy in the backseat. Thats a tense exciting job, particularly in the Tomcat where the front seat guy is basically boned outside of WVR without him.

 

It also allows people who are weak in BFM to still contribute to combat multiplayer with friends who are.

 

All in all the "nobody wants to pay to be the WSO/RIO" is the kind of babble I expect from people with teamwork handicaps.

[VincentLaw]

While lack of WSO/RIO player availability could be a problem, I also expect many pilots will not be willing to fly with a WSO/RIO that they do not know (based on the number of times a lock feature has been requested). back when I used to play Battlefield 2, there were many pilots who would refuse to take off if another player occupied the second seat in their AH-1.

 

Finding a match may be difficult both directions.

[Home Fries]

I think a lock is a reasonable request. Even though I would be willing to fly with somebody I haven't flown with before, I would at least lock the other seat (pilot or WSO) until I knew that they would come up on voice comms to get the password. I've been burned by griefers in the past such that I refuse to fly with somebody who is unwilling to come up on vox.