WW2 Assets on KOREA! 1952: Yay or Nay?

[SeaQuark]

Hi all, I run the KOREA! 1952 Sabre vs MiG-15 server.

 

As I continue to work on the mission, I have a decision to make: whether or not to stick with the standard Caucasus assets, or include the WW2 assets. Advantages / Disadvantages of this are listed below, but in making a choice, your feedback will be helpful.

 

Note, this poll is not a referendum on the Asset Pack in general-- it is intended only for those that already play on the server, or are interested in doing so. If you never fly the F-86 / MiG-15 or other old warbirds online, please do not respond to this poll.

 

Advantages of adding the Asset Pack:

 

• B-17s with working gunners instead of the placeholder C-130s. Hunting bombers would be a much more challenging & fun task for MiG players.
  
• Flak at the airfields / ground targets.
  
• Ground units much closer to period-appropriate for 1950s.
  
• More immersive in general.
  

 

Disadvantages:

 

• Those who haven't purchased the Asset Pack will be unable to join the server.
  

[==Wiggy==]

If you add it, I will buy it. That is the only reason I would buy it, is to support your server's mission and movement to the most realistic Korean way emulation as we can get!

[Alpenwolf]

Definitely a great idea for exactly the reasons you've mentioned above! However, not sure how popular is the WWll arena in DCS. I guess not that much, so you might end up having only a few players flying on your server.

Some long time ago I used to fly your missions quite often. These days maybe once a week (busy with my own server and other DCS projects). Therefore I'm not going to cast a vote and "ruin" it for others.

Good luck!

[legearre]

[metzger]

Definitely YES!

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

[Kayos]

I think that would be great. I vote YES !

[39th_Bloke]

While I own the asset pack, I would disagree to its use on the server, I dislike the idea of even a small number of players being excluded from the server for relatively little gain.

 

Ground units are so rarely seen up close I don't see it as a benifit to include them and the WW2 AI AAA units are known to be somewhat temperamental, especially on the allied side.

 

The B-17s would be the only considerable bonus but I personally don't consider it worth the switch, bomber missions are not very common on the sever.

[carss]

I wouldn't be for this, I really like the Korean war server and we have limited players as is. With the asset pack the number of players would drop even further. I think the only WW2 asset we may need would be a B-29 (when it gets added to game) and that not be a part of the WW2 asset since it was used well into the cold war as well

[Hunter Joker]

, immersion is a great part of the fun...

 

Inviato dal mio BLA-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

[Mortisrose]

Just an idea, maybe rotate two missions one with WWII assets and one without.

[Skidjit]

Just an idea, maybe rotate two missions one with WWII assets and one without.

 

If this is possible, I agree with this.

[mcgen]

Yes

[VincentLaw]

Just an idea, maybe rotate two missions one with WWII assets and one without.

This is worse than either solution. It would result in people who own the assets pack having an inferior experience half the time, and the people who don't own it being unable to join the server half the time. It is better for everyone to have a consistent experience one way or the other.

 

I also don't think a decision like this should be made by a simple majority. Even a small fraction being unable to join the server can have a larger adverse effect on the community. In addition, the opinions expressed by forum members may not represent the overall multiplayer community.

[Brigg]

It's the closest thing we have to a Superfortress at the moment so it's a big yeah from me

[javelina1]

go for it, a great idea!

[dooom]

Is there any b29 mod available? I know mist has a flak script you can use near AF

[Lightswitch]

I’d say no for sure. I don’t have it and can’t afford it. So I think many would be dropped from the server for no gain.

[VIKBELL]

Yes I would buy that.

[carss]

Just an idea, maybe rotate two missions one with WWII assets and one without.

 

That's actually not bad. I was going to also suggest why not two servers, but then I remembered it costs a lot

[FAB999]

It is conceived well, but only because of B17 (instead of B29) I won't buy this module !

 

There don't correspond units to the period of the beginning of the fiftieth years ! ! !

[Brigg]

That's actually not bad. I was going to also suggest why not two servers, but then I remembered it costs a lot

 

yeah tbh the 2 mission rotation idea might be the way forward then everyone at some point can still enjoy the server.

[No.401_Speed]

WWII Assets Pack Korea! 1952 Server

 

I'm in favour.

 

a. the B-17 is a better stand-in for the B-29.

b. the B-17 has defensive capability and actually drops bombs.

c. period correct AAA including flak so that we're not flying 50s aircraft against modern AAA.

d. period correct armour etc same as above.

 

We have to acknowledge that this is a lot of work for SeaQuark. I would recommend, that if the vote is in favour of the Assets Pack, then we, as the community, keep our expectations in check and allow SeaQuark to make these changes incrementally or even on a test basis to ensure that the WWII assets do not impact server performance. Start with the B-17 and see how it goes, then maybe by the time the winter map re-appears, some additional items can be added.

 

I'm also not in favour of anything that would prevent someone from joining the server, but the Assets Pack is a relatively small investment given the very high quality of the flight experience that is provided in the Korea! 1952 server. Are fliers not "forced" to buy the specific 50s era aircraft in order to fly in the server? Same thing with the Assets Pack as far as I'm concerned as it completes the period correct environment that the server seeks to create.

 

Speed

Edited August 28, 2018 by No.401_Speed

[Alpenwolf]

That's actually not bad. I was going to also suggest why not two servers, but then I remembered it costs a lot

Two servers is even worse. You'd only divide the players. Just like the multiplayer community is quite often divided between Open Beta and Release, when they're no on the same updated level.

[Alpenwolf]

yeah tbh the 2 mission rotation idea might be the way forward then everyone at some point can still enjoy the server.

+1

[metzger]

I'm in favour.

 

a. the B-17 is a better stand-in for the B-29.

b. the B-17 has defensive capability and actually drops bombs.

c. period correct AAA including flak so that we're not flying 50s aircraft against modern AAA.

d. period correct armour etc same as above.

 

We have to acknowledge that this is a lot of work for SeaQuark. I would recommend, that if the vote is in favour of the Assets Pack, then we, as the community, keep our expectations in check and allow SeaQuark to make these changes incrementally or even on a test basis to ensure that the WWII assets do not impact server performance. Start with the B-17 and see how it goes, then maybe by the time the winter map re-appears, some additional items can be added.

 

I'm also not in favour of anything that would prevent someone from joining the server, but the Assets Pack is a relatively small investment given the very high quality of the flight experience that is provided in the Korea! 1952 server. Are fliers not "forced" to buy the specific 50s era aircraft in order to fly in the server? Same thing with the Assets Pack as far as I'm concerned as it completes the period correct environment that the server seeks to create.

 

Speed

This ^^^^ from top to bottom.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk