DCS Carrier Discussion

[Bloodhound57]

Well, reading between the lines, it's 4/22 and close to the end of the month. I do not see it being released in the next 8 days. It's all good, I'm sure when it's close, we will hear more.

 

Steve

[Gary]

Final post of DCS World roadmap update thread - Kate Perederko:

 

"[...]I have to admit that the release of the update last week didn't meet our expectations at all.

We still have a lot of work to do with performance issues before we will be able to release it to the Stable branch.

 

Please do not expect it to be released in April."

 

 

 

 

I took her quote to be about the stable branch update timeline - not SC

 

 

Gary

[toni]

Hi there,

Once the Marianas map is released I m wondering if could be a good idea implement ressuply capability to the Supercarrier.Imagine a port call at Apra Harbour, mooring capability and movement of ammunition,food,fuel, etc. Would be cool. Hope ED consider it at a later stage.

[pimp]

As pessimistic as ED sounded about the issues with the SC, do y'all really think it is going to be released this month? Again, I think we need to tailor our expectations for the SC release. The last day of May should be the earliest to expect it.

[Horns]

Kate's comment has me confused. She said "I have to admit that the release of the update last week didn't meet our expectations at all. We still have a lot of work to do with performance issues before we will be able to release it to the Stable branch." The thing is, as far as I'm aware, there was no stable update due a week ago, so she has to be talking about SC... am I wrong?

 

It also seemed like the point of the roadmap thread was specifically to break the news that SC wouldn't be launching yet (although she did keep the scope broad to be able to inform us about the other things ED is doing) and provide information as it became available. Would she think a comment about stable would bring a natural conclusion to the thread without making a final mention of SC?

 

I'm starting to get that headache I get when I watch parliament question time. I have no idea if I'm right or wrong, I'd just like to read the latest information on SC - or be told I already read it.

[Baldrick33]

Kate's comment has me confused. She said "I have to admit that the release of the update last week didn't meet our expectations at all. We still have a lot of work to do with performance issues before we will be able to release it to the Stable branch." The thing is, as far as I'm aware, there was no stable update due a week ago, so she has to be talking about SC... am I wrong?

My interpretation is:

 

The update to the open beta last week didn't meet the expectations for performance improvements to make it (the open beta) close to being ready to promote it to the stable branch. There is more work to be done before it will happen (therefore not in April)

 

So not about SC specifically

[Bloodhound57]

It had me confused also, the main point of that thread was about the delay of the SC module and it ended without anything new about it. Time to move on from it. I guess we have to wait until they are ready to showcase it. The normal "cycle of events" is to start hammering PR for about two weeks prior to release.

 

I am tempering my expectations for something similar to what has been done in the past.

 

Steve

[Eagle_01]

To be honest, I'm just thankful that ED is still working during these very troubled times.

 

I'm setting my expectations to maybe around mid May. Just as the sale ends.

 

I just hope there wouldn't be issues like planes sliding on the deck.

[Steel Jaw]

Yeah I just cant get onboard with this delay when it apparently works in SP.

[VirusAM]

She said (Kate) that if by the end of April the won’t address the MP issues for the SC they will consider to release for SP only.

But for them it was a plan B

[fmedges]

She said (Kate) that if by the end of April the won’t address the MP issues for the SC they will consider to release for SP only.

But for them it was a plan B

 

I don’t see it happening. I thinks it’s all or nothing if they were being honest.

[Beirut]

Yeah I just cant get onboard with this delay when it apparently works in SP.

 

 

 

I completely agree. Telling the SP crowd (70% of DCS buyers) to wait just because the MP crowd would have had to wait anyway was a marvelously boneheaded thing to state in public. Way to tell the majority of your paying customers they aren't worth jack and can go stuff it.

 

 

It would have been better - far, far better and far, far wiser - had they just said "game breaking bugs".

 

 

That said, their "Look over here at this shiny object!" diversionary tactic of making everything free for a month worked wonders with me.

[shagrat]

I completely agree. Telling the SP crowd (70% of DCS buyers) to wait just because the MP crowd would have had to wait anyway was a marvelously boneheaded thing to state in public. Way to tell the majority of your paying customers they aren't worth jack and can go stuff it.

 

 

It would have been better - far, far better and far, far wiser - had they just said "game breaking bugs".

 

 

That said, their "Look over here at this shiny object!" diversionary tactic of making everything free for a month worked wonders with me.

I made that point already, but worth considering again. It seems very clear it was not about the Carrier "not working in MP but in SP", as that would be a no brainer to just release in SP and make a note to not put Supercarriers in MP missions, yet.

More likely we face an issue that breaks multiplayer when the SC is added in its current state, even if you not use it.

The dumbest argument is the 70% customers point. Just think about the consequences of this approach? Now it's SP/MP, next Update its "only" 30% customers flying model X and Y that will break so we roll it out anyway as 70% of the customers fly unaffected models. Now insert the only two modules you own and paid for (maybe F-16CJ and F/A-18C?) and think about the consequences of 30% customer base not being able to fly/use their paid product?

They will have a good reason to delay the SC and fix it... As Kate said, they see the Community as a whole, not as different percentages of revenue! And that actually is a very, very good thing, in my humbled opinion. :)

[Beirut]

I made that point already, but worth considering again. It seems very clear it was not about the Carrier "not working in MP but in SP", as that would be a no brainer to just release in SP and make a note to not put Supercarriers in MP missions, yet.

More likely we face an issue that breaks multiplayer when the SC is added in its current state, even if you not use it.

The dumbest argument is the 70% customers point. Just think about the consequences of this approach? Now it's SP/MP, next Update its "only" 30% customers flying model X and Y that will break so we roll it out anyway as 70% of the customers fly unaffected models. Now insert the only two modules you own and paid for (maybe F-16CJ and F/A-18C?) and think about the consequences of 30% customer base not being able to fly/use their paid product?

They will have a good reason to delay the SC and fix it... As Kate said, they see the Community as a whole, not as different percentages of revenue! And that actually is a very, very good thing, in my humbled opinion. :)

 

 

 

And as stated, you may be 100% correct. (And if it wasn't working in MP and it crashed MP then they shouldn't use it in MP. Seems simple enough.) But the way it was related was that it was not working in MP but working in SP, and the SP crowd still had to wait. And that left the impression that the SP crowd, probably a whack of them pre-orders like me, were being told they don't matter. That was the impression related.

 

 

Again, this is not about the delay. Delays happen and we're all used to them. It's about the communications concerning the delay - handed out at literally the last minute - which could clearly have been better handled.

 

 

And keep in mind I'm a big fan of DCS. I think DCS is fantastic, I've bought a lot of stuff and I'm going to keep buying a lot of stuff. But the SC delay communications were poorly handled.

[Baldrick33]

And as stated, you may be 100% correct. (And if it wasn't working in MP and it crashed MP then they shouldn't use it in MP. Seems simple enough.) But the way it was related was that it was not working in MP but working in SP, and the SP crowd still had to wait. And that left the impression that the SP crowd, probably a whack of them pre-orders like me, were being told they don't matter. That was the impression related.

I never got the impression that the SP crowd didn't matter, rather that separating SP & MP wasn't a strategic direction ED wanted to go if avoidable. As it drags on that maybe an option they have to take but would prefer not to IMHO. It adds complexity and creates very specific customer groups which creates animosity.

 

In hindsight they may have been better off not being so specific...

[RAF_JAGUAR]

And as stated, you may be 100% correct. (And if it wasn't working in MP and it crashed MP then they shouldn't use it in MP. Seems simple enough.) But the way it was related was that it was not working in MP but working in SP, and the SP crowd still had to wait. And that left the impression that the SP crowd, probably a whack of them pre-orders like me, were being told they don't matter. That was the impression related.

 

 

Again, this is not about the delay. Delays happen and we're all used to them. It's about the communications concerning the delay - handed out at literally the last minute - which could clearly have been better handled.

 

 

And keep in mind I'm a big fan of DCS. I think DCS is fantastic, I've bought a lot of stuff and I'm going to keep buying a lot of stuff. But the SC delay communications were poorly handled.

 

I normally just watch from the side and do not say a lot.

 

It was a delay that could have been handled better in your opinion.

 

"You don't matter" is your own interpretation of events. For the rest of us they delayed and gave reasons, Wags posting when he was going to have his next shit would not satisfy you.

[pimp]

I completely agree. Telling the SP crowd (70% of DCS buyers) to wait just because the MP crowd would have had to wait anyway was a marvelously boneheaded thing to state in public. Way to tell the majority of your paying customers they aren't worth jack and can go stuff it.

 

 

It would have been better - far, far better and far, far wiser - had they just said "game breaking bugs".

 

 

That said, their "Look over here at this shiny object!" diversionary tactic of making everything free for a month worked wonders with me.

Wow. Unfortunately, there's other people that think this way too. Some people's train of thought amazes me at times. This is yet another reason why I'm not a people person. Also shows that ED is damned if they and damned if they don't. Now people are saying they're being too transparent. smh So sad.

[Horns]

I made that point already, but worth considering again. It seems very clear it was not about the Carrier "not working in MP but in SP", as that would be a no brainer to just release in SP and make a note to not put Supercarriers in MP missions, yet.

More likely we face an issue that breaks multiplayer when the SC is added in its current state, even if you not use it.

The dumbest argument is the 70% customers point. Just think about the consequences of this approach? Now it's SP/MP, next Update its "only" 30% customers flying model X and Y that will break so we roll it out anyway as 70% of the customers fly unaffected models. Now insert the only two modules you own and paid for (maybe F-16CJ and F/A-18C?) and think about the consequences of 30% customer base not being able to fly/use their paid product?

They will have a good reason to delay the SC and fix it... As Kate said, they see the Community as a whole, not as different percentages of revenue! And that actually is a very, very good thing, in my humbled opinion. :)

I'm not too sure what you're getting at when you call the argument that 70% of customers would be served by a single player release "the dumbest argument". You get that the 30% of customers waiting after a SP release would be waiting exactly as long as they would anyway, right? And that those people would at least be able to use the SC themselves in SP while they wait?

 

I'm exclusively SP and I'm fine with waiting, but Beirut makes a valid argument, and is certainly entitled to more respect than having his argument called 'dumb' by you.

 

I suspect that either there is a lot to improve in the SP module too, or that separating SP, launching it separately and then rejoining them would take a prohibitively large amount of work, but after the communications pooch screw around this they don't want to come out and potentially sound like they're trying to shirk work that would mitigate some of the damage.

[TheGuardian]

I'm not too sure what you're getting at when you call the argument that 70% of customers would be served by a single player release "the dumbest argument". You get that the 30% of customers waiting after a SP release would be waiting exactly as long as they would anyway, right? And that those people would at least be able to use the SC themselves in SP while they wait?

 

I'm exclusively SP and I'm fine with waiting, but Beirut makes a valid argument, and is certainly entitled to more respect than having his argument called 'dumb' by you.

 

I suspect that either there is a lot to improve in the SP module too, or that separating SP, launching it separately and then rejoining them would take a prohibitively large amount of work, but after the communications pooch screw around this they don't want to come out and potentially sound like they're trying to shirk work that would mitigate some of the damage.

 

You seem to have missed the point he made of what happens if the SC breaks MP even if not placed in missions. What if just the code punts all of MP? Is that acceptable to you? If it is, man you got a screwed up point of view. What about the MP users that didn't even buy or even plan to buy the SC? Is it acceptable to you that they loose the ability to play MP? I agree with him in that this 70/30 horse crap is a dumb argument. We don't have all the information, ED was pretty vague with what the exact issues (ISSUES, to be read as more than one) delaying the SC were. All or nothing, we have enough bugs and problems in OB a the moment that there is no need to add even the possibility of adding more. Don't take the risk, everyone waits, everyone still gets to use the features that are released currently (as buggy as some are).

[Horns]

You seem to have missed the point he made of what happens if the SC breaks MP even if not placed in missions. What if just the code punts all of MP? Is that acceptable to you? If it is, man you got a screwed up point of view. What about the MP users that didn't even buy or even plan to buy the SC? Is it acceptable to you that they loose the ability to play MP? I agree with him in that this 70/30 horse crap is a dumb argument. We don't have all the information, ED was pretty vague with what the exact issues (ISSUES, to be read as more than one) delaying the SC were. All or nothing, we have enough bugs and problems in OB a the moment that there is no need to add even the possibility of adding more. Don't take the risk, everyone waits, everyone still gets to use the features that are released currently (as buggy as some are).

No one is talking about releasing a bugged module! All of this was predicated on the SP being released separately, *without* the bugged multiplayer component, as spoken of by Kate in the roadmap thread here, here and possibly elsewhere. Try figuring out what's being talked about before throwing words like 'dumb' around.

[TheGuardian]

No one is talking about releasing a bugged module! All of this was predicated on the SP being released separately, *without* the bugged multiplayer component, as spoken of by Kate in the roadmap thread here, here and possibly elsewhere. Try figuring out what's being talked about before throwing words like 'dumb' around.

 

You, my good sir, are still not listening to what I'm saying. What. If. The. SuperCarrier. Breaks. ALL. Of. Multiplayer? I get that you are wanting all of the MP code removed, but what if that is not completely possible? What if they best they can do is, make it so it can't be placed in MP missions? There is still the CHANCE that is might break ALL OF MP.

 

Your thinking (on releasing SP only first) is predicated on the fact that they only problems exist in multiplayer component. As you said in your first statement, you suspect other problems might be in play other than MP and that I completely agree with you on that. So my question is why release it 50/50? Why not just fix the damn thing and made it work in all game modes? What if the time they waste pulling MP out could be better used to finish up bugs and maybe, I don't know, add a few things they couldn't get to on the 15th? We just don't have enough information yet to know anything.

 

Side note: Dude, I did not resort to implying anyone is dumb. I simply said the argument was dumb. I was respectful in my comment of your post and it would be greatly appreciated if you would do the same. If you can't, don't bother replying, we'll just end the conversation here and move on. I'm not interesting in breaking forum rules, just trying to have a conversation with people who enjoy this sim as I do.

[Beirut]

I normally just watch from the side and do not say a lot.

 

It was a delay that could have been handled better in your opinion.

 

"You don't matter" is your own interpretation of events. For the rest of us they delayed and gave reasons, Wags posting when he was going to have his next shit would not satisfy you.

 

 

I would certainly find that informative of him, and I would wish him a comfortable repose.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Beirut

[Beirut]

You seem to have missed the point he made of what happens if the SC breaks MP even if not placed in missions. What if just the code punts all of MP? Is that acceptable to you?

 

 

Of course not. That would be unacceptable to everyone.

 

 

My point regarded only if it broke MP if used in MP.

[Horns]

You, my good sir, are still not listening to what I'm saying. What. If. The. SuperCarrier. Breaks. ALL. Of. Multiplayer? I get that you are wanting all of the MP code removed, but what if that is not completely possible? What if they best they can do is, make it so it can't be placed in MP missions? There is still the CHANCE that is might break ALL OF MP.

 

Your thinking (on releasing SP only first) is predicated on the fact that they only problems exist in multiplayer component. As you said in your first statement, you suspect other problems might be in play other than MP and that I completely agree with you on that. So my question is why release it 50/50? Why not just fix the damn thing and made it work in all game modes? What if the time they waste pulling MP out could be better used to finish up bugs and maybe, I don't know, add a few things they couldn't get to on the 15th? We just don't have enough information yet to know anything.

 

Side note: Dude, I did not resort to implying anyone is dumb. I simply said the argument was dumb. I was respectful in my comment of your post and it would be greatly appreciated if you would do the same. If you can't, don't bother replying, we'll just end the conversation here and move on. I'm not interesting in breaking forum rules, just trying to have a conversation with people who enjoy this sim as I do.

Dude, honestly, please try reading what I post properly. I didn't say you called someone dumb, I said "Try figuring out what's being talked about before throwing words like 'dumb' around."

 

I'll try rephrasing - I'm not trying to start an argument, but I would like us to actually communicate on this.

 

The idea of releasing the SP was dependant on the multiplayer code being removed, and the bugs with it. If that can't be done then obviously it can't be released, but that's not a reason for them to explore it, as Kate suggested they will in circumstances such as those we find ourselves in.

 

The argument of "but what if it kills multiplayer anyway" can be attached to every single module. If the SP or anything else kills multiplayer, they should definitely not release it.

 

Believe it or not, I would rather they didn't release it piecemeal, I'd rather they use all available resources fixing the module and releasing it once that's done rather than trying to change plan at this point. All I've been saying since my first post in this thread is that Beirut expressed an idea that made sense and didn't deserve to be called "the dumbest idea".

 

Read back through your first comment in this exchange and tell me again how I fall below the line of showing respect. If you don't like participating in the thread feel free not to, but I won't be vacating to suit you.

[Beirut]

Wow. Unfortunately, there's other people that think this way too. Some people's train of thought amazes me at times. This is yet another reason why I'm not a people person. Also shows that ED is damned if they and damned if they don't. Now people are saying they're being too transparent. smh So sad.

 

 

 

If the transparency involved telling 70% of the customers to wait for no other reason than that the other 30% who would have had to wait anyway... will have to wait anyway except now with a lot of company, then perhaps the onus was on the PR types to word with a bit more style.

 

And if you're sad, take a walk or have a beer. You'll feel better.