DCS Carrier Discussion

[TheGuardian]

I understand what you're saying. You've made some valid points. I just try to make sense of every POV. What Raytheon was saying was just total nonsense. I get what you're saying though. I hope things can turn around rather quickly, because the morale of the community has been quite low for the pass 2 weeks.

 

Honestly, man I completely agree. I believe things will get better. What is happening in the world doesn't help matters any either. On the plus side, I can't think of another community that is as "world wide" as we are here. As such, communication is even more important, but at the same time even more difficult. I don't mean to bash on ED or our Community Managers, they are doing the best with what they have at that moment, I get that. I'm just stating my opinion, and we all know what those are like. Like I said in my original post, I'll still be here, I'll still buy and I'll still fly.

[pimp]

Honestly, man I completely agree. I believe things will get better. What is happening in the world doesn't help matters any either. On the plus side, I can't think of another community that is as "world wide" as we are here. As such, communication is even more important, but at the same time even more difficult. I don't mean to bash on ED or our Community Managers, they are doing the best with what they have at that moment, I get that. I'm just stating my opinion, and we all know what those are like. Like I said in my original post, I'll still be here, I'll still buy and I'll still fly.

Same here :beer:

[TheGuardian]

I agree with most what you've written above. Probably all.

The dude has posted and posted and clearly doesn't want to understand the EA model. Even when people have been trying. So when after two weeks of not getting it. He chooses to! That chosen negativity trying get people along, and implying fraud ticked me off!

I'll stand by my offer to endorse him, and I'd be happy to have ED transfer the module to whoever puts a smile on my b face!

Cheers

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

100%. I don't really care for that line of thinking either. I do think we will be getting a great product, as long as they release before 2021, after that, we should get the pitchforks ready. Just saying.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

From above:

The manner in which information is conveyed is my number one criticism with ED, beyond anything else. Communication is scattered, comes from multiple sources and is posted in multiple places with an absolute and utter lack of consistency. Furthermore, most informative posts aimed at providing an update raise more questions than they actually answer.

 

While in agreement with most of whats said , I will have to disagree with these two points.

First. They do have a common place to respond. The problem is 95% of the other posts on the forum degrade into a complaint fest full of “respond to me or I quit” ultimatums that can hurt their business if not addressed.

Second, when they respond, there is a contingent of people that continue to read into things, spread false conclusions about what was or wasnt meant and generally insisist on arguing what the definition of “is” is.

It’s really is no win for them.

Just my opinion

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mr. Big.”Biggs”

[Flamin_Squirrel]

They do have a common place to respond. The problem is 95% of the other posts on the forum degrade into a complaint fest full of “respond to me or I quit” ultimatums.

 

They have options. Post information in locked stickies, for example. Its within their gift to control.

[MAXsenna]

They have options. Post information in locked stickies, for example. Its within their gift to control.

+1

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

They have options. Post information in locked stickies, for example. Its within their gift to control.

 

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on this. Just trying to look at it from their perspective.

Seriously, there are still people out there that are going to be disappointed when sc comes out and they can’t wander around the inside of the bridge and steer the ship. You will find a statement somewhere(not going to look) that somebody said after reading into an update post.

[MAXsenna]

100%. I don't really care for that line of thinking either. I do think we will be getting a great product, as long as they release before 2021, after that, we should get the pitchforks ready. Just saying.

Hehe

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[shagrat]

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.

The 70% argument opens Pandoras box on making decisions that deliberately puts customers at a disadvantage as soon as it caters a "supposed" majority.

So next month the decision may work against YOU, because the modules you own are in the minority, and due to a patch that brings a new feature to a module the majority owns, it breaks your modules. So now YOU can't fly your favorite modules, or continue your campaign for a couple weeks/months.

ED simply made the correct decision and tries to stick with a build where everyone has a chance to use the products they paid for and not playing favorism to please the crowd.

We may disagree here, but I am actually very happy they decided FOR the whole customer base and not AGAINST any minority, like so many major game developers seem to do regularly, simply to maximize revenue. I have a lot of respect for Kate and the team to weather the storm rather than fold and go the easy way.

[TheGuardian]

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on this. Just trying to look at it from their perspective.

Seriously, there are still people out there that are going to be disappointed when sc comes out and they can’t wander around the inside of the bridge and steer the ship. You will find a statement somewhere(not going to look) that somebody said after reading into an update post.

 

And I think you are 100% right on that. Some will never be pleased and some will see more into things. I would like to think that they would be really really few in number, but I know better. I think that is what makes it hard. How do you give enough information to satisfy your regular, relatively logical (I've seen the simpit section, some of are indeed crazy and helpless) users, but not let it get taken wild. Which is why, for the most part, I have stayed away from the argument over what exactly they are telling us and focused more on the timing.

[TheGuardian]

The 70% argument opens Pandoras box on making decisions that deliberately puts customers at a disadvantage as soon as it caters a "supposed" majority.

So next month the decision may work against YOU, because the modules you own are in the minority, and due to a patch that brings a new feature to a module the majority owns, it breaks your modules. So now YOU can't fly your favorite modules, or continue your campaign for a couple weeks/months.

ED simply made the correct decision and tries to stick with a build where everyone has a chance to use the products they paid for and not playing favorism to please the crowd.

We may disagree here, but I am actually very happy they decided FOR the whole customer base and not AGAINST any minority, like so many major game developers seem to do regularly, simply to maximize revenue. I have a lot of respect for Kate and the team to weather the storm rather than fold and go the easy way.

 

Here here. +1

[shagrat]

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.

Read carefully, "consider a single player release" ... which would require they get to a point were it at least don't break the Stennis ( they try to fix the deck sliding that was reintroduced) and not necessarily have a working build that magically solves all this. As I said, then they could have simply released it with a "known issues: SC does not work in MP" right away two weeks ago!

[Beirut]

I understand what you're saying. You've made some valid points. I just try to make sense of every POV. What Raytheon was saying was just total nonsense. I get what you're saying though. I hope things can turn around rather quickly, because the morale of the community has been quite low for the pass 2 weeks.

 

 

 

I'll admit to being successfully bought off by being allowed to play with all the toys for free for a month.

 

 

While I remain of the opinion that the SC delay was badly handled, the everything-free-for-a-month trial has my morale way up and my dedication to future DCS purchases locked in.

[shagrat]

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.

To elaborate on that: You can't just "pull multiplayer out" as you will notice the Missions in Multi-Player are basically single player missions with AI planes replaced for client planes... plus a network synchronization of events and inputs. Think of a car, with a broken turbo-charger, you can't just "remove" the turbo-charger to "fix" the engine. You would need to redesign, build and test the engine for that.

[shagrat]

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.

I talked very clearly about the idea "to break MP in favor of 70% of the community" with a focus on playing favorism. We all agree if it completely breaks Multiplayer it should not be released. That was the point.

Not the idea of releasing it with just the SC not "working properly" in MP.

As I said that would be simple, just put a Known issues disclaimer and we can all start training CASE I... so it's likely more than a simple issue with SC not working properly in MP, but breaking MP.

[TheGrizz]

Can I make another humble suggestion? Looking at your signature, it appears that you don't yet have the Hornet. Try the Hornet out (or buy it) during this free for all sale. Really try to master it. Watch some good Youtube videos about the Hornet. Read Orr Kelly's book "Hornet." Etc. I think, after having tasted the Hornet, you might feel more inclined to purchase the Supercarrier. Plus, by the time you're proficient at the Hornet, Supercarrier will be ready to rock.

 

Growing up: these were my favorite fighters (in this order) -

1. F-15C

2. F-16C

3. F-14D

-----------

4. The ugly, wimpy Hornet

 

As I've read books, articles, studied, watched documentaries, played the old Graphsim Hornet PC game, gone to see the Blue Angels many times, and finally delved into DCS's Hornet, my list now goes:

 

1. Hornet

1b. F-15C

---------------

The others. :-)

 

Your my brother by a different mother ..and father...

according to his sig..he dont have the tomcat either..why buy the SC??

Edited April 27, 2020 by TheGrizz

[Horns]

Please delete, it will be clearer if I just write a new post.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Horns
Please delete

[pimp]

I don't know about y'all but I've said it before. I've always felt that this module has been one of the most under promoted modules that I can think of, IMO. For the longest time, a lot of questions were unanswered on this thread, and we've only had 2 videos. ED claims that this will be the best carrier product for a flight sim ever created, which I believe, but not much content exclusive to the SC has been produced by ED especially compared to other modules. I remember a week before the Viper release, we were getting videos almost everyday. We even got a video of the landing gear. There was also a lot of consistent content for the Hornet too. I honestly think there's more issues than MP, but really it should not matter to us as long as ED is fixing them and not releasing a product with known show stopping issues.

[Outlaw24]

Start communicating on here instead of higgit would be a start!

 

I also agree with this 100%, getting info well after it was released on another forum is really getting old.

[Horns]

The 70% argument opens Pandoras box on making decisions that deliberately puts customers at a disadvantage as soon as it caters a "supposed" majority.

So next month the decision may work against YOU, because the modules you own are in the minority, and due to a patch that brings a new feature to a module the majority owns, it breaks your modules. So now YOU can't fly your favorite modules, or continue your campaign for a couple weeks/months.

ED simply made the correct decision and tries to stick with a build where everyone has a chance to use the products they paid for and not playing favorism to please the crowd.

We may disagree here, but I am actually very happy they decided FOR the whole customer base and not AGAINST any minority, like so many major game developers seem to do regularly, simply to maximize revenue. I have a lot of respect for Kate and the team to weather the storm rather than fold and go the easy way.

People can go back and see Beirut's comment " 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" at #1791, and in #1792

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. :)

you decide he's advocating a release that breaks multiplayer so single player people can have the module.

 

Yes, that release Kate talks about considering (that you comment on in #1885) is exactly the one that was referred to! So now you agree that release would not break multiplayer?

 

As far as your comment in #1887 goes, Kate does say work would be needed to separate the multiplayer from the single player, but she's probably better positioned than either of us to decide whether that is viable.

 

In #1888 the comment I made was to TheGuardian, which is fine, but the comments were a response to his comment I quoted in that (#1800 if anyone still cares).

 

So where does this leave us?

 

Pretty much back where this started. Where Beirut referenced an idea Kate said would be considered under the circumstances where we were and are. Based on what you've now added, it seems like you've made a false assumption and termed his argument "the dumbest" as a result.

 

In a sense we agree because, as I commented to TheGuardian, I'm probably happier with ED not separating the module, albeit for different reasons than you. I simply felt (and feel) that you were wrong to describe Beirut's argument as 'the dumbest' as it was reasoned, coherent and he was referencing an idea Kate said would be considered.

 

Anyway, as promised I'll shut up now I've said my piece.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Horns
Changed 'his' to 'Beirut's' in the second last paragraph #2 qualified my comment to TheGuardian

[Bagpiper97]

Any further news on Supercarrier?

 

Any news on the Supercarrier? Feel like things have gone dark so far since we've been told of it being yet again delayed.

[MegOhm_SD]

Quiet Period. The calm before the storm.

 

Ill shall make my first experience with the SC in a Stormy Sea then transition to tranquility to enjoy the eye candy aspect.

Edited April 27, 2020 by MegOhm_SD

[Harlikwin]

Any news on the Supercarrier? Feel like things have gone dark so far since we've been told of it being yet again delayed.

 

End of next month is the next date I recall hearing. Maybe sooner if they can debug/reomve whatever MP issues killed it.

[cthulhu68]

They've stated that the MP issues have forced them to rewrite code for how aircraft interact with all carriers. Also said it was going well.

[Flia]

End of this month is very close :)