Carrier comms - Mini Updates

[Silver_Dragon]

Has different modules and never was promise to the Hornet.

[remi]

It's insane that people think they're entitled to the work of others.

 

Just buy the damn module and move on with your life, you'll be a much happier person.

[Tippis]

This line of thinking renders this Module all but useless for public multiplayer servers. I LOVE this product, Ive been looking forward to it since it was teased with the hornet. There is simply no way that this module can enter mainstream use online with this stipulation, it will divide the multiplayer base even farther, as there is no reasonable way for us, as server admins, to expect ALL of the public that fly regularly on our server to purchase this module to be able to enter our server.

Respectfully, that is really too simplistic. You're splitting the community once again. People will not be able to base their decision on if they want this or not, they will have to base this on if they can even use this in MP or not. If a server decides to activate this, in squadrons and organised groups or on public servers, they will be forced to buy this, even if they don't own any navy aircraft at all. They have to buy this just to join the bloody server to play with their friends. Do you really think that is making anyone happy? The discussions they're having in squadrons right now? Do you think that's joyful for anyone?

 

I have no problem of paying for new carrier/deck crew/new comms.

But people who don't own this module cannot join the server which enables it, is just a deal breaker.

Absolutely this. This fact alone makes this module — and every part of it — almost completely useless in MP for any larger-scale community.

 

If I as a server admin wants to have as many people as possible enjoying my server and the missions we run no it, I have two options:

 

1. Convince everyone to get a module (who knows how expensive it will be) they have no interest in, as their very first purchase, before they actually get an aircraft that can even make use of the carrier. People who already have to be convinced that the actual airplanes are worth the cost.

 

2. Not let anyone create content using the module, making it largely worthless for them to own it unless they never expect to share the content with all their friends.

 

Only one of these options is viable.

 

It's not a case of “don't buy it if you don't want it” but a case of “don't buy it because someone else might not have it”. Their choices limit mine in a way that we've never seen before. It has always been possible to accommodate both the “haves” and “have-nots”; the implementation of this module no longer makes that possible, so the only option available is to make sure the “haves” have wasted their money.

 

If ED cannot figure out a way to let MP missions incorporate the carrier without requiring everyone who joins the server to own it, the carrier module will instantly and eternally sit on the “do not recommend buying” list alongside the Hawk. It is that useless.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis

[98abaile]

I have no problem of paying for new carrier/deck crew/new comms.

But people who don't own this module cannot join the server which enables it, is just a deal breaker.

This is exactly my issue as well.

The thing is it should be simple for ED to work around and I can't believe they haven't already thought of it.

 

Allow me to spell it out:

1. If a player doesn't own the module, they will be unable to select any slots that spawn on the DLC carrier. Similarly, if they somehow do make it aboard, they will be unable to hook up to the cat.

2. If a player doesn't own the module, they will not get a response if they try to contact it (whether they can even hear it if they tune in is up for debate, I believe they should if only as an advertisement on what they're missing).

3. If a player doesn't own the module and they try to land on the DLC carrier, they bolter every time. Whether they can see any of the animated deck crew (or perhaps low detail facsimiles) is up for debate.

 

The key here is to simple deny any interaction to players who don't own the module; not the ham fisted way of denying people access to servers.

Remember the golden rule: Do not split the community!

[remi]

Absolutely this. This fact alone makes this module — and every part of it — almost completely useless in MP for any larger-scale community.

 

If I as a server admin wants to have as many people as possible enjoying my server and the missions we run no it, I have two options:

 

1. Convince everyone to get a module (who knows how expensive it will be) they have no interest in, as their very first purchase, before they actually get an aircraft that can even make use of the carrier. People who already have to be convinced that the actual airplanes are worth the cost.

 

2. Not let anyone create content using the module, making it largely worthless for them to own it unless they never expect to share the content with all their friends.

 

Only one of these options is viable.

 

It's not a case of “don't buy it if you don't want it” but a case of “don't buy it because someone else might not have it”. Their choices limit mine in a way that we've never seen before. It has always been possible to accommodate both the “haves” and “have-nots”; the implementation of this module no longer makes that possible, so the only option available is to make sure the “haves” have wasted their money.

 

If ED cannot figure out a way to let MP missions incorporate the carrier without requiring everyone who joins the server to own it, the carrier module will instantly and eternally sit on the “do not recommend buying” list alongside the Hawk. It is that useless.

 

 

If the server doesn't use the module, you'll still be able to use it on other servers or in single player. :doh:

[bell_rj]

Carrier ATC is as core as land based ATC. It's illogical to suggest otherwise. I appreciate there's a high cost to it. However, if there's no easy technical way to get around segmenting the user community then, like development on all other core features, ED should subsidise it from other revenues.

 

 

 

The current path is the road to failure which I think is a real shame because going on the demo video the update should be excellent.

[Tippis]

If the server doesn't use the module, you'll still be able to use it on other servers or in single player. :doh:

Yes? Like I said, that's why option 2 is the only viable one: not let anyone create content using the module, making it largely worthless for them to own it unless they never expect to share the content with all their friends, thus putting it squarely on the “do not recommend buying” list.

[bell_rj]

I suggest ED subsidise all core features - yes, including all ATC - and build the necessary profit into module prices.

[shagrat]

Yes? Like I said, that's why option 2 is the only viable one: not let anyone create content using the module, making it largely worthless for them to own it unless they never expect to share the content with all their friends, thus putting it squarely on the “do not recommend buying” list.

That would be your "not recommended list". The majority of DCS players play Singleplayer and campaigns. The MP community is just more active on the forum. I sympathize with the "don't split the Multiplayer community" statement, but ED needs to pay their employees, as well. So either they raise money elsewhere or have you pay for premium content.

[Slant]

The key here is to simple deny any interaction to players who don't own the module; not the ham fisted way of denying people access to servers.

Remember the golden rule: Do not split the community!

 

This really can't be emphasized enough. So I'm just QFTing this, becuase it's that important. And yes, I would like to buy it. But not under these circumstances.

[Slant]

That would be your "not recommended list". The majority of DCS players play Singleplayer and campaigns. The MP community is just more active on the forum. I sympathize with the "don't split the Multiplayer community" statement, but ED needs to pay their employees, as well. So either they raise money elsewhere or have you pay for premium content.

 

Let's be frank here, ED's support for SP is not good enough to use SP as an excuse to ignore the MP aspect. The AI is broken as hell, the mission editor is akin to a night in an iron maiden (yes, the original one from the 1500s) and the F-14's LANTIRN is unuseable without a human RIO.

 

I'm not buying into the SP philosophy. That's not good enough for a company larger than 3. If you go into the gaming market and you have core tech available for multiplayer, you're either in it 100% or you may as well scrap the MP feature altogether.

[Silver_Dragon]

That is the same "get all free, that has a community split" as the WW2 Assets Pack in the past.... Has change something? No. Has WW2 dead? No. Can be now carrier operations dead with the new carrier module? No.

 

What happens if ED or a 3rd party build a:

USMC / Russia Marine module with pilot-able LCAC, NGFS support and 1rd Person soldiers?.

Realistic logistic with crane to load/unload vehicles and a paper log to write into them?

"Kilo" ship commander module with torpedoes and cruise missiles?

"Insurgence" module with Technical and IEDs to ....... (ironic) <put favourite dream module>

 

All need put free?

Edited May 19, 2019 by Silver_Dragon

[Slant]

That is the same "get all free, that has a community split" as the WW2 Assets Pack in the past.... Has change something? No. Has WW2 dead? No. Can be now carrier operations dead with the new carrier module? No.

 

WW2 is dead, mate. Have you looked at the server list?

[OxideMako]

That would be your "not recommended list". The majority of DCS players play Singleplayer and campaigns. The MP community is just more active on the forum. I sympathize with the "don't split the Multiplayer community" statement, but ED needs to pay their employees, as well. So either they raise money elsewhere or have you pay for premium content.

 

 

I want to agree, but ATC/AI LSO should not be "premium content", that is core functionality of a carrier-based aircraft, just as much as the carrier itself is. Premium content is new campaigns, terrains, missions and modules, or even new aircraft sub-variants (FW190D9 and A8 as an example).

 

 

ATC in particular is a core feature of a flight sim, carrier based or not. Charging for it because you are only just now getting around to adding something in the sim that should have been there a long time ago is a little shady. Especially when the carrier module is allegedly more than just an ATC/LSO upgrade, why not just have the new comms system on both carriers? Or is the carrier module so lackluster as to not be worth people's money without shoehorning in what should have been in place back when the Hornet + Stennis released?

 

 

Add to that the breaking of MP compatibility you have to ask questions about the direction DCS is going. All modules being able to play together without everyone owning them used to be a central point of DCS "World" too. DCS becoming similar to some of the unnamed civilian flight sims in terms of milking customers will almost certainly push a ton of players and newcomers away. Since the WWII asset pack fiasco I have pretty much moved to another sim for most of my WWII needs.

 

 

 

Alternatively stop calling them "modules", at this point they are just plane addons. We don't even get plane appropriate callsigns anymore with a module (A-10C is still the only one to do so IIRC), and often not even a campaign.

[StandingCow]

At least we will have the heatblur forrestal class carrier, that will probably just become the default on most servers.

[Tippis]

That would be your "not recommended list".

Mine and everyone else's I play with.

 

That's the whole problem: this scheme means that, the larger the community of people who play together, the less likely it is that anyone in that community will buy the module. If 3 our of 4 guys playing together want the carrier, convincing the fourth to get over his grumbling and buy it (or just get together and buy it for him) is fairly easy.

 

If it's 3 out of 10, then it suddenly becomes a lot harder, and unless all 10 get it, those three who want it don't have much reason to buy it either. If it's 3 out of 100, they stand no chance at all and will in fact most likely argue that no, it's not worth it for anyone in that group to buy it.

 

In the first case, this idea might generate an additional fourth sale; in the second case, chances are it loses a couple of those three potential sales; in the last case, it almost guarantees it and where previously you had 3 people arguing in favour of buying the module, you now have 3 people arguing against it. The larger your reach, the less reason you have to offer any kind of recommendation, and the larger your audience for telling people to stay away.

 

but ED needs to pay their employees, as well. So either they raise money elsewhere or have you pay for premium content.

Indeed, which is why this is such a hugely counter-productive idea: it actively reduces the chance of getting paid. It creates perverse incentives to dissuade large swaths people from buying it — in particular the people who are the most likely to promote it if is handled correctly.

 

ED has given people a strong reason to say “don't buy this.” They will lose sales on this. Not just “not get”, but actively lose.

 

Someone screwed up big when thinking over the economics of this.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis

[StandingCow]

Mine and everyone else's I play with.

 

That's the whole problem: this scheme means that, the larger the community of people who play together, the less likely it is that anyone in that community will buy the module. If 3 our of 4 guys playing together want the carrier, convincing the fourth to get over his grumbling and buy it (or just get together and buy it for him) is fairly easy.

 

If it's 3 out of 10, then it suddenly becomes a lot harder, and unless all 10 get it, those three who want it don't have much reason to buy it either. If it's 3 out of 100, they stand no chance at all and will in fact most likely argue that no, it's not worth it for anyone in that group to buy it.

 

In the first case, this idea might generate an additional fourth sale; in the second case, chances are it loses a couple of those three potential sales; in the last case, it almost guarantees it and where previously you had 3 people arguing in favour of buying the module, you now have 3 people arguing against it. The larger your reach, the less reason you have to offer any kind of recommendation, and the larger your audience for telling people to stay away.

 

 

Indeed, which is why this is such a hugely counter-productive idea: it actively reduces the chance of getting paid. It creates perverse incentives to dissuade large swaths people from buying it — in particular the people who are the most likely to promote it if is handled correctly.

 

Someone screwed up big when thinking over the economics of this.

 

 

Yep, the 3-4 folks I play with said nope once they saw this news.

[Coxy_99]

It's insane that people think they're entitled to the work of others.

 

Just buy the damn module and move on with your life, you'll be a much happier person.

 

The problem is you start excluding people from servers that cant afford the module??????? THAT is not fair.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Coxy_99

[antagonist]

The key here is to simple deny any interaction to players who don't own the module; not the ham fisted way of denying people access to servers.

Remember the golden rule: Do not split the community!

 

The moment where ownership of a certain module is required to be able to access online play is the moment where it's probably only going to get bought by the ones who don't care for online play.

 

Don't let this be to current day combat aviation what the WW2 asset pack was to DCS: WW2.

[Tailhook]

Of course, on the technical side, there will be so many network inconsistencies between module owners and non-owners of the carrier that it would cause havoc and look terrible (particuarly deck crew and the new comms), as such making it available to non-owners in MP makes no sense.

 

With how awkward things can look when people are lagging or in a rush to get in the air, things can be a mess. The deck sliding still needs to be addressed more (or has with this module?) because the way it seems it was "fixed" was by just making the carrier a flat surface allowing the model to slide around under the wheels. As a result, unless the wheels contact the deck directly it won't be possible to simulate a pitching deck in a storm and the sea would have to be multiplayer synced if it isn't already.

 

Other carriers will be available to non-owners still, and many will be happy with the new, free carrier that was added just last year along side the Hornet. This module is for those that want to take carrier life to the next level.

 

Please define "other". This is what I don't want to see. I don't agree with keeping both old carriers, if that is what you mean by other carriers, when an even newer model and new standard is available. The Stennis was a pleasant improvement but with the new Nimitz coming, it will then be EOL with the Vinson. I don't know if it's a mission compatibility thing but I'd rather see them be removed so things are kept tidy and organized, missions will get updated. The new model could be both utilized with very basic enhanced features or simply none at all, hence a platform upgrade. Simple automated/controllable Shooter and LSO models/cameras would be enough to make me happy when online, everything else can be kept locked to a bought-only server and singleplayer.

 

Regardless, under Ships in the mission editor I don't want to have to choose between 3 different quality versions but rather have all 10 Nimitz-class CVN's of the same quality for once. Give mission makers/server admins a checklist of functions they can enable and disable and have the high fidelity options auto-detected and grayed out when hosting the mission over multiplayer, or something of that nature. I wish I knew exactly what is being done so I could better judge how it could be multiplayer compatible.

 

It would be great if the new carrier came with just one 3D model and all 10 CVN liveries but the only issue I see with that is the numbers (and number lighting) on the island. If ED could figure out how to make that work instead of having to supply 10 different models, that would be awesome. Aside from that, the liveries could easily be adjusted by argument timing in the livery description LUA just like the aircraft board numbers.

 

Arg timing example:

0.00-0.10 - CVN-68

0.11-0.20 - CVN-69

0.21-0.30 - CVN-70

0.31-0.40 - CVN-71

0.41-0.50 - CVN-72

0.51-0.60 - CVN-73

0.61-0.70 - CVN-74

0.71-0.80 - CVN-75

0.81-0.90 - CVN-76

0.91-1.00 - CVN-77

 

Carrier ATC is as core as land based ATC. It's illogical to suggest otherwise. I appreciate there's a high cost to it. However, if there's no easy technical way to get around segmenting the user community then, like development on all other core features, ED should subsidise it from other revenues.

 

ATC in general should be an overhauled core function. Both land and sea ATC should feed from the same directory like currently and keep specific high quality module-based ATC calls to payware which would be downloaded along with the carrier module itself.

 

WW2 is dead, mate. Have you looked at the server list?

 

WW2 is only "dead" currently because there aren't more aircraft to select from YET. A sweet online campaign with numerous WW2 aircraft and it should blossom. "Build it and they will come."

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tailhook

[Proof]

Can be now carrier operations dead with the new carrier module? No.

 

Saying something will split the community is not stating that an aspect of the game will be dead. It's merely suggesting that the use of that asset, in this case the carrier module, will be considerably less than core assets on multiplayer servers. Carrier ops will still be accessible with the free carriers, carrier ops will of course continue. People are talking about splits in that servers will have to choose whether or not to use these assets because people who want to fly a MiG-29 against hornets are not necessarily going to pay for the boat the hornets use, equally people who prefer aircraft that don't happen to be carrier capable are not necessarily going to buy the carrier module just to fly along side those who did.

 

I don't expect the carrier module to be free, I have no major objections with the module costing money* for those who want "to take carrier life to the next level", it sounds good and I'm sure people will have a great time using it, but given that I see myself primarily flying the F-16 when it arrives I'm not going to buy the carrier module, at least not at full price. However, with this implementation, to simply play along side those who are using it requires payment, which is the issue.

 

And then later down the road will the same apply to the Kuznetsov when it's overhaul arrives? I guess it's yet to be determined but that will also be a repeat of the same issue.

 

*I think that the ATC aspect being considered premium content is a bad choice but w/e

[shagrat]

Mine and everyone else's I play with.

 

That's the whole problem: this scheme means that, the larger the community of people who play together, the less likely it is that anyone in that community will buy the module. If 3 our of 4 guys playing together want the carrier, convincing the fourth to get over his grumbling and buy it (or just get together and buy it for him) is fairly easy.

 

If it's 3 out of 10, then it suddenly becomes a lot harder, and unless all 10 get it, those three who want it don't have much reason to buy it either. If it's 3 out of 100, they stand no chance at all and will in fact most likely argue that no, it's not worth it for anyone in that group to buy it.

 

In the first case, this idea might generate an additional fourth sale; in the second case, chances are it loses a couple of those three potential sales; in the last case, it almost guarantees it and where previously you had 3 people arguing in favour of buying the module, you now have 3 people arguing against it. The larger your reach, the less reason you have to offer any kind of recommendation, and the larger your audience for telling people to stay away.

 

Indeed, which is why this is such a hugely counter-productive idea: it actively reduces the chance of getting paid. It creates perverse incentives to dissuade large swaths people from buying it — in particular the people who are the most likely to promote it if is handled correctly.

 

ED has given people a strong reason to say “don't buy this.” They will lose sales on this. Not just “not get”, but actively lose.

 

Someone screwed up big when thinking over the economics of this.

You think only MP. The majority buying campaigns, modules, and play singleplayer. I agree with the general issue and would prefer a 100% increase in module prices to pay for these add-ons, but that would likely dissuade the large majority of Singleplayer customers and shy away newcomers...

[Silver_Dragon]

 

It would be great if the new carrier came with just one 3D model and all 10 CVN liveries but the only issue I see with that is the numbers (and number lighting) on the island. If ED could figure out how to make that work instead of having to supply 10 different models, that would be awesome. Aside from that, the liveries could easily be adjusted by argument timing in the livery description LUA just like the aircraft board numbers.

 

Arg timing example:

0.00-0.10 - CVN-68

0.11-0.20 - CVN-69

0.21-0.30 - CVN-70

0.31-0.40 - CVN-71

0.41-0.50 - CVN-72

0.51-0.60 - CVN-73

0.61-0.70 - CVN-74

0.71-0.80 - CVN-75

0.81-0.90 - CVN-76

0.91-1.00 - CVN-77

 

 

A little correction, The USS John C. Stennis ship has into the Theodore Roosevelt subclass. Nimitz, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan subclass has different ships with hull modifications, systems and capabilities. That require build the old Nimitz Subclass to replace the CVN-70 and early. The same with the CVN-76 and CVN-77.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier

Edited May 19, 2019 by Silver_Dragon

[Tippis]

You think only MP

Yes, because that's where the coherent communities exist. It's also where the fancy show-offs who get people to get into the game exist.

 

I'm not arguing that SP isn't a large portion of the player-base — I'm saying that ED is actively dissuading the ambassadors for the game from suggesting that people should buy the module. I'm saying that they are actively losing sales because of this all-or-nothing setup. This will also affect the single-player people since they will be hearing a lot of “nah, don't buy it” talk flying around.

 

What is better: x number of SP sales plus y number of MP sales, or 0.9x + 0.5y sales?

 

The actual percentages don't matter so much as the unavoidable fact that both sets of numbers will by necessity be lower than they could be if it was handled competently.

 

hat would likely dissuade the large majority of Singleplayer customers and shy away newcomers

So will this, and quite likely to a much higher degree.
Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis

[shagrat]

I want to agree, but ATC/AI LSO should not be "premium content", that is core functionality of a carrier-based aircraft, just as much as the carrier itself is. Premium content is new campaigns, terrains, missions and modules, or even new aircraft sub-variants (FW190D9 and A8 as an example).

 

 

ATC in particular is a core feature of a flight sim, carrier based or not. Charging for it because you are only just now getting around to adding something in the sim that should have been there a long time ago is a little shady. Especially when the carrier module is allegedly more than just an ATC/LSO upgrade, why not just have the new comms system on both carriers? Or is the carrier module so lackluster as to not be worth people's money without shoehorning in what should have been in place back when the Hornet + Stennis released?

 

 

Add to that the breaking of MP compatibility you have to ask questions about the direction DCS is going. All modules being able to play together without everyone owning them used to be a central point of DCS "World" too. DCS becoming similar to some of the unnamed civilian flight sims in terms of milking customers will almost certainly push a ton of players and newcomers away. Since the WWII asset pack fiasco I have pretty much moved to another sim for most of my WWII needs.

 

 

 

Alternatively stop calling them "modules", at this point they are just plane addons. We don't even get plane appropriate callsigns anymore with a module (A-10C is still the only one to do so IIRC), and often not even a campaign.

That is all available for free with a simple community script ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3674407#post3674407 ), as well as a new class in Moose with community created voice overs, including grading, etc. so if ED decides to provide a premium version of carrier ops and invest a lot of money in a detailed, playable carrier environment, it is their decision, how to monetize it. You always have the option to vote with your wallet.

But don't try to argue why "we" (for whom do you speak?) are entitled to a free upgrade of carrier ATC and AI LSO etc.

Especially if you have multiple free(!) alternatives by the community already...

Edited May 19, 2019 by shagrat