Carrier comms - Mini Updates

[shagrat]

But you have SRS for comms and LSO mod, Didnt Sunstag get the animated deck crew working for free in the mod section?

Yep, plus Alerax script and Moose etc. we already have everything we need for "just ATC" for free and compatible. :dunno:

[Wizard_03]

What makes you think that there would be more active servers using this dlc than there are using the ww2 asset pack?

 

Because the hornet is most popular module in the game and carrier ops are a huge part of that experience.

[Slant]

Well it doesn't help that two discussions happen in parallel here right now. One is about server compatibility (and I don't see how anyone would be against it?) while the other is whether carrier ATC should be behind a paywall which can be argued about.

 

That's probably part of the confusion.

 

It's really not two discussions. We're having one discussion about the technical aspect of this splitting the community, while somehow ED translators unlearnt to read and assume we don't want to give ED compensation for their work. Woosh....

[Coxy_99]

You know whats even more annoying than this................................

 

ED wheres my shiney new Admiral Kuznetsov :smilewink:

[Keks]

Because the hornet is most popular module in the game and carrier ops are a huge part of that experience.

 

Yes and due to the implementation of "everyone has to buy it", it wont happen, as not everyone will get it. Like I said, if you get out of the ED forums and check the multiplayer communities signs are its not going to happen since using it would divide the playerbase in an unfortunate way for said communities

 

Also with a dlc like that, whats next? A nice looking tanker with propper comms for 40 bucks?

[Wizard_03]

Yes and due to the implementation of "everyone has to buy it", it wont happen, as not everyone will get it. Like I said, if you get out of the ED forums and check the multiplayer communities signs are its not going to happen since using it would divide the playerbase in an unfortunate way for said communities

 

Also with a dlc like that, whats next? A nice looking tanker with propper comms for 40 bucks?

 

Everyone does not have to buy it. But if you want the full hornet/tomcat experience why wouldn’t you? That’s what I don’t understand.

 

I get the feeling not everyone is interested in hyper realism all the time. But that’s why we have server menus. They are not taking anything away from what we have now. Those that won’t buy it for whatever reason don’t have too. They can still play online just not with the new carrier

[Tippis]

How are they going to lose money by charging for their work?!?

By ensuring that the module sells poorly because it is wholly useless in any large-scale community, and because word-of-mouth of this uselessness will spread beyond those communities.

 

So the question is, why are people so adamant to defend a decision that unequivocally means ED gets paid less?

 

 

Everyone does not have to buy it. But if you want the full hornet/tomcat experience why wouldn’t you? That’s what I don’t understand.

This has been fully explained on multiple occasions by now. Why would you buy it if, even after you buy it, you will not get the full hornet/tomcat experience because it just sits as dead and unused code on your hard drive?

[Keks]

Everyone does not have to buy it. But if you want the full hornet/tomcat experience why wouldn’t you? That’s what I don’t understand.

 

Because I bought the hornet with the impression that buying the hornet would give me the full hornet experience.

 

Like I said whats next?

 

40$ DLC Air to air refueling?

 

20$ JTAC with propper comms?

 

Like where do you draw the line?

 

I consider something like communication a core gameplay feature for a simulation, nothing less.

[Tomsk]

Just to add another voice, I think this is a terrible business decision from ED. I'm not going to argue about them being paid for their work, they clearly should. But just that the decision that you cannot join a server running the new carrier unless you own the new carrier is a guaranteed way to ensure no one in the MP community is going to buy it.

 

Our squadron is not going to make buying the new carrier a requirement for joining the squadron. There's already enough barriers to entry for new players: the Hornet module, the maps we fly, etc. This means our squadron will not use the new carrier. Therefore most people in the squadron will not buy it because they won't get much chance to use it.

 

ED are shooting themselves in the foot. If this keeps being the plan for releasing new content: that everyone on the server needs to have it to be able to join, then our squadron will be buying very very little of this content. As will be the case for most squadrons I'm sure, as will be the case for most people who fly MP.

 

As a side note, I also think that it's entirely fair to ask people to pay for shiny new deck animations and immersion and other such things. But lumping in the new ATC is a bad call: it's just going to annoy people given how bad the comms are in DCS (they are extremely buggy), and how long people have been waiting for them to be fixed.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tomsk

[Wizard_03]

Because I bought the hornet with the impression that buying the hornet would give me the full hornet experience.

 

Like I said whats next?

 

40$ DLC Air to air refueling?

 

20$ JTAC with propper comms?

 

Like where do you draw the line?

 

I consider something like communication a core gameplay feature for a simulation, nothing less.

 

What the alternative? ED creating some sort of subscription program where we all pay for everything all the time. The way they have it now, you have the freedom to chose what you’d like to support, by voting with your money.

[Tippis]

What the alternative?

Amortise upkeep costs over all products sold would be a simple one. Kind of like how software sales work…

[Wizard_03]

So make everything more expensive? That won’t work because people in this thread are already saying they can’t afford the carrier module.

[Keks]

What the alternative? ED creating some sort of subscription program where we all pay for everything all the time. The way they have it now, you have the freedom to chose what you’d like to support, by voting with your money.

 

 

Nice bait, since pointing out alternatives would get me banned.

 

Also I dont see why this justifies anti consumer implementation of dlc, and yes I will vote with my wallet.

 

And like Tomsk said this will be hurtfull for the mp part of the playerbase for exactly that reason. The entry cost would be so high that ED would have to make its money by milking a shrinking playerbase for as long as possible.

 

Lets say you want to play dcs in a nice squadron. Your entry cost for naval ops are allready at plane + map.

This is higher than other current "AAA" games, no matter what genre. The entry cost will raise due to another map, so it will be map + map + plane.

 

Adding the cost of a carrier to that and you will repell any person interested instantly. Due to that reason, like I said, most mp communities have no choice but to reject the dlc in order to be able to maintain a healthy playerbase.

 

Also please answer my questions aswell, I get the feeling you are not interested in any constructive discussion and are just here to poke some ppl.

[SkillyJ]

Here's my issue with putting the ATC and other stuff behind a paywall that you can't take into Multiplayer:

 

ED constantly says that "the majority of the playerbase is in Single Player." So if they are, why not allow these modules and maps to be bought by the server owner and then everyone on the server gets to use them? It's not like ED will lose much business, and on the contrary, it'll act like an advertisement. You get on a server with it, you see how cool it is, and then you want it and go buy it later.

 

Also, I find it rather ironic that ED locks all these features behind the "everybody or nobody" mentality in Multiplayer. The Multiplayer scene is really all that's kept DCS alive over the years, because it's those server owners who put hundreds of hours into coding great scenarios and new scripts for the game that then make their way over to Single Player and enhance the game. Not to mention the regular stuff in Single Player is so god-awful that mission designers have to practically re-code everything to make it work as intended. AI with UFO flight models; Combined Arms that work sometimes, other times not; ATC that's three decades old and completely useless; the list goes on.

 

Multiplayer is honestly the only worthwhile experience anymore, so why continue to harm/fragment the community for the thought of a few extra rubles? Not to mention, Multiplayer isn't just getting on DDCS or Blue Flag, it's also those small personal servers that friends use to fly together. If my friend who only flies the A-10 wants to join my mission that I've set up where I'm flying the Hornet, why should he be forced to buy this DLC just so we can play together? It's just a really scummy business decision, and it screams disdain from the devs towards the community.

[Tippis]

So make everything more expensive?

Perhaps, but most likely not since they're well into the long tail on modules that have very little in the way of upkeep costs.

 

That won’t work because people in this thread are already saying they can’t afford the carrier module.

No.

[SouthernCross]

The 70 percent can still play the game on their own servers without the carrier

 

Then why would the 30% still buy the carrier when they see this coming?:music_whistling:

[Wizard_03]

Then why would the 30% still buy the carrier when they see this coming?:music_whistling:

 

Because them and I want a more realistic sim.

 

Perhaps, but most likely not since they're well into the long tail on modules that have very little in the way of upkeep costs.

 

 

No.

 

These modules have a huge “upkeep cost” they take years to release and sometimes even longer to complete

[Tippis]

These modules have a huge “upkeep cost” they take years to release and sometimes even longer to complete

So basically, they're mispriced then. Maybe ED should fix that problem.

[Keks]

These modules have a huge “upkeep cost” they take years to release and sometimes even longer to complete

 

Yes, thats why you allready pay more for a single module than for an entire AAA game. I dont see your point.

 

Why do you think it would be bad polishing the core game in order to create an incentive for ppl to buy more of said modules?

[Wizard_03]

So basically, they're mispriced then. Maybe ED should fix that problem.

 

Or they could not make it free to play and charge for the base game.

[Tippis]

Or they could not make it free to play and charge for the base game.

Also an idea, although that would probably require something more to be added to the base package to be a viable sales proposition for new players.

[ThorBrasil]

The question is not pay for the module but rather separate the community. This module should be allowed landing, takeoff and animations on top of the aircraft carrier for everyone. Now the rest will only use whoever buys.

[Wizard_03]

Also an idea, although that would probably require something more to be added to the base package to be a viable sales proposition for new players.

 

Like MAC? Bottom line for me is I want the new carrier comms whatever it takes to get them in the game.

[dawgie79]

Wrong. He comes by every other month or so. We spend a fair amount of time talking through binds, setups, the dark abyss of endless spending in front of them, try not to laugh (too much) when he ploughs into buildings, and cheer when all three wheels leave the tarmac the first time (before said building-ploughing occurs).

 

So we add argument from incredulity to the list of fallacies, then. It's as strawman too, but we've already put a checkmark in front of that one.

 

 

No, and no, in that order.

 

We already know it will divide the community for the simple reason that it cannot possibly not do so under the current scheme. It is inherent with the implementation. We also already know that a number of communities have decided not to feature this module on their servers because it is fundamentally incompatible with running servers for such communities.

 

Asking it not add artificial thresholds to MP participation is not in any way, shape, or form, the same as wanting it to be free — partially or otherwise. Asking that it be possible to join a server that is using the module without owning it yourself is only ever that: asking that it be possible to join the server that is using the module without owning it yourself. Nothing in that implies any desire of wanting to be able to use the module. A-10 pilots who join a server with F-14 slots do not want the F-14 to be free (partially or otherwise). Su-25T pilots who join a server with JTAC slots do not want CE to be free (partially or otherwise). More to the point, no-one in their right might wants the A-10 and the Su-25T pilots to be barred from playing with the F-14 and JTAC players just because they don't own the modules.

 

And yes, doing so — having hard restrictions on who can play with whom based on what they own, irrespective of what they want to own — does by very definition divide the community.

 

 

I will stop calling out strawman arguments when people stop using them to cover up their lack of actual argumentation. This will not happen, of course, since… well… they lack actual arguments. Again, it's kind of inherent.

No. Despite all your (fairly correct) arguments, my point is: the world has changed before. ;) Change is inevitable.

 

IF things will be as you say, and IF it will divide the current differentiation of online servers, than a new diff. will evolve. It's not that hard.

 

People should be glad ED is designing such a high fidelity carrier evironment, since that's pretty unprecendented. It's just sad people mostly seem to complain in stead of be happy about more choices, more options, more modules, etc. Why only complain in stead of actively thinking about new possible solutions, server/client side, a server module, dedicated carrier servers, I don't know, something? No, mostly I read is complaint after complaint after complaint. :)

[Tippis]

Like MAC? Bottom line for me is I want the new carrier comms whatever it takes to get them in the game.

Don't care.

 

Other bottom line is that while I would like to have better ATC and maybe even some carrier action, I don't want my having it keeping me away from those who don't (or vice versa), and between the two, being able to play with others is vastly more important than carrier animations I won't even look at while fiddling with knobs. One involves actually playing the game, not just passively gazing at the scenery. One lets me talk more people into reckless expenditures and the other does not.

 

And really, there is no good reason why there should be a conflict between the two to begin with.

 

IF things will be as you say, and IF it will divide the current differentiation of online servers, than a new diff. will evolve. It's not that hard.

There's no “if” about it — it has already happened, and it is already hurting future sales and dividing the community before it the actual sales have even begun.

 

This outcome was obvious, predicable, and inevitable. The fact that the whole idea wasn't nixed from the get-go sends a rather worrying message as far as the corporate governance (and indeed future) of ED goes.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis