Carrier comms - Mini Updates

[Jester2138]

If MP is as small and insignificant a portion of the community as ED and the resident forums apologists state, why not just make it free for use in MP? Put your money where your mouth is.

[NineLine]

Wouldnt it be possible for the actual carrier to deny non buyers the landing and simply have no wires ready whenever a non buyer tries to land?

 

Doesn't stop people from landing on it. ANd trust me, when you are going through all these steps and doing a correct CASE II or III or whatever, and you have people just landing as they want, it will be frustrating, and possible game breaking.

 

And again, this solution requires giving away assets, ED can only give away so much. Again, balance.

[Jester2138]

You are speaking for yourself, and that is your right, I have seen others very eager to get this. Such is life.

 

We will see who is right, soon enough. I have a challenge for you:

 

One month after the Carrier DLC's release, publicly post data showing what percentage of Hornet owners bought the Carrier DLC.

 

I think you will find it shockingly low.

[DefineHuman]

So there just isn't going to be a fix for carrier ATC at all?

 

I'm not interested in deck crew animations or elevators or player LSOs or whatever that aforementioned mission functionality is. Just on a base simulation level, the only people who'll have proper ATC are Nimitz owners? Is there no plan at all to extend working carrier ATC to the base game? We'll forever be using the broken one that was intended for airfields, which, I'm sorry, isn't even that good for airfields?

[NineLine]

So there just isn't going to be a fix for carrier ATC at all?

 

I'm not interested in deck crew animations or elevators or player LSOs or whatever that aforementioned mission functionality is. Just on a base simulation level, the only people who'll have proper ATC are Nimitz owners? Is there no plan at all to extend working carrier ATC to the base game? We'll forever be using the broken one that was intended for airfields, which, I'm sorry, isn't even that good for airfields?

 

I assume when the core ATC is done, the basic carrier ATC we have currently will benefit from those updates, but in no way will it be on the scope of what we are seeing with this module.

[Tippis]

No one can force you guys to buy anything. But we also have to protect our investment to a degree, and YES this even includes how this product displays in MP, I can see all the crazy videos now if some of the scenarios I listed were to go live... believe it or not, they can impact sales as well... as I said, ED has a tough job balancing all this.

But again, your scheme does not protect you against any of that. What you describe will happen anyway; servers already take measures to make it not happen; the tools they need already exist and are already used. Your list of scenarios is not definitive, and there are others that will not even exhibit the supposed craziness you're worried about.

 

You are trying to solve a wholly imaginary problem in a way that makes your product less attractive to large swaths of people.

 

Doesn't stop people from landing on it. ANd trust me, when you are going through all these steps and doing a correct CASE II or III or whatever, and you have people just landing as they want, it will be frustrating, and possible game breaking.

Hiding it behind a paywall doesn't stop it either. It will be no more frustrating that what we already see all over the place on existing airbases and carriers, and people have paid good money to do that too.

 

And again, this solution requires giving away assets, ED can only give away so much.

Asset. Singular. And you'll earn that back by having more sales.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis

[NineLine]

We will see who is right, soon enough. I have a challenge for you:

 

One month after the Carrier DLC's release, publicly post data showing what percentage of Hornet owners bought the Carrier DLC.

 

I think you will find it shockingly low.

 

I have heard that before, like people saying that WWII won't sell, but is one of the most popular and best-selling modules in the sim. No one will buy the Asset pack, but it has done very well.

 

This is a business as I said, we don't need to sign up for any challenges, if you don't like it don't buy it, but I know that many will love what we have in store.

[NineLine]

But again, your scheme does not protect you against any of that. What you describe will happen anyway; servers already take measures to make it not happen; the tools they need already exist and are already used. Your list of scenarios is not definitive, and there are others that will not even exhibit the supposed craziness you're worried about.

 

You are trying to solve a wholly imaginary problem in a way that makes your product less attractive to large swaths of people.

 

Again, you are just choosing to see part of the issue.

 

With crew animations, different comms, etc, the possibility for game breaking issues with non-owners is there.

 

As a business model, we need to have funds coming in to keep aspects free, we charge for a module, but we don't for all these new units we add, entirely new graphics engine, weather improvements ongoing, etc etc...

[Sephyrius]

So be it then.

 

Already stopped finding ways to justify map purchases when almost all of them are extinct in MP (85% Caucasus, 10% PG, 5% Normandy or so would be my guess). Nevada and Normandy are both uninstalled, waste of disk space, wasted purchase, we all make mistakes. Maybe PG soon enough, SSD space is precious.

 

Good to know that I don't have to bother with my WWII modules either since I didnt buy the asset pack to access those (very rare) servers.

 

Now I just have a reason not to buy these modules either. I'd rather have my "complete experience" actually be complete, not a good carrier experience in a drab underdeveloped SP environment, nor a simplistic carrier experience in a living and breathing MP environment.

 

Thanks for letting us know and saving us money.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Sephyrius

[Jester2138]

I have heard that before, like people saying that WWII won't sell, but is one of the most popular and best-selling modules in the sim. No one will buy the Asset pack, but it has done very well.

 

This is a business as I said, we don't need to sign up for any challenges, if you don't like it don't buy it, but I know that many will love what we have in store.

 

Unless you post data, I think your definition of "very well" is extremely loose.

 

I know roughly 150 people who avidly play DCS, and 3 of them (three) own the WWII asset pack. I've heard similar numbers from many group admins, which is why if you browse the MP server list, there are virtually no servers running it (or Normandy).

 

So we go back to my earlier statement. If MP is such a small portion and not relevant here, why not just make this free in MP? Would be fantastic advertising and sales generation for your apparently massive and completely silent and hidden SP community.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Jester2138

[NineLine]

 

Asset. Singular. And you'll earn that back by having more sales.

 

You have NO clue the costs of building these "singular" assets, so you can't speak to how it will affect ED as a business.

[NineLine]

Unless you post data, I think your definition of "very well" is extremely loose.

 

I know roughly 150 people who avidly play DCS, and 3 of them (three) own the WWII asset pack.

 

All the data you need to have is that we are still a viable healthy company.

 

Again, if you don't want it don't buy it. We don't have to hold up our sales numbers to prove you should buy it... it's not even on the topic at this point. We price things based on time and development costs. End of story.

[MegOhm_SD]

What an amazing community...

 

I am ready for the Carrier Module Pre-Order...along with the pilots I have been flying online with for over 20 Years.

 

This brings a whole new level to our sim regarding Naval Ops... Bring it!

 

We are seeing things now with DCS that we have been wishing for... for like... forever.

 

What a lucky bunch of Simmers we are. If not for DCS, I doubt I would even have a gaming rig.

Things like this Carrier Mod and the nice stable of High Fed Jets we have is why I do.

 

There are a-lot of half-empty glasses out there. Such a sad way to look at things.

[Tippis]

Again, you are just choosing to see part of the issue.

 

With crew animations, different comms, etc, the possibility for game breaking issues with non-owners is there.

How will it break the game?

 

If you want me to see some issue, describe it to me. In particular, please articulate how this will be any different from what is already going on on servers everywhere.

 

As a business model, we need to have funds coming in to keep aspects free, we charge for a module, but we don't for all these new units we add, entirely new graphics engine, weather improvements ongoing, etc etc...

Again — and I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this — no-one is arguing otherwise. Quite the opposite.

 

You have NO clue the costs of building these "singular" assets, so you can't speak to how it will affect ED as a business.

I do understand that I'm talking about a single ship. One that the people who don't buy it will presumably not even be able to place in the world, so the “giving away” part is almost completely inaccurate to begin with. And I can speak to how you are unnecessarily losing sales because your design decision makes the modules largely pointless to people who would otherwise be interested in it.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Tippis

[rjetster1]

What an amazing community...

 

I am ready for the Carrier Module Pre-Order...along with the pilots I have been flying online with for over 20 Years.

 

This brings a whole new level to our sim regarding Naval Ops... Bring it!

 

We are seeing things now with DCS that we have been wishing for... for like... forever.

 

What a lucky bunch of Simmers we are. If not for DCS, I doubt I would even have a gaming rig.

Things like this Carrier Mod and the nice stable of High Fed Jets we have is why I do.

 

There are a-lot of half-empty glasses out there. Such a sad way to look at things.

 

My feelings exactly!

[NineLine]

How will it break the game?

 

If you want me to see some issue, describe it to me. In particular, please articulate how this will be any different from what is already going on on servers everywhere.

 

 

You have all these elements active on the carrier, active in your game, and another user doesn't but is able to interact on some level... you have the potential for game breaking issues. You can see it with other things, like CA, if someone spams waypoints, the can bring down a server, etc.

[Nerdwing]

My feelings exactly!

 

Same!!!

 

I'm sixty freaking years old!!!!

 

Every day I make the choice between plugging in my HOTAS or emptying my colostomy bag and Im proud to say I'm filled to the brim and ready to burst, baby!!!!

Edited May 19, 2019 by Nerdwing

[Jester2138]

We price things based on time and development costs. End of story.

 

That's one way to do it. Another is to price things based on potential revenue at different price points (as most businesses do), one of those points being free.

 

Android, for example, is free. Google is able to make it free because they're smart enough to realize that it being free creates value and massive sales in more lucrative areas, which allows more money to be made than if they charged users for Android.

 

Now, that's just an example, and I don't think the Carrier DLC should be free. But by effectively locking it out of the MP community by restricting players from joining servers using it unless they own it, you are reducing it's value and ultimately losing sales.

 

That's disappointing to me, as someone who wants ED to make money, and who would otherwise spend my money on this DLC in particular.

[MethWolf]

You have all these elements active on the carrier, active in your game, and another user doesn't but is able to interact on some level... you have the potential for game breaking issues. You can see it with other things, like CA, if someone spams waypoints, the can bring down a server, etc.

 

So are you planning on restricting servers with CA to only players that have purchased CA?

 

If not, what differentiates CA from the Nimitz, either from a user or business standpoint?

Edited May 19, 2019 by MethWolf
clarity

[Thudster]

I can't answer you when you make a grossly incorrect statement like this.

 

That was probably a bit snarky on my part.

 

Remaining valid points are worth a poke.

[Tippis]

You have all these elements active on the carrier, active in your game, and another user doesn't but is able to interact on some level... you have the potential for game breaking issues. You can see it with other things, like CA, if someone spams waypoints, the can bring down a server, etc.

Eh, ok. You're going to have to expand on that.

 

If someone spams waypoints in CA, that can break the server — ok, fine, but that's the owner of the module, interacting with the module, that breaks the server, not someone else interacting with the CA units. The module overloads the server by request of the module owner.

 

How does that translate into a non-owner landing on a carrier, not interacting with it in any way other than resting on top of it, create a situation where the game might break? I'm sorry if I sound facetious here, but that rather sounds like something that would warrant bugfixing rather than locking the player out of the game completely.

 

If he's in the way of some interactive bit on the carrier (for the owners that is), what's stopping you from pausing that interaction until he gets out of the way? Or just telefrag the poor soul, like what happens everywhere else…

[Keks]

Ofc ED is a company and the goal is to make money.

 

With that being said I dont think raising the cost is not a smart decision either, as I am convinced that it will become harder and harder over time to get people into the game by adding more and more cost to get going. This might not be true for SP but for MP it sure is.

 

Also having an awesome carrier adds a huge WOW factor to the game and creates an incentive for people to buy carrier based modules. With more and more carrier based planes coming to the game I have a hard time seeing how a free carrier would be a waste of dev time.

 

 

But my main issue is the community split via paywall. This alone makes the module less attractive as it will be ruled out by the major communities, due to the potential loss of players. If the communities I fly with wont ever use it, because they cant, why should I buy it?

Thats the question that needs to be answered in a way that goes byond dont like it dont buy it.

 

The dont like it dont buy it kind of advertisment has worked out very poor for other games in the recent past, just saying.

 

Also I would like to know where the finish line for this kind of DLC is.

 

Are there any more paywalled assets planned? Will those be mandatory in the same way as the carrier is for mp aswell?

[DefineHuman]

I assume when the core ATC is done, the basic carrier ATC we have currently will benefit from those updates, but in no way will it be on the scope of what we are seeing with this module.

 

That's very disheartening. Unless by scope you mean something other than ATC. As I said, all the new features like elevators or deck crew are understandably being sold in the new module, but ATC is so essential, and to say that it's going to be inferior unless you pay for an add-on whose features don't actually interest you is frustrating. It feels like the equivalent of making us pay for realistic weather. This is a flight sim.

[NineLine]

It feels like the equivalent of making us pay for realistic weather.

 

But weather isn't carrier ops. Carrier ops are specific to a type of player, weather isn't.

[NineLine]

Eh, ok. You're going to have to expand on that.

 

If someone spams waypoints in CA, that can break the server — ok, fine, but that's the owner of the module, interacting with the module, that breaks the server, not someone else interacting with the CA units. The module overloads the server by request of the module owner.

 

How does that translate into a non-owner landing on a carrier, not interacting with it in any way other than resting on top of it, create a situation where the game might break? I'm sorry if I sound facetious here, but that rather sounds like something that would warrant bugfixing rather than locking the player out of the game completely.

 

If he's in the way of some interactive bit on the carrier (for the owners that is), what's stopping you from pausing that interaction until he gets out of the way? Or just telefrag the poor soul, like what happens everywhere else…

 

We are just going round and round now. I explained our reason on this, I cant explain it any more, you will just have to wait and see, and decide for yourself if its worth your purchase or not. As I said, concerns have been passed along, I dont know what else I can say.