Carrier comms - Mini Updates

[DefineHuman]

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

 

Are they specific to a player that bought the F/A-18? ED's current flagship? I mentioned earlier that keeping all the other bells and whistles behind a paywall is fair. But specifically developing ATC with the intent of it being inferior to the Nimitz module to strongarm players into buying essential functionality is just not right.

[Tippis]

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.

No, that's fine, and that's good to hear.

 

The issue is more that some of the rationalisations we're hearing here are not all that convincing and even seem to argue against points never even raised. Counter-points are dismissed without much explanation, or with explanations that run counter to how servers actually operate.

 

I appreciate that want to put a lid on this particular pot, because it's spitting all over the place, but I think it's one of those things where doing so will just up the pressure and end up doing lasting damage to the ceiling above it, when what you actually need is to take a step back and figure out a way to remove the heat source.

[NineLine]

Are they specific to a player that bought the F/A-18? ED's current flagship? I mentioned earlier that keeping all the other bells and whistles behind a paywall is fair. But specifically developing ATC with the intent of it being inferior to the Nimitz module to strongarm players into buying essential functionality is just not right.

 

Strongarming? I mean I don't know what to say to comments like this, it's rather insulting. I have answered the best that I can, I don't know how core ATC will affect basic core carrier comms. I mean it comes down to doing your reasearch, look at the module as it progresses and seeing if its worth it to you... what else can I say?

 

I will add that there will be a discount for Hornet owners. I just learned that. ANd of course, like maps and asset pack, it will be free to dedicated servers.

 

Now I am going swimming with my daughter, so behave while I am gone...

Edited May 19, 2019 by NineLine

[Gladman]

I will add that there will be a discount for Hornet owners. I just learned that. ANd of course, like maps and asset pack, it will be free to dedicated servers.

 

 

Does that mean you won't have to own it to join a server running it?

[rjetster1]

They have pools in Canada?

[MethWolf]

Does that mean you won't have to own it to join a server running it?

 

No; its pretty clear he means that you won't have to own it to host a server running it. You will have to own it to join a server running it, unless something changes.

[DefineHuman]

Strongarming? I mean I don't know what to say to comments like this, it's rather insulting. I have answered the best that I can, I don't know how core ATC will affect basic core carrier comms. I mean it comes down to doing your reasearch, look at the module as it progresses and seeing if its worth it to you... what else can I say?

 

This seems like guffawing to avoid addressing the point. It was not intended as an insult and I don't understand how you saw it as one. You told me that when ATC is fixed, it may extend to the carriers but it will not be as good as the Nimitz if it is. Why would core functionality be purposely made inferior? Imagine forcing hornet owners to pay extra for the ability to use afterburners. That is strongarming. It is not meant to be insulting. It's predatory targeting for anyone that bought a naval plane.

 

Carrier ops are too niche to be a core functionality of the flagship module but also how dare you insult us by suggesting this isn't right? Come on dude.

[Sephyrius]

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.

 

Exactly. The ED business model is surprisingly simplistic/linear.

 

For example, the WWII choices has led to a minimum $100+ price tag (even as a discounted bundle) for any WWII enthusiast who wants nothing more than to fly a WWII aircraft in a WWII map with WWII units.

 

With simplistic AI that repeats the same move over and over, "cheats" the aerodynamics, a near-dead MP scene, poorest-performing map and only recently a decent damage model.

 

Is it any wonder why people pass it up? Instead of flying a single plane, getting suckered in, buying more planes and populating servers, they look elsewhere.

 

Why does jet content thrive? Because you can get in for $15 bucks, get hooked, play MP, buy more modules, get invested, thrive.

 

Carrier DLC is a firm step towards the WWII situation of barrier-to-entry and sub-par experience. What's next, land ATC DLC? Helipad/FARP DLC?

 

I thought developers of a military simulator would understand the concept of force multiplication quite well.

[Greekbull]

The biggest concern is large multiplayer servers will be completely split up. We run a very immersive combined battlespace that includes Navy, Marine and will also have Air Force Squadrons all flying together. The concern is not for the Navy guys and what happen if they don't have it...We've got no problem forcing our entire Naval side to purchase it. It's the Air Force and Marine Harrier guys operating from Land and the LHA that all of a sudden either have to buy a Carrier module they will never use or we have to keep the stock carrier with all its numerous problems and faults for all the Navy guys. It's pretty much a lose lose scenario ATM.

 

Hell make it so guys that don't have the Carrier blow up if they try and land on it whatever. But the land and LHA guys should be able to fly in the same battlespace. I'm not sure the Multiplayer ramifications on this were thought through at all.

[Knock-Knock]

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.

 

Hear hear :thumbup:

[Smoked]

Any word on cost?

[Baaz]

I've said it before, will say it again. A $10-15 monthly subscription fee puts EVERYONE back on a level playing field and supporting DCS World as a whole.

 

I'm willing to bet the costs of your carrier module would be covered within the first three months. It could then become the standard within the game for ALL to enjoy. You could possibly see to it that the new carrier communication upgrades are applied to all airfields as well.

 

Furthermore, you may even earn some extra cash to hire more personnel to fix those issues that many have been waiting YEARS to see fixed.

 

Or... we can go on arguing for another 34 pages.

[DefineHuman]

I've said it before, will say it again. A $10-15 monthly subscription fee puts EVERYONE back on a level playing field and supporting DCS World as a whole.

 

I'm willing to bet the costs of your carrier module would be covered within the first three months. It could then become the standard within the game for ALL to enjoy. You could possibly see to it that the new carrier communication upgrades are applied to all airfields as well.

 

Furthermore, you may even earn some extra cash to hire more personnel to fix those issues that many have been waiting YEARS to see fixed.

 

Or... we can go on arguing for another 34 pages.

 

If you mean a paid subscription that unlocks all modules, then fair. But making DCS as a whole subscription-based? nah, no thx. i'm not paying an extra monthly fee to use what i already own a license to.

[AcroGimp]

The fundamental issue that seems to have not been adequately considered is impact on Multiplayer Servers with both ashore and afloat operations.

 

This approach, as explained, means that large MP organizations have to force their membership to choose to EITHER force everyone to buy the HD CVN even if they fly Hueys in the Army or Hawgs and Vipers in the Air Force and will literally never use it, OR force the navy guys to give up the enhanced naval operations when flying on the MP server - neither of these are good or even acceptable options and defeat the purpose of having a dedicated server.

 

No one is denying that ED is a business and needs and deserves to be paid for development work, the concern is where the line is drawn with respect to impact on the actual user community that is actually funding it through our actual purchases.

 

Everyone knows that ATC within DCS, like weather, dynamic campaigns, the mission editor and a few other core features are severely lagging when compared to alternative applications - and we would all I believe like to see these issues fixed/improved. I think we all recognize that module sales is the primary mechanism for funding that - the concern again is how this particular module's implementation, as proposed, can be easily seen as further fracturing and balkanizing the user community rather than promoting and growing it.

[98abaile]

Ok, guys let me try and give you some scenarios.

 

1) ED gives away the carrier model as the core, or a lo-res representation. Now you have non-owners landing willy nilly on the carrier, messing up owners carrier landings, running over their crew, and general immersion breaking.

 

2) ED makes the module "invisible" to non-purchasers, but they can still join the server. Then these people see a ghost ship floating around, invisible with hornets floating in mid-air, or enemy aircraft are unable to engage the carrier.

 

3) Model no collision or ability to land. Again, immersion breaking, people that don't own it flying through the carrier, again enemy aircraft cant interact, etc.

 

4) ED just gives away the module free as a core update. ED is still a business, and we maintain a lot of free content with the core game already. At some point, there needs to be a return on investment. The time and effort that has gone into this so far are immense. It will pave the way for many core game improvements, both with tech improvements and simply keeping the lights on.

 

We will do the very best, to make this accessible as we can, but it has to work for both sides. I would hope most of you want us to be around for a while. We want to make sure we are to continue bringing you these best content out there. And just know, anyone that wants a great carrier experience will want this module.

Number 3 is fine, just make it so they get no ATC response, can't spawn on it and bolter every time.

[Gladman]

Number 3 is fine, just make it so they get no ATC response, can't spawn on it and bolter every time.

 

I don't like it but if those are out options, I agree, that most certainly is the best one. Our AF and Marine squads wouldn't be looking to land on it anyway.

[Baaz]

If you mean a paid subscription that unlocks all modules, then fair. But making DCS as a whole subscription-based? nah, no thx. i'm not paying an extra monthly fee to use what i already own a license to.

 

I'm not saying that at all. The last thing I want to see is DCS turning into War Thunder, World of Tanks, or the like. Do you really want to spend days, weeks, months, or even years of grinding to unlock an aircraft like the F-18, or F-16? I sure don't.

 

No, what I'm proposing is that ED drops the "free to play" idea. If you want the most realistic flight experience, it's going to cost you a monthly membership. First month free, and here's a Su-25 and TF-51 to wet your whistle. After 30 days you're paying for the modules you want to buy, and the monthly subscription covers the development of things like the WWII assets, this new carrier, updating the communications, future maps, and all the fixes needed to get this game to a standard everyone can play on.

 

It's honestly the only way to not break this community into tiny pieces of shattered glass.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Baaz

[Greekbull]

NineLine some of those scenarios will certainly work! Please choose one that works for you guys but still allows guys not trying to land on the CVN to fly in the same server. That's our main concern. We have a huge membership and would have no problem making all Naval guys purchase the payware Carrier that intend to use a Carrier. We just need an option that allows us to keep others in the same server flying Jets like the Viper or Harrier and don't ever want to use the Carrier. Please take that into consideration and give us an option.

 

Thanks!

Edited May 19, 2019 by Greekbull

[flyingFrisbee]

I can only speak for myself and the ~5 man group of people I fly with, but the requirement for all members of a server to have the carrier DLC has turned it from a probable day 1 buy to a waste of money for those of us who own the 18 or 14.

 

 

Also, IMO ATC is an absolutely essential part of carrier ops, and I struggle to see how ED justifies it as outside the core of the game when their flagship module is carrier based, their most detailed third party module is carrier based, and they've expressed an interest in making the game shift toward naval operations.

[beppe_goodoldrebel]

I'm not saying that at all. The last thing I want to see is DCS turning into War Thunder, World of Tanks, or the like. Do you really want to spend days, weeks, months, or even years of grinding to unlock an aircraft like the F-18, or F-16? I sure don't.

 

No, what I'm proposing is that ED drops the "free to play" idea. If you want the most realistic flight experience, it's going to cost you a monthly membership. First month free, and here's a Su-25 and TF-51 to wet your whistle. After 30 days your paying for the modules you want to buy, and the monthly subscription covers the development of things like the WWII assets, this new carrier, updating the communications, future maps, and all the fixes needed to get this game to a standard everyone can play on.

 

It's honestly the only way to not break this community into tiny pieces of shattered glass.

 

It could even be a 5-10€ cost for the basic game , then all modules apart.

While aircrafts are the "core business" all the things that are around them are what keep us flying and buy other modules.

 

I think DCS needs a huge boost on assets,war enviroinment , weather , dynamic campaign, single missions, a more powerful Mission Editor, etc. , having all for free is not possible and you need constant revenue for constant improvement.

 

I can totally see why the carrier is a separate module itself but I hope the land ATC isnt following the same path. While only a couple of modules can land on a carrier everyone can land on an airstrip.

[Wags]

Hey everyone,

 

Another important point needs to be made: in addition to the problems cited earlier that center around radio communications, deck crew, and other unique features to the upcoming Nimitz-class module, a larger, more fundamental item is the brand new Nimitz-class carrier unit/model being created for this module.

 

It is not simply a repaint or update to the current Stennis. Like the comms, deck crew, and other items, creating this new unit has been a tremendous amount of time and effort, and pushed back other projects like the Kuznetsov, Arleigh Burke-class, and other projects. This unit can't and won't be given away for free to users that don't own the module. If you wants to see this unit in the game, you must own it as part of the module.

 

Naturally, it is impossible to have inconsistent world if the host and client see the world differently, and so the client must own this module in order to join a host using this module.

 

We have read all your comments and we understand that this is not popular for many of you. However, for the health of our company, this is a necessity.

 

Thanks

[Gladman]

I'd rather wait another year for this than have our online communities decimated.

[98abaile]

If you wants to see this unit in the game, you must own it as part of the module.

 

Naturally, it is impossible to have inconsistent world if the host and client see the world differently, and so the client must own this module in order to join a host using this module.

I'm not convinced. LODs are a thing..

[dawgie79]

Will this module be also available as a pre-order?

 

Sign me up anyway. :)

 

 

Happen to have any WiP images to share, Wags?

[Tippis]

This unit can't and won't be given away for free to users that don't own the module.

Good news: no-one is asking for that. No-one. The only ones who are even suggesting anything remotely resembling it are, paradoxically enough, the ones who most adamantly express a desire to keep it costly.

 

However, for the health of our company, this is a necessity.

Just to be clear: you do understand that this means you will sell fewer modules and you will have more people suggesting people give it a miss since it will not be of any use to larger communities.

 

I understand that you cannot discuss internal company financial strategies and policies in the open, but I hope that you in turn understand that from the outside, this does not seem to entirely be in line with benefiting the company's economic health.