Paying money??? (rant)

[Mars Exulte]

Plot twist : OP spent $2000 on Star Citizen jpg ships, at least half of which still only exist as jpgs.

[lxsapper]

And the straw man award goes to....

 

Plot twist : OP spent $2000 on Star Citizen jpg ships, at least half of which still only exist as jpgs.

[Sheriff BurneR]

I can give 100$ for Super Carrier , but release him in this month pls! :D

[BuzzU]

I can give 100$ for Super Carrier , but release him in this month pls! :D

 

Nice try.

[CallsignPunch]

The original rant is somewhat ridiculous.....I think it’s quit nice of ED to give DCS World and the SU-25 free. Nobody wants a subscription pay model so the way ED makes money is through modules, maps, and campaigns.

 

I’m happy to pay to support ED and purchase what I like. I actually think more things should be paid “packs”. Free DCS World with a few AI planes, ships, and ground vehicles and the rest in paid pack....like Iranian military pack, naval ai pack, exc.

 

I think doing this way would actually work better for both ED and the user....ED gets cash flow and user gets high quality AI, fwatures like weather updates and all that.....if they are making more money on it more motivation is there or they can hire more. For those that don’t want to pay....fine fly in a basic map with limited features, for those of us happy to pay for the excellent products, awesome we can pick and choose what we want or buy it all to add to our experience.

 

Well done on the Carrier ED, hurry up with the EA launch.....I have some money for ya!

[Mars Exulte]

And the straw man award goes to....

 

Truth hurts.

[Griz]

I'll be buying it. And happy to do it. Don't understand why the chronic complainers think this great simulation should be a freebie.

[Bephott]

I was not really interested in the supercarrier idea, thanks to this topic now I am.

Hope it arrives soon!

[donkeyrider]

I can give 100$ for Super Carrier , but release him in this month pls! :D

 

+1

 

This would be the best Christmas ever!

[Rudel_chw]

I actually think more things should be paid “packs”. Free DCS World with a few AI planes, ships, and ground vehicles and the rest in paid pack....like Iranian military pack, naval ai pack, exc.

 

I think doing this way would actually work better for both ED and the user....

 

That approach works for Single Player, but it isnt good for MP as most servers would end up using only the free portion.

 

I prefer the current ED practice, to have the whole core game free and only the Maps and airplanes as paid products (the exception being the WW2 Assets Pack, which I really believe should have been a part of the core-game and is likely to have negatively impacted on the appeal of WW2 aircrafts)

 

.... Don't understand why the chronic complainers think this great simulation should be a freebie.

 

+1 ... the same people able to spend a lot of money on hardware and peripherals, getting all twisted-up when asked for 80 bucks for the software that is going to be used on that hardware. I really dont understand them at all.

[DerFangzahn]

So how should this work in MP? I need to own the Supercarrier if I want to land on it on a MP server? Or is it replaced with a standard Stennis if I dont own the Supercarrier?

 

Do I need to own the thing to connect to the server?

 

...the exception being the WW2 Assets Pack, which I really believe should have been a part of the core-game and is likely to have negatively impacted on the appeal of WW2 aircrafts)

 

You are absolutely right. WW2 scenario is severely impacted due to the fact that the asset pack is a separate module. It should be at least be part of the Normandy map and not be sold seperate.

[Shimmergloom667]

So how should this work in MP? I need to own the Supercarrier if I want to land on it on a MP server? Or is it replaced with a standard Stennis if I dont own the Supercarrier?

 

Do I need to own the thing to connect to the server?

 

No, you dont need it to connect to the server. IIRC you won't be able to communicate with it, spawn on it, launch from a cat or trap on a wire.

[DerFangzahn]

No, you dont need it to connect to the server. IIRC you won't be able to communicate with it, spawn on it, launch from a cat or trap on a wire.

 

So in MP mission designers will always have to use two carriers. The Supercarrier and a standard one for the guys which dont own the SC.

 

Odd situation.

[nessuno0505]

Maybe, but I think it's the best possible: you can see but you can't touch...

[boedha68]

I’ll hope the weekend news give some answers on all the questions. :D

 

It’s a completely new thing in DCS. So information comes asap. :D

[Shimmergloom667]

So in MP mission designers will always have to use two carriers. The Supercarrier and a standard one for the guys which dont own the SC.

 

Odd situation.

 

Better than the alternative. And making it fully available to all who don't buy it would be kinda silly, too.

[Cintra]

If I have the cash, maybe. Depends on if I think I'll use it. It certainly sounds cool.

[delevero]

im not 100% sure..

it have been debated before and ED said something about that the carrier will be avaliable for everyone.

 

However only people who pay for it will have all features.

 

( that way there will only be a need of one carrier ingame making it possible for all people to play together though they dont own the carrier )

 

Example if you dont own the f14, you can still see it ingame and shoot it but you just cant fly it if you dont own it..

The same should be possible for the carrier, so you can land/takeoff but all the fancy new graphics and extra features do not work.

If you want the features buy it.

[Grimes]

Gonna try to elevate the analysis here because ya'll are all over the place.

 

Better than the alternative. And making it fully available to all who don't buy it would be kinda silly, too.

 

Who says the choices are binary?

 

[1] WW2 Asset Pack Sales Model. (DLC Required to join server and place objects in SP)

[2] Models are visible but can't interact without the DLC (Where things are stated to be)

[3] Non-owners can spawn and land on the CV, basically limited to the current functionality of the Stennis, where they can't see the deck crew at all. (What I think it should be)

[4] Non-owners get 3 + the new comms so all the game mechanics are shared for all players. (What I want it to be but have to be pragmatic about it)

[5] Free for all, cost of project subsidized by increase price of other modules or whatever else. (What it is in the multiverse of Rainbows and lollipops)

 

Now lets compare them a little.

 

Option 5 clearly isn't an option since 3 years ago when ED announced the idea of CV DLC and they have stuck with it all this time, so lets throw that one out.

 

Option 1 unilaterally eliminates the problems of 2, 3, and 4 by locking it all behind a DLC but in return creates a definitive wall between those that have it and those that don't. It might lead to plenty of purchases but overall disuse in MP due to that split. There still is a problem it shares with option 2 which I will get into below.

 

Option 2 requires multiple CVs objects to support multiple clients that may or may not have it leading to issues that include but are not limited to:

- Player not understanding why they can't land on the ship

- Players not understanding why they can't spawn on a ship that they placed in the editor.

- Players flying to the wrong carrier only to find they can't land on it due to DLC.

- Multiple CVs means multiple locations, possibly making it more advantageous to spawn on one more than the other. All the DLC owners may spawn on the free CV because it is better for the mission which in turn screws over non DLC owners.

- Multiple standards of CVs requires support for 2 versions of a mission/campaign. Aircraft with "Player" skill can only exist once in a mission, thus you need a copy with the DLC ship and a copy with the Stennis. This is present with option 1 and is something you see with the WW2 Asset Pack, but in this instance it is likely just a single unit within the mission.

- Extreme irony of non owners flying aircraft capable of vertical/short landings being able to land and maybe use a CV while the actual CV aircraft can't.

 

 

Option 3 and Option 4 have roughly the same pros and cons going for them. You allow non-owners limited use, but that use is still limited. Perhaps there is a pushback functionality, the emergency landing netting, or landing scores wouldn't be available to them. Between the owners and non-owners there could be some strife caused by what each other isn't fully aware of. For instance a DLC owner is specifically trying to follow the deck crew commands, but a non-DLC owner is just parked on top of the crew. To be fair because deck crew are non-collidable this can also happen with people that DO own the DLC. Maybe with option 3 having simple ATC interacting with the CV ATC would cause issues.

 

Slight addendum, I also think it would be perfectly acceptable to mimic how an unnamed similar to DCS but ground combat focused game handled it by reducing 3d model standard and textures for non-owners. Now I don't think it should go anywhere near as far as that game did, but current Stennis quality would be acceptable in my opinion.

 

Option 3 might create more technical hurdles to overcome, but significantly reduces annoyances and limitations introduced by requiring multiple objects with different capabilities and functionality to be present within the same mission. Plus it delays the necessity to upgrade Stennis to the correct size/number of spawns and the Vinson to the correct decade of 3d model standards.

 

Ultimately it comes down to the final price and however you value what is in the package. Whether or not you want to factor how it is integrated might change your game experience is also up to you. In case you can't tell it is something that I think is critical to the game. I really dislike the idea of needing multiple ships in a mission to cater to both experiences AND having the free ship being gimped in more ways than one.

[Gruman]

All good points. Thanks Grimes for that analysis.

 

I agree, all will come down to the price (would be nice to know this soon).

What kind of offers will be available:

• Price
  
• PrePurchase Discount
  
• PrePurchase Hornet Owners Discount (I think this was mentioned before)
  
• PrePurchase Cat Owners (Unlikely)
  
• Hornet-SC Bundles
  
• Cat-SC Bundle
  

 

I don't have a problem paying for quality. I'm more concerned about pilots not wanting to buy into another early access product and because of that reason splitting the community.

 

I like Point 3(-4, since the communication was already partially introduced to the free stennis anyway). Let them use it as a platform in MP, but remove the graphical goodies (Deck Crew, Camera views). Limit the use in SP as well (Not placeable in the mission editor).

[Steve Gee]

So, ED should make a diminished version of the Supercarrier that only the people that didn't buy Supercarrier can still see and use online, without all the "graphical goodies"?

 

One that would require more network code to identify if you own the carrier or not, from the same network that has me crashing into a plane parked beside me on the current carrier at least once a day from sliding around?

 

Sure, why not? :D

[Winfield_Gold]

By far the best improvement for DCS realism since combined arms release all those years ago. Those who do not want to invest, no doubt will invest once the module is released even before seeing it reach full potential.

 

To add fact to this statement, who here does not own either the F-18C or F-16? You purchased those modules based on information before seeing these modules full potential as well eh?

 

Anyone who says no to owning one of either module (or both) is blatantly lying.

[twistking]

[...]who here does not own either the F-18C or F-16? You purchased those modules based on information before seeing these modules full potential as well eh?

Anyone who says no to owning one of either module (or both) is blatantly lying.

can't honestly tell, if you're joking or not (not owning neither)!

[Gruman]

So, ED should make a diminished version of the Supercarrier that only the people that didn't buy Supercarrier can still see and use online, without all the "graphical goodies"?

 

One that would require more network code to identify if you own the carrier or not, from the same network that has me crashing into a plane parked beside me on the current carrier at least once a day from sliding around?

 

The game has to detect the ownerstatus in any case. With or without a "dimished version", otherwise it couldnt decide to allow you to land... ;)

And the graphical goodies can just be on a higher LOD (Level of Detail -> Cut / paste Operation).

Arma 3 did a similiar thing to lock DLC items (Lower textures).

 

You got a better idea? You prefer having two carriers next to each other? :smartass:

[Kid18120]

who here does not own either the F-18C or F-16? You purchased those modules based on information before seeing these modules full potential as well eh?

 

I'm one of those who said no to the F16 simply because it's an aircraft i don't have an interest for right now.

I also don't have an interest in the super carrier so i probably won't buy it either.

The difference (possible) is that i don't need the F16 to join a server but i might need a Super Carrier to join.

If i won't need a SC to join a server, i'll be happy.

As simple as that. :joystick: