Jump to content

Non-owners placing in ME


Swift.

Recommended Posts

Not sure the argument to have the mission maker shell out "extra" money even grazes near my own way of thinking. Mission makers are the ones actually creating content for the game no matter if it's MP or SP. Are those the ppl that you want to put all the weight on (I know it's voluntary to make missions but many companies do take the route of making it easier to make missions, not harder), now also including the financial part?

 

I dunno man ... :/


Edited by TheBamse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Not sure the argument to have the mission maker shell out "extra" money even grazes near my own way of thinking. Mission makers are the ones actually creating content for the game no matter if it's MP or SP. Are those the ppl that you want to put all the weight on (I know it's voluntary to make missions but many companies do take the route of making it easier to make missions, not harder), now also including the financial part?

 

I dunno man ... :/

 

Having a mission maker that can't test his own mission, or isn't interested at all other than just placing the icon in the mission isn't really what the module was designed for. I think in this case, the module is for those that are interested in Carrier Ops.

 

Not sure the argument of "I am not interested in the module so why should I have to pay for it" isn't one that's got much traction, sorry.

 

Mission and Campaign creators will want to properly test and even use their missions, I don't think using content they don't own in their creations makes much sense (and yes I read Snoopy's example, and it still doesn't make sense, and I am sure very much a minority in content creation).


Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that will happen, now you want to be able to spawn, service, launch and recover from it? I think with the discounts given, people getting it for as low as 15 bucks, the ideal solution is if you are a mission creator and want to create missions/campaigns with this content you should get it now while its so heavily discounted.

 

I know it doesn't matter much in this discussion, but these types of assets and the work that goes into them cant always be given away, and it's not like we don't give them away at times, i.e. the SCUD launcher with the new ballistic FM coming as one example.

The carrier is definitely worth paying for, but I think concerns over fragmenting the community, especially when it's niche to begin with are valid.

 

 

It only makes sense for ED to charge for the carrier, but I'd prefer if add ons like this didn't complicate sharing missions. I don't know what the best solution is, but I don't think it's the way the carrier is being implemented.

 

 

I don't think using content they don't own in their creations makes much sense (and yes I read Snoopy's example, and it still doesn't make sense, and I am sure very much a minority in content creation).

This I disagree with. There can be a variety of reasons why the mission maker doesn't own a particular module, but would like to include it in a mission. This is especially true when sharing a mission. While testing with access to a particular asset is ideal, it's not a requirement. You might also have users of the mission test it for you and you can apply corrections through this testing.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait you said earlier...

 

I think with the discounts given, people getting it for as low as 15 bucks, the ideal solution is if you are a mission creator and want to create missions/campaigns with this content you should get it now while its so heavily discounted.

 

But then your respond to me only wanting it to be like other modules in the ME (aka placable in the ME) to this?

 

Well if that's all you plan to do then of course the module isn't for you, it has been selling extremely well, a big reason why Valve allowed the pre-order, so many people are very excited about it, but I can understand why someone not interested in it wouldn't want to buy it.

 

So which is it? Mission builders should pay for something they don’t plan to actively use in the game or we should because we want the module to be like every other one and placeable in the ME?

 

Sorry Sith you’ve lost the point of the original post and just clouding the waters. As someone who makes missions for the 476th not being able to include this in missions I create will likely cause members of the 476th to not purchase either.

 

I just want the pay model to keep the DCS core from fragmenting. As with aircraft modules, everyone should be able to use any module in the ME, even if they can't use all the module's features.

 

This, I don’t want anything for free but I want the super carrier to be like every other module when it comes to working in the ME. I have no need to test the super carrier in the ME. But let Sith I’m a minority and by his last comment referencing me I guess out of touch.


Edited by Snoopy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know it is worth paying for? :)

 

We haven't seen any of it yet, apart from some marketing screens and videos.

It's like with F-16, all we can buy right now, is a promise.

Good point, I used the wrong word. What I was getting at was that it's the kind of content that I think the devs deserve to be payed for. As Nineline said not every can be given away for free.

 

 

I just want the pay model to keep the DCS core from fragmenting. As with aircraft modules, everyone should be able to use any module in the ME, even if they can't use all the module's features.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your mission testing is actually not a very valid point. I know mission designers that don’t own every module but use them in their missions. They simply fly other jets that they do have to make sure it works as intended. I don’t need to own a module to test a mission. I just need to place it in the mission and watch the AI do the work. And then change what isn’t working. I don’t own any helo stuff except the Huey, but I can see that they work in mission that I place them in. No one is asking for the SC to be different than any other module. In fact all they’re asking for is that is like all the other modules. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for honestly. That way there is consistency, and mission designers know what to expect with upcoming modules.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already purchased this, so it is kinda a mute point for me, but I don't really understand ED's thought process here. I (just me) wouldn't think about asking for anything for free. This stuff costs money to create. I think we all get that. What is interesting is that this breaks tradition with other modules. You don't have to own it to place it. I don't really understand that one. Looking thru the thread I see only people that want to place the thing in a mission, not actually use it. Now, if the SC interacts with the map in different ways, I could maybe see their reasoning but they haven't said that. All in all I think this needs to be laid under the "wait and see" items. It sucks that people would miss out on this discount, which would mean if you haven't purchased yet you're probably not going too. ED needs to give a little more reasoning and thought process behind this choice, help us understand what they are thinking and why. Nothing crazy just a little bit more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, I used the wrong word. What I was getting at was that it's the kind of content that I think the devs deserve to be payed for. As Nineline said not every can be given away for free.

 

 

I just want the pay model to keep the DCS core from fragmenting. As with aircraft modules, everyone should be able to use any module in the ME, even if they can't use all the module's features.

 

 

Agreed on both points!

So many modules, so little time...

 

www.mikphotography.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

 

This, I don’t want anything for free but I want the super carrier to be like every other module when it comes to working in the ME. I have no need to test the super carrier in the ME. But let Sith I’m a minority and by his last comment referencing me I guess out of touch.

 

In order to use it, you need to pay for it, you said you wouldn't even pay a $1 for it, so you want it for free. Sorry Paul, but in this case, you are out of touch, and a minority, most content creators will want to test their creations. You gave the example you would need it for, you could just as easily hand it off to a squadmate and have them add the carrier for you.


Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Your mission testing is actually not a very valid point. I know mission designers that don’t own every module but use them in their missions. They simply fly other jets that they do have to make sure it works as intended. I don’t need to own a module to test a mission. I just need to place it in the mission and watch the AI do the work. And then change what isn’t working. I don’t own any helo stuff except the Huey, but I can see that they work in mission that I place them in. No one is asking for the SC to be different than any other module. In fact all they’re asking for is that is like all the other modules. I don’t think that’s too much to ask for honestly. That way there is consistency, and mission designers know what to expect with upcoming modules.

 

The argument here is it should be free to those that just want to plop it into a mission, it is not.

 

If you want to make missions with the Carrier DLC, you need to own it.

 

I know most content creators, that make full-blown missions with a specific module or such will want that to be able to test it. If its just "setting" a unit in a map with no adjustments, then create your mission, find a friend with the Carrier DLC, have the "plop" the carrier in it, and you are done.

 

This DLC is not part of the core game, its a complete add-on. I know the cool words right now are fragmented and paywall, but honestly we have done everything we can to limit this as well as try to return our own investment on it.

 

I am sorry it doesn't work for everyone. But the majority of people into Carrier Ops, its working just fine.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to use it, you need to pay for it, you said you wouldn't even pay a $1 for it, so you want it for free. Sorry Paul, but in this case, you are out of touch, and a minority, most content creators will want to test their creations.

 

Okay so we can assume going forward the Hind and other future modules will have to be purchased it to place it in the ME?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Okay so we can assume going forward the Hind and other future modules will have to be purchased it to place it in the ME?

 

Try comparing it to the WWII Asset Pack, comparing it to the Hind or other aircraft module is just not the same.


Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try comparing it to the WWII Asset Pack, comparing it to the Hind or other module is just not the same.

 

Noted, not a module. I’d suggest not including the word “module” when talking about the Super Carrier to avoid confusion. If it was outlined as the “Super Carrier asset pack” I personally wouldn’t have ever commented knowing how the WWII pack functions (don’t agree with it but it’s already an established practice).


Edited by Snoopy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question might have been asked previously, but do mission creators have to own a map (e.g. Persian Gulf)in order to design a mission that uses the Persian Gulf map? I seem to remember threads with mission creators and MP server owners complaining about ED not giving them a newly released map to use.

When all else fails, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS!

 

i-7 8700K Coffee Lake 5 GHz OC CPU, 32GB Corsair 3200 RAM, GTX1080 Ti 11Gb VRAM. Controls - Thrustmaster Warthog H.O.T.A.S., Saitek Pro rudder pedals, TrackIR 5, Oculus Rift S, Rift CV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
The question might have been asked previously, but do mission creators have to own a map (e.g. Persian Gulf)in order to design a mission that uses the Persian Gulf map? I seem to remember threads with mission creators and MP server owners complaining about ED not giving them a newly released map to use.

 

Dedicated servers can use maps without purchase, Mission creators need to own the maps.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;4196740']Want a Super Carrier in your mission???? ... Pay for it, it's that simple.

 

 

Don't want to pay, then just use the free carrier instead, problem solved!

What a reply :clapping:.....

 

 

 

That is not the solution to this problem... Maybe read the thread first before giving more "insightful" replies

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do understand that some people don't want to pay for something they're most likely not using, I do not understand while your own squadrons don't support you.

 

Example given: We do a lot of downhill riding and shoot our runs with gopros. One of the guys is not into biking that much, but he is good at video editing. So we all gave some money for him, that he could get a better video software, and now he is doing our videos.

 

If you are doing missions for a whole BIG squadron, how hard can it be to collect the bucks for the carrier and donate it to you, since you provide them with missions? We are not talking about hundreds of dollars... of course this does not solve the problem for mission creators without a squadron, but I do understand that ED needs the money as well...

 

If I would be in a squadron, I would support my mission scripter without hesitation.

Before you call everything a "bug": RTFM & try again! Thank you. :music_whistling:

 

I9-9900k, 32 GB RAM, Geforce RTX 2080 TI, 128 GB M2 SSD, 1 TB SSD, Track IR, Warthog Hotas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry you guys dont see the difference here.

The strange thing is that the lion share of the work has already been done by ED. People who don't own the module will not be able to use it properly.

 

Why it is now such a big thing to allow everyone to place a bloody icon on the map and have a carrier in the mission, which can only be used by people who bought it, is beyond me.

 

Or, in other words, disabling all the goodies puts the SC more on the side of a module rather than on the side of an "asset pack". I have not heard any good argument, why the SC is on the asset pack side. It seems more like a "we can't explain it, but it is what is is".

 

Anyway, I'm looking very much forward to the SC. Still, I dislike how things are developing...

A warrior's mission is to foster the success of others.

i9-12900K | MSI RTX 3080Ti Suprim X | 128 GB Ram 3200 MHz DDR-4 | MSI MPG Edge Z690 | Samung EVO 980 Pro SSD | Virpil Stick, Throttle and Collective | MFG Crosswind | HP Reverb G2

RAT - On the Range - Rescue Helo - Recovery Tanker - Warehouse - Airboss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument here is it should be free to those that just want to plop it into a mission, it is not.

 

If you want to make missions with the Carrier DLC, you need to own it.

 

I know most content creators, that make full-blown missions with a specific module or such will want that to be able to test it. If its just "setting" a unit in a map with no adjustments, then create your mission, find a friend with the Carrier DLC, have the "plop" the carrier in it, and you are done.

 

My argument is NOT that I want it to be free or that it should be free. I bought the damn thing, and gladly did it. My argument is that if it is a module as you are claiming it to be, then it should behave like every other module. In this case we are talking about placing it in the ME just like we can with any other module.

 

You’re asking people to jump through hoops for a module, that isn’t required for any of the other ones. Asking someone to do what I can do for every other module is a bit ridiculous honestly. They can’t use it unless they own it, so I don’t understand this decision. It doesn’t make any sense. And if you just going to say it’s an Asset Pack, then call it that. But then you run into the same problem, asset packs do not function consistently. I’m glad you made it so that MP servers can have owners and non-owners participate. That was a very smart decision. This issue is also a no brainer, keep it consistent with the other modules and allow it to be placable in the ME.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...