Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future

[StevanJ]

20 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

You just made my point. 

1) You do not understand the OP.

2) You do not read.

3) You just do personal attacks when everyone else is in the OP topic, that you do not understand.

We've had this round of conversation.. Its already been done.
Its not a personal attack, im just explaining to you.

 

21 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

And now you pull an fancy argument to be against the whole assets packs.... 

Such asset packs are underwork as there is no third party offering those. Just like the Super Carrier, it requires Eagle Dynamics to actually first develop the structure for it all. The WW2 Assets Pack is currently unique to help to finance the WW2 side of the game.

Its not a fancy argument, its just a statement based upon a majority of opinion.
Go Hoggit, Mudspike and ask the 60,000 users that talk there.
The players go there and dont talk on here because the demographic is different (younger players go Hoggit 'cos its popular', Older players come here 'Because we actually converse about subjects').
The WW2 Asset Pack is not like the Super Carrier, which has been my argument pages ago. If it were, then there would be no issues with anyone making Asset Packs- genuinely.
The WW2 Asset Pack IS unique but is actually harming the game- go check the forums and ask for their personal opinions on it.
 

 

24 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

In the future the DCS World needs to have the features that even the OP is talking about (and you are denying it, as you don't read or understand it) so that it can support new kind assets packs. 

And those assets packs would be required to be like in many other games like ARMA 3 DLC's. Where everyone downloads them, they will see them, but they can not have access to them. 

Meaning, everyone see ground units, they work and behave like anything. But only those who have Combined Arms can command ground units in RTS mode (commander positions requires Combined Arms), enter to vehicles (again requires Combined Arms) to operate them as a SAM operator, as a crew commander, and of course to get access to their specialities.

Finally without the Assets Pack one can not build a mission, save a mission etc without ownin the assets pack. So second party can not provide a mission file where units are placed on the terrain and then player would get access to them in editor or in game or single player. All that would be denied without license.

 

Again, this has ALL been spoken and discussed, which is why were going off topic. Were literally going around in circles (not attacking you- just pointing that out).
Ive read every post since the opening one made by OP.

Having been an Arma 3 Player a long time, I can understand some of what youre saying. But youre talking about Arma 3.. NOT DCS.

 

33 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

You can own license only to F/A-18C Hornet only, yet you can place all the modules on the map you do not own and make AI fly them. You can invite your friend to server and he can fly the modules he has the license, even when you do not have license to them. That is as well how the super carrier works, they didn't split the online community to "owners" and "not-owners".

Yes this has been my point from my opening post- but that is the problem. We HAVE the ability to play with others, Like youve said, you can own the FA18 and play with others who have the Super Carrier, without having to own the Super Carrier.
But this doesnt apply when you look at the way the Asset Pack limits players, on Warbirds Online.
Which brings your last statement to a close.
You cant say youre happy with the accessibility we have in this game towards others, when the structure in the way WW2 Assets works, is limiting players online.
Its a hypocritical statement (not attacking you, midly trying to explain the conflict in your conversation).

 

35 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Your argument that "You can't see the units if you don't own the assets pack" or "You can't join to server if you don't own the assets pack" are off-topic and invalid to begin with.

Im midly asking that if people want to talk about DCS 'Combined Arms' and want to compare that game to others, they go and start the conversation in that part of the forum, so that i can actually see what other peoples opinion are with regards to the new asset packs BP are trying to sell.
ReQuoting 2 sentences from an email, over and over is not going to get anyone any closer to finding out who's interested in BP's Post.

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

We've had this round of conversation.. Its already been done.

 

And yet you ignore it all.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Its not a personal attack, im just explaining to you.

 

I explained it to you, and then you do personal attack by starting to call others spammers.... That is not explaining, that is personal attack.

You do not read, you claim otherwise than the OP post is about etc.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Its not a fancy argument, its just a statement based upon a majority of opinion.

 

Argumentum ad populum.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Go Hoggit, Mudspike and ask the 60,000 users that talk there.

 

Argumentum ad populum.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

The players go there and dont talk on here because the demographic is different (younger players go Hoggit 'cos its popular', Older players come here 'Because we actually converse about subjects').

 

If you go to street racing event, do you think you are going to find people there who are interested about flight simulators?

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

The WW2 Asset Pack is not like the Super Carrier, which has been my argument pages ago.

 

Already answered, countered and done. Move along....

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

If it were, then there would be no issues with anyone making Asset Packs- genuinely.

 

Already answered, countered and done. Move along... 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

The WW2 Asset Pack IS unique but is actually harming the game- go check the forums and ask for their personal opinions on it.

 

Already answered, countered and explained. Move along... 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Again, this has ALL been spoken and discussed, which is why were going off topic.

 

When discussion is about the topic, it can not be off-topic. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Were literally going around in circles (not attacking you- just pointing that out).

 

You are going circles.... 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Ive read every post since the opening one made by OP.

 

Okay, so you just admitted that you are a liar. 

 

"I read the first half of this spam, and ignored the last half as it has no relevance to BP's original post."

And then you say:

"Ive read every post since the opening one made by OP."

 

Well done....

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Having been an Arma 3 Player a long time, I can understand some of what youre saying. But youre talking about Arma 3.. NOT DCS.

 

Again, if you would have read what is written and remember what you have read, you would know what is been discussed and what the topic is all about:

Let me raise some points:

 

"but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system."

 

"The DCS can't really handle a infantry simulation and even a individual vehicles like MBT modeling is more out of the scale. Commanding platoon or a company instead would work very well."

 

"Edit: Years back, like maybe a 5-6 there was hype from the ED about new 3D animations for M1A1 where it was shown accelerating, braking, turning etc. And ED posted to their employee search to have specialists for more information about M1A1 interiors and functions etc. Likely they got attention from the US Army to produce a simulator for them. "

 

"That is a reason why DCS World can not be considered to become a tank simulator as it lacks such terrain capabilities that ground units requires. It is as well the reason why the Air-Ground symmetry lacks severely the required elements as the ground combat itself is so weak. "

 

"That doesn't happen in the DCS. There is simply massive clash and RNG takes its place that what units destroy each other and whole combat scenario is over in 1-2 minutes, before any virtual pilot managed to get on site to deliver any support."

 

"ARMA is a infantry game, the vehicles in it are secondary. The DCS World is a vehicle simulator, primarily for the pilots and secondary for a ground vehicle commanders. The level how ARMA works can not work in the DCS really. And why so? It is the realtime limitation."

 

If you can not understand the topic the OP made: BP like to suggest to offer Tank Simulator level later on for DCS World -> What requirements aTank Simulator has for DCS World -> Why DCS World doesn't currently support tank simulator.... Then you do not understand the OP post. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Yes this has been my point from my opening post- but that is the problem. We HAVE the ability to play with others, Like youve said, you can own the FA18 and play with others who have the Super Carrier, without having to own the Super Carrier.
But this doesnt apply when you look at the way the Asset Pack limits players, on Warbirds Online.
Which brings your last statement to a close.
You cant say youre happy with the accessibility we have in this game towards others, when the structure in the way WW2 Assets works, is limiting players online.
Its a hypocritical statement (not attacking you, midly trying to explain the conflict in your conversation).

 

So let me explain this one more time. What you are talking is old information. It is false argument that it is how every possible future ground unit assets pack that OP is suggesting would be based to. If you would have read, you would know that Eagle Dynamics admitted and learned from the mistake of the WW2 Assets Pack and they changed it in Super Carrier. They learned, they fixed.... Why you stick to old false information argument? That is just false argument!

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Im midly asking that if people want to talk about DCS 'Combined Arms' and want to compare that game to others, they go and start the conversation in that part of the forum, so that i can actually see what other peoples opinion are with regards to the new asset packs BP are trying to sell.

 

The Battlefield Productions has made query about new Assets Packs that literally are connected directly to Combined Arms (hence discussion that what Combined Arms is NOW, and what it is IN THE FUTURE) and they are planning to release Vehicle Simulators later on, as literally explained by them in the OP, and what they need to have from the DCS World. So asking that are people interested if such features would become possible in the DCS World.... Hence the discussion that what DCS World is currently and what it needs to be in the future before those things can be. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

ReQuoting 2 sentences from an email, over and over is not going to get anyone any closer to finding out who's interested in BP's Post.

 

Ignoring everything in the discussion over and over doesn't take you further than just out of the topic. Almost everyone else seems to be in the topic and discussing that future possibilities that what DCS World could provide in the future with required changes and new features and such assets packs to it but you....  

 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

While a realistic ground presence would certainly be welcome, just watch the GR re enactment of “we were solders” to see how even excellent planning and preparation, is still boring AF.  
The current ground environment is lame  (but I get it). That said I don’t envision time ever  where there are enough ground players to be anything more than a nuisance. You are never going to get a platoon working in unison across 1 map much less multi servers. Maybe a squad of guys but that won’t change anything.  What you will get is the dude that sits at the end of the runway with the manpad ect. 
imho if the CPU power is to be utilized, it needs to be an ED based, realistic AI battle ground that evolves with the current situation and can be “loosely” directed by a commander. (I believe they are moving that way “. 
Seriously, if every single person that logged onto a server today took a CA style slot, there still wouldn’t be enough ground units to make a difference in outcome or interest.  Especially since this isn’t just a sim but a “study level “ sim.  
seems like a waste of resources but just my opinion 

 

[BIGNEWY]

Friendly reminder to all.

 

Our forum rules still apply in this thread, keep it civil, and keep the topic on DCS only. 

 

If the squabbling continues it will just get deleted. 

 

thank you

[StevanJ]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

And yet you ignore it all.

 

 

I explained it to you, and then you do personal attack by starting to call others spammers.... That is not explaining, that is personal attack.

You do not read, you claim otherwise than the OP post is about etc.

 

 

Argumentum ad populum.

 

 

Argumentum ad populum.

 

 

If you go to street racing event, do you think you are going to find people there who are interested about flight simulators?

 

 

Already answered, countered and done. Move along....

 

 

Already answered, countered and done. Move along... 

 

 

Already answered, countered and explained. Move along... 

 

 

When discussion is about the topic, it can not be off-topic. 

 

 

You are going circles.... 

 

 

Okay, so you just admitted that you are a liar. 

 

"I read the first half of this spam, and ignored the last half as it has no relevance to BP's original post."

And then you say:

"Ive read every post since the opening one made by OP."

 

Well done....

 

 

Again, if you would have read what is written and remember what you have read, you would know what is been discussed and what the topic is all about:

Let me raise some points:

 

"but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system."

 

"The DCS can't really handle a infantry simulation and even a individual vehicles like MBT modeling is more out of the scale. Commanding platoon or a company instead would work very well."

 

"Edit: Years back, like maybe a 5-6 there was hype from the ED about new 3D animations for M1A1 where it was shown accelerating, braking, turning etc. And ED posted to their employee search to have specialists for more information about M1A1 interiors and functions etc. Likely they got attention from the US Army to produce a simulator for them. "

 

"That is a reason why DCS World can not be considered to become a tank simulator as it lacks such terrain capabilities that ground units requires. It is as well the reason why the Air-Ground symmetry lacks severely the required elements as the ground combat itself is so weak. "

 

"That doesn't happen in the DCS. There is simply massive clash and RNG takes its place that what units destroy each other and whole combat scenario is over in 1-2 minutes, before any virtual pilot managed to get on site to deliver any support."

 

"ARMA is a infantry game, the vehicles in it are secondary. The DCS World is a vehicle simulator, primarily for the pilots and secondary for a ground vehicle commanders. The level how ARMA works can not work in the DCS really. And why so? It is the realtime limitation."

 

If you can not understand the topic the OP made: BP like to suggest to offer Tank Simulator level later on for DCS World -> What requirements aTank Simulator has for DCS World -> Why DCS World doesn't currently support tank simulator.... Then you do not understand the OP post. 

 

 

 

So let me explain this one more time. What you are talking is old information. It is false argument that it is how every possible future ground unit assets pack that OP is suggesting would be based to. If you would have read, you would know that Eagle Dynamics admitted and learned from the mistake of the WW2 Assets Pack and they changed it in Super Carrier. They learned, they fixed.... Why you stick to old false information argument? That is just false argument!

 

 

The Battlefield Productions has made query about new Assets Packs that literally are connected directly to Combined Arms (hence discussion that what Combined Arms is NOW, and what it is IN THE FUTURE) and they are planning to release Vehicle Simulators later on, as literally explained by them in the OP, and what they need to have from the DCS World. So asking that are people interested if such features would become possible in the DCS World.... Hence the discussion that what DCS World is currently and what it needs to be in the future before those things can be. 

 

 

Ignoring everything in the discussion over and over doesn't take you further than just out of the topic. Almost everyone else seems to be in the topic and discussing that future possibilities that what DCS World could provide in the future with required changes and new features and such assets packs to it but you....  

 

Take a minute to analyze all this text, and imagine what you could have achieved without spending all the time 're-iterating' stuff thats been said 2-3 pages ago.
It seems the minute people dont like something in this topic, they turn to targetted personal attacks highlighting words said in an effort to dis-credit and belittle others.
Well good for you..
Some one else did that in the second world war.. And look at where he ended up with his views.

Stop making stuff personal, Calling people a liar is slanderous. Especially when its very obvious that youre angry- that im challenging you to do better.

Ive challenged your opinion, and this spam-wall of text, just shows how little thought youre putting into the discussion.
Youre literally 'blubbering' off text out of anger, instead of being creative.
Highlighting parts of text and pulling it out of context, does not make it context.
Youve once again looped around the whole topic of discussion-

What is it they say about bored people?
'You have to be very careful what you say when you're around bored people, because bored people are all too happy to take anything you say out of context.'

All youre doing is turning the whole topic of discussion on its head, and diverting it away from Op.
Youre raising points, without even looking at the discussion that this thread was started with- Selling Asset Packs.
And highlighting stuff that 'might never actually come'. If Op doesnt sell any Asset Packs, do you think he's gonna start coding for the latest 'combined arms' upgrade 'within a few weeks'?

This is the exact same conversation we had 2-3 pages ago..

Yes, we all want Combined Arms to see improvements.
And my argument from my opening post has been 'Work on that first', but its more important to highlight Op's Posts towards what they and theyve said 'in the first instance' are trying to do.. Sell Asset Packs, And thats why this whole discussion on Arma 3 or Tank games is so WAY off topic.

OP: I want to sell cold war, post war, and airfield asset packs.
YOU GUYS: Youre making Combined Arms 2?!?!? I want it like Arma 3!

Op has mentioned that this is something they arent primarily looking at, to which (again) im highlighting the issue with the current asset pack, as to make sure we dont get a repeat. Yet you seem pretty mad that im highlighting a problem that limits others to this game.

No one is attacking you, but this has been said numerous times (go check 3-4 pages ago), and I would love to hear other peoples opinion in reply to Op's actual Posts, about Asset Packs, and NOT a discussion to gain potential hope of 'Combined Arms 2' further down the line, which has been literally stamped by Op numerous times as a huge 'maybe' if 'the asset packs' do well.

In this he's mentioned something that 'might' (this word means 'possible either way'- ie' I might go, but then again, I might not.) happen if the Asset Packs are received in good spirits.
So in order to gain success for Op, i feel its more important to highlight the mistake of WW2 AP, so that the same mistakes arent made, and he can be successful in his venture 'towards the future'.
However, as youve mentioned. The liklihood of ED changing the WW2 AP, is small, because if a new asset pack is released, and it doesnt limit players, the people like myself wont be too happy, that we've HAD to pay the money to buy the WW2 AP to play online, for it to become 'limitless'.
And thats the challenge i feel we have when we look at Op's Post and to 'the Future'.

It would be FAR more important to the improvement to this game, if youd just take that the Combined Arms line of discussion to that thread, and start a wishlist among with other things you'd like about other games.
Having that discussion here, does not help Op know if other people would or would not buy the Asset Packs they want to build.
Click on his user- see when he was last online, and send him a message for clarity, that way we can end this and move on with our next discussion.

Calm down.. Its only a forum with 5 people trying to talk at once.

On a side note;
Where have ED admitted and learned from the mistake of the WW2 Asset Packs, Thats something im definitely interested in reading about? Or is this just 'rumours'?

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Stop making stuff personal, Calling people a liar is slanderous. Especially when its very obvious that youre angry- that im challenging you to do better.

 

You try to make it personal, stop it.

You made a claim that you have read every single post since the start, after you have made a claim that you did not read what I wrote, and calling me a spammer.

You specifically admitted that you lied. 

 

I am not angry, I am sad that you can not do more than personal attacks when you can not discuss the topic that OP is all about = RTS game mechanics, Tank simulator, advanced damage modeling and system modelings, vehicle crews, high resolution terrains, historically accurate various different vehicles from various countries and eras etc etc.

 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Ive challenged your opinion, and this spam-wall of text, just shows how little thought youre putting into the discussion.

 

You are not following. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Youre literally 'blubbering' off text out of anger, instead of being creative.

 

You are just doing personal attacks.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Highlighting parts of text and pulling it out of context, does not make it context.

 

It literally is the context, strictly in the context that what Battlefield Production wants to offer!

Stop making it out of context. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Youve once again looped around the whole topic of discussion-

 

Yes you have.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

What is it they say about bored people?
'You have to be very careful what you say when you're around bored people, because bored people are all too happy to take anything you say out of context.'

 

Person A says: "We want to make a tank simulator to DCS World"

Person B says: "I don't think DCS World can be made so great tank simulator as it lacks X, Y and Z"

You come and say: "NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT TALK SIMULATOR! GO AWAY! STOP SPAMMING YOU!"

 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

All youre doing is turning the whole topic of discussion on its head, and diverting it away from Op.

 

I don't even quote you anymore the Original Post because you will just continue claiming that topic is not about adding new ground units with advanced damage modeling, requirements for high resolution terrain engine, new AI and support high fidelity vehicle interior simulations with all the buttons and switches modeled properly like they are in the aircraft modules.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Youre raising points, without even looking at the discussion that this thread was started with- Selling Asset Packs.

 

How you can sell assets packs when you do not have assets packs?

How you are going to make assets packs with the OP definitions, requirements and dreams when the DCS World doesn't currently support those elements?

How are you going to discuss about assets packs when they are currently impossible to be done?

How are you going to discuss about possible assets packs when you have defined them to be impossible be used any other way than WW2 that was mistake from ED part?

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

And highlighting stuff that 'might never actually come'. If Op doesnt sell any Asset Packs, do you think he's gonna start coding for the latest 'combined arms' upgrade 'within a few weeks'?

 

The discussion is about the future, the next years to come. Not two weeks, so stop moving goalposts.

The OP is asking that what is wanted to be offered in the future that is there interest for it. They are not asking about status of 10 years back, or status of today, but about the future. 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

This is the exact same conversation we had 2-3 pages ago..

 

Yes, you are going circles. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Yes, we all want Combined Arms to see improvements.

 

And they are coming, as has been explained in the various interviews by ED. Touching from the parts like the OP is about like Tank simulator with full 3D stations etc. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

And my argument from my opening post has been 'Work on that first', but its more important to highlight Op's Posts towards what they and theyve said 'in the first instance' are trying to do.. Sell Asset Packs, And thats why this whole discussion on Arma 3 or Tank games is so WAY off topic.

 

And you are still ignoring the OP post, that to provide later the wanted features, DCS World needs to change. 

It is already known that ED made mistake with the WW2 pack in the start, they fixed it already with the Super Carrier. It is already dealt with.

I have already years ago written about ideas about third party studios offering only different ground units packages from various eras like 70's, 80's and 90's from different countries (like Germany, UK, USA, France, Russia). Already discussed all these things years ago when Combined Arms was released. 

The OP literally talks about wishes to bring later on the Tank Simulators to the DCS World in those assets by using Combined Arms capabilities.

It is literally in the topic!

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

OP: I want to sell cold war, post war, and airfield asset packs.
YOU GUYS: Youre making Combined Arms 2?!?!? I want it like Arma 3!

 

Again you are not reading what I have written.

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Op has mentioned that this is something they arent primarily looking at, to which (again) im highlighting the issue with the current asset pack, as to make sure we dont get a repeat. Yet you seem pretty mad that im highlighting a problem that limits others to this game.

 

You are the mad one if there is someone mad. And I have already explained that the problem is not there anymore you keep repeating in circles. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

No one is attacking you, but this has been said numerous times (go check 3-4 pages ago), and I would love to hear other peoples opinion in reply to Op's actual Posts, about Asset Packs, and NOT a discussion to gain potential hope of 'Combined Arms 2' further down the line, which has been literally stamped by Op numerous times as a huge 'maybe' if 'the asset packs' do well.

 

You are attacking. And if you want to hear others peoples opinion, then read. You have them already. As the Combined Arms is under heavy development. Do you understand that? The DCS World as it is currently is going to be history.

The Assets Packs are literally part of the Combined Arms like the OP has discussed about it. 

The Combined Arms is not just about tank simulator or a SAM simulator, it is primarily about RTS game. 

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/ca_frontlines_georgia/

 

 

 

The DCS World ground assets are directly to the Combined Arms purposes, that players who own it can command them on the map as well. Not just mission editor for scripting a targets for the pilots to destroy. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

In this he's mentioned something that 'might' (this word means 'possible either way'- ie' I might go, but then again, I might not.) happen if the Asset Packs are received in good spirits.

 

Yes, we all others have read it.... 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

So in order to gain success for Op, i feel its more important to highlight the mistake of WW2 AP, so that the same mistakes arent made, and he can be successful in his venture 'towards the future'.

 

Yes, that has already been discussed everywhere else that WW2 Assets Pack should never repeat itself, and as I have explained already that ED itself learned from it... 

So it is not a "important to highlight" when it is already history. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

However, as youve mentioned. The liklihood of ED changing the WW2 AP, is small, because if a new asset pack is released, and it doesnt limit players, the people like myself wont be too happy, that we've HAD to pay the money to buy the WW2 AP to play online, for it to become 'limitless'.
And thats the challenge i feel we have when we look at Op's Post and to 'the Future'.

 

So you want the assets packs to be limited for only those who purchase the license, and for others the units in the assets packs are suppose to be 1) transparent, 2) non-existing 3) disallow to join the server?

Do you understand the mistake that even if ED would change the WW2 assets pack to be like in the Super Carrier (visible for all, not usable in single player or editor without the license, not possible to use the units in Combined Arms etc...) that it is just a good thing for everyone, and no one is taking anything away from you? 

 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

It would be FAR more important to the improvement to this game, if youd just take that the Combined Arms line of discussion to that thread, and start a wishlist among with other things you'd like about other games.

 

It would be your benefit if you would understand the OP post in the first place.... 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Having that discussion here, does not help Op know if other people would or would not buy the Asset Packs they want to build.

 

Tell original poster to change his original post not to talk about features, plans, wishes, and strictly go to just "do you want to buy retextured new units from existing ones, and be locked out from it if you don't own the license like the WW2 Assets Pack and not like Super Carrier". 

 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Click on his user- see when he was last online, and send him a message for clarity, that way we can end this and move on with our next discussion.

 

About what? That you do not understand that what his Orignal Post says?

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Calm down.. Its only a forum with 5 people trying to talk at once.

 

Wrong. The WWW forum idea is that everyone can talk at once because it is written communication where quotation lines are critical that everyone can see who is replying to whom. 

This is not a chat or a VoIP where everyone can just say something between others or talk over others so no one else is hearing what is said like it would be a one way radio communication. 

 

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

On a side note;
Where have ED admitted and learned from the mistake of the WW2 Asset Packs, Thats something im definitely interested in reading about? Or is this just 'rumours'?

 

Have you followed the Super Carrier development at all? Their discussions, their changes to licensing as reported by the closed beta team members etc?

Go ahead.... It is right there wide open in various threads where ED clarify lots of questions and worries that WW2 assets pack wouldn't repeat itself...

One of the worries was that if you do not own Super Carrier, can you join to server that has it or are you blocked to do it like with WW2 Assets Pack. 

 

[StevanJ]

11 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Have you followed the Super Carrier development at all? Their discussions, their changes to licensing as reported by the closed beta team members etc?

Go ahead.... It is right there wide open in various threads where ED clarify lots of questions and worries that WW2 assets pack wouldn't repeat itself...

One of the worries was that if you do not own Super Carrier, can you join to server that has it or are you blocked to do it like with WW2 Assets Pack. 

So its a rumour (a lie) and you cant back up?

Yeah Im not going to read the rest of the Spam, Its not worth anyones time.
Ill Just ReQuote Op.
So future users can stay on Topic.
 

Quote

 

Hi Everyone,

My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions.

I would like to share some ideas with the community for content we would like to bring to the DCS platform, content which we hope we can bring in an official capacity.

Before we take the next step of talking with Eagle Dynamics we would first like to conduct a small assessment to be assured our our ideas are compatible with this community, and that those visions meet the community wishes & expectations.

In the first instance Battlefield Productions are interested in producing the following content, the ideas below are visions only, and the ideas have come around from much reading here on these forums, these ideas are adaptable to some degree depending on how the community receive this, ultimately we only want to make content people actually want !
 

• Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Cold War"
• Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Post Cold War"
• Airfield Assets Pack - Including Animated and Moving Ground Handlers etc - think along the lines of MS2020 or better - we need to firstly understand how flexible this engine is to achieve all that we would like tho, the goal is to bring a living and breathing ground environment on the Airfields

Ground Forces Sets would include vehicles, infantry, AAA, SAM's, everything on the ground in the battlefield, plus major revamp of Infantry & animation as well as increasing the quality of the models to at least quality of the latest DCS content (keep in mind we need to consider Framerate - so we accept ED's latest ground assets as a benchmark for poly count etc), we also be keen to expand the database for some civilian vehicle assets as well.

These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system.

The is NO pricing thoughts at this moment - this is something we would like to discuss with ED, but I can say this, here at Battlefield Productions we would rather sell our products to "everyone" at a good price than charge a premium to a "select few".

We look forward to community feedback at this point, and hopefully if the response is positive we can enter meaningful discussions with Eagle Dynamics.

 

I think the language barrier is becoming entangled. You arent able to understand what Op is trying to 'create' in the FIRST INSTANT.
Remember- Longer Future could mean 100 years..
But youll know how to pull that out of context.

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, StevanJ said:

So its a rumour (a lie) and you cant back up?

 

Yes, the Super Carrier doesn't exist, it is a rumor. And you can't provide any evidence that it is under development. 

Yes your game can be played if you want.

 

1 minute ago, StevanJ said:

Yeah Im not going to read the rest of the Spam, Its not worth anyones time.

 

Personal attack again.

 

1 minute ago, StevanJ said:

Ill Just ReQuote Op.
So future users can stay on Topic.

 

Yes, Combined Arms, Wish for future Tank Simulators, advanced damage modelings etc etc.

 

And for your information, everyone can read the Original Post as many times they want, they don't need you to try to tell them what there is written.

 

1 minute ago, StevanJ said:

I think the language barrier is becoming entangled. You arent able to understand what Op is trying to 'create' in the FIRST INSTANT.

 

Again personal attack as you can't understand what the OP has written regardless multiple requotes to you, that you call "spam".

 

1 minute ago, StevanJ said:

Remember- Longer Future could mean 100 years..

 

Nice that you understand that now as well... Even when you exaggerate with 100 years.... 

 

1 minute ago, StevanJ said:

But youll know how to pull that out of context.

 

Personal attack.

[BIGNEWY]

Locked for moderation

 

I would suggest taking the squabbling to PM's 

 

thanks