not planned Move the C-47/DC-3 out of the WW2AP

[Beirut]

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Then you should quote the actual value whenever you're discussing it. Otherwise, you are indeed suggesting that the full value isn't what the module is worth.

 

Not at all. ED offers the product on sale on a regular basis, which obviously means it suits them to do that. And it suits me to get a good deal.

 

We're not all floating in daddy's money like you. 

 

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

And since the price isn't the problem, buying it does not solve the problem.

 

Here on Earth, and in the rest of the universe where the laws of creation and the fundamentals of the English language apply, that makes absolutely no sense at all. 

 

Because if the price isn't a problem, then everyone will buy it. Then there is no problem. No split. Your argument is the mootest of moot mootiness. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

The split is still not a myth. Deal with it.
If it were, your proposed solution wouldn't be necessary — hell, it wouldn't even exist.

 

$14. Deal with it. 

 

I don't even think it's a problem but I was willing to shell out the $14 to help anyway. So did Callsign112. But I can't help but notice that you offered to help... not at all. You are willing to write 10,000 words about the horrors of a split community, but when the request was made for you to join in and help out and chip in your $14, the same $14 you endlessly say presents no issue at all, you helped out... not at all.

 

It's all about the $14 and nothing else. Dat da fact, Jack.

[Tippis]

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Not at all. ED offers the product on sale on a regular basis, which obviously means it suits them to do that. And it suits me to get a good deal.

…yes? And? The stated value of the module is still $30.

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Here on Earth, and in the rest of the universe where the laws of creation and the fundamentals of the English language apply, that makes absolutely no sense at all. 

Here on Earth, there is this thing we call a “truism” — something that makes so much sense it is always true. Like in this case: X isn't The Problem, so ‘solving’ X does not solve The Problem. Instead, it solves a different (supposed) problem.

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Because if the price isn't a problem, then everyone will buy it. Then there is no problem.

The problem still exists because price is not a factor. In fact, even at a purchase 0$, the problem would still exist: there are haves and have-nots. In order for this problem to not exist, and for the split to be a myth like you claim, one of the following must be true:

1. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because there are no “haves”, not even you and me.
2. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because there are no “have-nots”, everyone inherently owns the module — it's not even a purchase.
3. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because those who don't have the module actually do have it.
4. There is no difference between haves and have-nots because who do have the module actually don't have it.

Your “solution” only solves the actual problem if we are dealing with #2, but if that's the case, then your “solution” doesn't even exist. Since you keep suggesting buying the module as a solution to… who knows — you've never been able to explain what the problem is supposed to be that this fixes — you are implicitly stating that we're not in a #2 state of affairs (since, again, that solution is not available in that particular case). Instead, it it solves… something… in one of the other three cases. I'd be curious to know which case this is and the logic by which the distinction between haves and have-nots is removed.

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

$14. Deal with it. 

I already did. Deal with it.

The split still exists in spite of that. In fact, the split exists in large part because of that. Deal with that as well.

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

But I can't help but notice that you offered to help... not at all.

You should probably have read what was written in those old threads, then, since it was extensively explained how we not just offered, but actually have repeated helped. No matter how much you refuse to accept it, the price is not the problem. The very read split is. Your misattribution of this split and catchy but wholly disproven $14 catchphrase will not change this fact.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Tippis

[Tank50us]

20 minutes ago, Beirut said:

$14. Deal with it. 

 

I don't even think it's a problem but I was willing to shell out the $14 to help anyway. So did Callsign112. But I can't help but notice that you offered to help... not at all. You are willing to write 10,000 words about the horrors of a split community, but when the request was made for you to join in and help out and chip in your $14, the same $14 you endlessly say presents no issue at all, you helped out... not at all.

 

It's all about the $14 and nothing else. Dat da fact, Jack.

OK, first, the pack only costs that during sales.

Second, this post wasn't about the WW2AP, it was about one aircraft that's in it, the C-47, and how it being in the pack means that if someone wants to use it in a setting and scenario that's appropriate (for example a COIN op), they simply can't use it because doing so will mean that anyone who hasn't bought it simply can't partake.

To use my own unit as an example, we're planning a small campaign with all the available helos, and the Harrier. Our goal is to eliminate a drug cartel, and a number of the assets they (the island nation they're inhabiting) will have are all fairly old. Since we're big on trying to make the barrier to entry as low as possible (IE, next-to-none), we plan on including the OH-6 and UH-60 mods, since they're free to use. The problem is that this cartel is supposed to have C-47s, and some quad-50s dotting the area, both of which are part of the WW2AP, and thus, going to make things a bit difficult for those who want to take part, but lack the funds to take part. It's things like this that hurt the community the most.

If so much as one item from the pack is in the mission, the whole pack ends up becoming a requirement. This is why I feel that aircraft like the C-47 should be taken out of the pack and made part of the base game. Aircraft that span multiple generations and flew for decades. Now, the equipment that only saw service in WW2? By all means, keep them in the pack, but I feel that any item that saw service beyond WW2 should just be part of the base game.

An example would be the Fletcher Class Destroyer. The base version of the class? Make it part of the pack. Subsequent post-war upgrades? Not part of the pack. See? Simple.

5 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You should probably have read what was written in those old threads, then, since it was extensively explained how we not just offered, but actually have repeated helped. No matter how much you refuse to accept it, the price is not the problem. The very read split is. Your misattribution of this split and catchy but wholly disproven $14 catchphrase will not change this fact.

You. Chill. Don't make me get the ice.

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

You should probably have read what was written in those old threads,

 

I did.

 

10,000 words saying the $14 wasn't the problem when in fact the entire problem was the $14. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

 

Your misattribution of this split and catchy but wholly disproven $14 catchphrase will not change this fact.

 

There is nothing disproven - it's $14 and some people just don't want to part with it.

 

That is 100% of 100% of the problem. And just to be clear.... it's $14. I mean, seriously. $14. Struggle through the horror. 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

And the fact that it splits the community is… well… just inherently a fact.

 

Actually, it splits the MULTIPLAYER Community .. as for the rest of us this is a non-issue.

The WW2 Assets Pack is actually used in almost all of the Paid WW2 Campaigns ... those interested on any of those Campaigns will need to purchase it, simple as that. It's like the Hornet ... if I want to fly the Hornet, I have to purchase it (unless I'm satisfied with just flying it for 2 weeks on a trial).

Threads like this make me so glad to have abandoned the MP scene, flying solo is so much more relaxing

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Rudel_chw

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

OK, first, the pack only costs that during sales.

 

Yes. And sales are pretty frequent so it's not an unreasonable wait to get the better price.

 

4 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Second, this post wasn't about the WW2AP, it was about one aircraft that's in it, the C-47, and how it being in the pack means that if someone wants to use it in a setting and scenario that's appropriate (for example a COIN op), they simply can't use it because doing so will mean that anyone who hasn't bought it simply can't partake.

 

Yes. I was simply getting back in the dirt with my good friend Tippis. We're rehashing the ultimate and unimaginable horror some people face when confronted with the reality that you have to shell out $14 for the WWII Assets Pack. 

 

What can I tell you? DCS is a business and toys cost money. Personally I would love to have bought the Tomcat for $20, but it just wasn't happening. If I wanted it, I had to buy it at the price DCS listed it as. So I did.

 

On sale of course.  

 

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I did.

Good. Then you already know how I helped in the past, and how I've offered to help, and you can drop that ad hominem nonsense.

12 minutes ago, Beirut said:

There is nothing disproven

…aside from the whole thing about $30 being the problem. The price of the module does not create the restrictions and buying the module does not remove them. Indeed, the restrictions are what supposedly justifies the price so the cause and effect is if anything the exact reverse of what you're assuming. So you can drop that red herring nonsense as well.

 

16 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

You. Chill. Don't make me get the ice.

But I love ice!

Ok, fine… [grumble grumble]. Good luck convincing the usual crowd that there is indeed a lock-out happening, though…

Oh, and yes, not-WWII assets should probably as a general principle not be subject to the WWIIAP restrictions. As an even more general principle, assets should not be restricted at all, and it should be functionality and use that dictates the value proposition, but ED have been pretty firm on that point as far as the asset pack goes, so…

Edited April 12, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Good. Then you already know how I helped in the past, and how I've offered to help, and can drop that ad hominem nonsense.

 

Deep down I knew you were warm and fuzzy. 

 

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

…aside from the whole thing about $30 being the problem. The price of the module does not remove the restrictions. Indeed, the restrictions are what supposedly justifies the price so the cause and effect is if anything the exact reverse of what you're assuming. So you can drop that red herring nonsense as well.

 

No herring, red or otherwise, no trout, no sardines, no fish at all. Just a $14 cost for a toy people want to play with.

 

Muh daddy called it "real life". 

 

[Tank50us]

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

What can I tell you? DCS is a business and toys cost money. Personally I would love to have bought the Tomcat for $20, but it just wasn't happening. If I wanted it, I had to buy it at the price DCS listed it as. So I did.

Did you not read any of what I said? I flat out stated that I don't mind units that were only in World War II being part of the pack. It's the stuff that was modified in the post war and used extensively after Sep. 1945 that should not be part of the pack, and should be part of the base game. The example I gave should've made that obvious. A Fletcher-Class destroyer as-built? Part of the pack. A Fletcher with any post-war modifications? Or a post-war built/modified Gearing or Allen M Sumner? Not part of the pack. Not exactly hard to see the logic here.

[Beirut]

Just now, Tank50us said:

Did you not read any of what I said? I flat out stated that I don't mind units that were only in World War II being part of the pack. It's the stuff that was modified in the post war and used extensively after Sep. 1945 that should not be part of the pack, and should be part of the base game. The example I gave should've made that obvious. A Fletcher-Class destroyer as-built? Part of the pack. A Fletcher with any post-war modifications? Or a post-war built/modified Gearing or Allen M Sumner? Not part of the pack. Not exactly hard to see the logic here.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying the situation is what it is and can be solved for the very reasonable cost of $14.

 

If the problem was, for example, the new clouds costing $79.99 and you had to have them to fly on most/any of the servers, okay, then we have a discussion. But this is $14 for a pretty good module with good content that sees regular improvements. I think it's a non-problem.

[Callsign112]

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The problem I have with the WWII asset packs, is what to do with assets that served beyond WWII. There are a few options

1. More playable modules 
2. take items out of the asset pack
3. more asset packs 

More modules is never a wrong answer the people who want the module get it, those who don't get a free AI asset. So as long as the developers profit we're all happy.

The problem with removing things from the asset pack is it will make it less of a must have. The problem with more asset packs is people end up complaining. 

I think the best solution to your question/concern is to update the asset of interest with a period correct skin. These could be sold in the form of an add-on to the Assets pack.

A PzIVG is still a WWII tank even though Syria was using them 2 decades after WWII ended IMO. The Mustang saw service in Korea, but no one seems to have a problem with calling it a WWII fighter.

And I agree, more Asset packs would probably end up only driving the complainers into a mad frenzy, which is why I think the best solution is to keep all WWII assets in one place to make the pack more appealing to the people that are interested.  

[Beirut]

21 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I think the best solution to your question/concern is to update the asset of interest with a period correct skin. These could be sold in the form of an add-on to the Assets pack.

A PzIVG is still a WWII tank even though Syria was using them 2 decades after WWII ended IMO. The Mustang saw service in Korea, but no one seems to have a problem with calling it a WWII fighter.

And I agree, more Asset packs would probably end up only driving the complainers into a mad frenzy, which is why I think the best solution is to keep all WWII assets in one place to make the pack more appealing to the people that are interested.  

 

I wouldn't mind separate payware asset packs; WWII, early Cold War, Modern Day.  

 

All I ask is that they be reasonably priced and solid quality.

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

...The problem still exists because price is not a factor. In fact, even at a purchase 0$, the problem would still exist:...

 

 

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

...going to make things a bit difficult for those who want to take part, but lack the funds to take part. It's things like this that hurt the community the most...

TBH guys, these discussions are getting a little flat wouldn't you agree?

If the point behind all of these discussion is to get everyone to acknowledge that there is a split in the community, then I think we can all agree that indeed that seems to be the case.

But I think to sum it up best, what we are really disagreeing about here is the cause behind the split and not the split itself. Your group sees the Assets pack as the cause, while I see the AP as just a product no different than any other. Using your logic, every DCS module would be causing a split in the community.

I don't have the F-18, so I can't do missions from the SC on that friends server! So I've got two options! First option is to hold out in hopes that ED throws me a BINGO! The second option is to hope that the people making the mission will appreciate that I don't have the F-18 so much that they stop serving the mission to protest on ED's forum that the F-18 should be included with DCS as a free download! There is no third option is there? 

Yeah no!

What's causing the split are the people that choose to be divided. If two friends walk into a store and one friend buys something the other friend doesn't see any value in, are they still friends? Or are they now split? Should everyone else in the world that also bought the same item give it up because someones friend doesn't see any value in it, or refuses to pick it up even as a gift? Can this get anymore.... Un je ne sais Quoi?

And if that isn't enough, we can always fall in love with the broken record ping pong side of the argument.... price is not a factor, but my friends lack the funds to take part. But price is not a factor!

So what have we learned after countless threads?

1. Well, a group of people that own the Assets Pack can't use it because they all have a group of friends that don't own it, which BTW has nothing to do with cost, and they couldn't possibly expect the friends to buy the Assets Pack.

2. This chain of events has somehow resulted in some people having the Assets pack, and some people not having the Assets Pack, hence a split in the community.

@Tippis and @Tank50us, you guys are well respected members of this community, and I am certain both of you fully support DCS World based on the quality of your contribution to this forum alone. I also hope that you realize the above is meant as an opportunity for everyone to step back and laugh. I am poking fun at the fact that we are a group of grown men arguing about the value of a $15 add-on to a computer game.    

I can't see where the problem is here? No one is forcing anyone to use the Assets pack in missions.

The value of the Assets Pack is that it helps bring the ambiance of your WWII mission to life. If you don't see any value in that, or don't agree that it does, then make mission for you and your friends without the Assets Pack.

But if you can't see any value in it, then what is all the discussion about, and why do you want to use items from the Assets Pack in your missions? My suggestion to anyone making missions would be to make the mission the way you want and don't worry about who can and can't join in.

If the mission is worth playing, then any requirements to play it will be well worth getting!    

Edited April 13, 2022 by Callsign112

[Beirut]

30 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

If the mission is worth playing, then any requirements to play it will be well worth getting!    

 

 

Yes.

 

As stated by someone else here, this whole thing is an MP thing. "It will split the community!" is their version of Maude Flanders crying out "But what about the children?!?" and clutching her pearls every time something happens in Springfield. 

 

Split community? Couldn't care less. Get a job, pay for yer toys like everyone else here, and quit yer moaning.     

[Tippis]

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

TBH guys, these discussions are getting a little flat wouldn't you agree?

Sure, but that's mainly because the inability of some to read a simple statement and understand it as written as opposed to trying to make it mean something else.

Yes, the whole point is that there is a split. By design and intent.

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But I think to sum it up best, what we are really disagreeing about here is the cause behind the split and not the split itself. Your group sees the Assets pack as the cause, while I see the AP as just a product no different than any other. Using your logic, every DCS module would be causing a split in the community.

This was explained in both of the other threads: no, by our logic, only this module causes this split because only this module restrict participation by its mere inclusion, and by even the tiniest inclusion. No other module does that — in particular, no other asset pack does that. I can add stuff to my heart's content from any asset-providing module, even SC and CAP (ok, so the latter one is a bit of a cheat argument but… ) and not have to worry one whit about accidentally locking someone out of joining. They may not be able to fly or use the vehicles I add, because I didn't do my research and only added weirdo trainers that only a handful have bought, but they can still join. They can still participate and play, even if it's just via SRS EAM and the F10 map.

The WWIIAP is the only module that locks out people so they can't even do that. The cause for that lockout is nothing other than the WWIIAP module itself. It's part of how it's coded. Other modules may lock out slots and spawn points; the WWIIAP locks out the entire server. Only the haves may join it; the have-nots may not. The only way to get around this lockout is to not use the WWIIAP — there is no option to provide alternate tasks, slots, or roles like there is with every other kind of asset you'd think of including.

 

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I don't have the F-18, so I can't do missions from the SC on that friends server! So I've got two options! First option is to hold out in hopes that ED throws me a BINGO! The second option is to hope that the people making the mission will appreciate that I don't have the F-18 so much that they stop serving the mission to protest on ED's forum that the F-18 should be included with DCS as a free download! There is no third option is there? 

Yes there is. There's a third, fourth… up to (at least, and conservatively speaking) a seventh option. You can join the server and fly some other plane off of the SC. If you don't have the SC, you can join the server and fly some other plane off of a non-SC carrier. If you don't have a carrier plane, you can join the server and fly some other plane off of land. If you don't have any planes, you can join the server and drag boats around on the map or putter around in a tank somewhere. If you don't have CA, you can join the server and warn everyone of incoming MiGs or direct them to bombing targets. If you don't have anything on the F10 map, you can punch your friend in the dangly bits because he designed a mission that deliberately excluded you, but that's on him — not just for not adding alternatives, but for also actively and explicitly locking down and removing all the other things you could have done. That's something he did, not something caused by the modules included in the mission.

 

From the other perspective, as a mission maker who prefer my dangly bits to be intact, I choose not to include WWIIAP assets. Because that's the only option available to avoid this active and deliberate exclusion.

 

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I can't see where the problem is here? No one is forcing anyone to use the Assets pack in missions.

Quite. That's how you end up having to deal with it, and that is also the larger-scope problem: the exclusionary way the WWIIAP has been implemented inherently causes there to be less content for the WWIIAP. This reduces its value and worth-while:ness for anyone thinking of buying it. And thus we're immediately in the downward spiral:

Don't use the WWIIAP to maximise participation -> WWIIAP has less associated content -> WWIIAP becomes less worth-while to get -> WWIIAP gets fewer users -> content using WWIIAP has a smaller audience -> less content is produced with the WWIIAP -> WWIIAP becomes less worth-while to get … repeat … -> ultimately, ED figures it's not really worth-while for them to create asset packs to begin with.

The split is a problem in and of itself. The consequences of that split is also a problem, and arguably an even bigger one.

This was the logic that ultimately changed the SC to not use the same exclusionary design as the WWIIAP, but instead did the more intelligent thing of locking use and functionality behind the paywall, rather than the assets themselves. Faced with the possibility that all the work they had put into the SC would come to naught because some of the biggest subcommunities and content promoters would issue blanket judgment of “nah, don't get it — it will never be used around here”, they realised that they'd actually end up selling more modules if they made the assets available to everyone. The inclusion of these fancy assets would serve as promotion and as a reason for people to buy the functionality. Making the assets appear everywhere (because they were the hot new thing, and also let content creators do neat things), would make that promotion reach a far wider audience. And with no reason not to include it, there would be plenty of associated content that made it worth-while for people to buy the functionality, even as that functionality was (and still remains) pretty bare-bones and incomplete.

 

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But if you can't see any value in it, then what is all the discussion about, and why do you want to use items from the Assets Pack in your missions?

This particular discussion is about a non-WWII asset being locked behind the unique community-splitting paywall of the WWIIAP, making it impossible to include it to liven up missions not set in WWII without invoking that split. More generally, the discussion is that there are some neat things, in the pack and even some neat functionality, but the second you include even the slightest bit of it, the whole mission locks out the have-nots.

The asset pack as a whole may be worth it (that's really a different discussion), but as a content creator, what's more valuable: that I can have a search light sweep the sky because that looks really  neat, or that I can satisfy the content cravings of 250 people instead of just 5?

Edited April 13, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

$14.

 

Problem solved.

 

Have a wonderful day.  

[Beirut]

Love the new sticker on the thread: Not Planned 

 

But I have a plan - you should buy the WWII Assets Pack the next time it's on sale. $14 for some great content.

 

You'll  it. 

[BIGNEWY]

We have no plans to change how the WWII asset pack works. 

Thank you for your feedback