A question about a possible Korean War asset pack

[upyr1]

Do you think it would be better to have a 1950s asset pack or a Korean War asset pack that overlaps with the WWII with a discount for people who have both?

Edited February 20, 2022 by upyr1

[LooseSeal]

Hmm... wouldn't it make sense to get a Korea map first? By the sounds of it, that won't be any time soon. (Call me sceptical, but I don't see a 'world map' for a good few years yet)

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

Hmm... wouldn't it make sense to get a Korea map first? By the sounds of it, that won't be any time soon. (Call me sceptical, but I don't see a 'world map' for a good few years yet)

The assets are more important than the map. If we get the assets then we can have early cold war scenarios on the exisisting maps. If we get the map but no assets we have dog fights with the F-51,  F-86 and MIG-15 but lack targets except what is in the WWII asset pack I'd rather have a battle in the Caucuses with period assets than a battle in Korea without 

[Shrimp]

Better yet:

Korea map & Korea War Assets Pack

… and…

Vietnam (SEA) map & Vietnam War Assets Pack
I’d buy all four!!!

[LooseSeal]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

If we get the map but no assets

I get that, but what I'm saying is... that particular theatre doesn't appear to be in ED's plans.

So... what you're essentially asking for is a Cold War Assets pack. Which is totally fine. More assets, the better. Especially with the Phantom coming along.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

I get that, but what I'm saying is... that particular theatre doesn't appear to be in ED's plans.

So... what you're essentially asking for is a Cold War Assets pack. Which is totally fine. More assets, the better. Especially with the Phantom coming along.

Razbam is working on a 1960s asset pack so I am asking for a 1950s asset pack. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by upyr1

[Silver_Dragon]

25 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Razbam is working on a 1960s asset pack so I am asking for a 1950s asset pack. 

 

RAZBAM has making actually the Falklands assets pack. Actually your planned 1950-60 asset pack has "on hold" and waiting if them share some info about your status.

[upyr1]

21 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

RAZBAM has making actually the Falklands assets pack. Actually your planned 1950-60 asset pack has "on hold" and waiting if them share some info about your status.

The question is more hypothetical,  

[rayrayblues]

On 2/17/2022 at 4:58 AM, Shrimp said:

Better yet:

Korea map & Korea War Assets Pack

… and…

Vietnam (SEA) map & Vietnam War Assets Pack
I’d buy all four!!!

What we don't have, but need are flyable assets. F4U 5, A2 or 4 Skyraider, and especially F9F Panther.

Korea was the first helicopter war, so we would also need at least S-51, H-21, and Bell 47's.

The map is irrelevant. Parts of Caucasus, especially the mountains west of Batumi could be a reasonable substitute.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by rayrayblues

[M1Combat]

Eff the asset packs.

Not a fan.

 

I should clarify...  Sorry.  I'm a huge fan of asset packs :).  I know...  odd clarification...

 

BUT...  They need to be done in such a way that they don't split the community.  My suggestion would be to have all 3rd party devs agree to develop a small subset of assets in order to sell their product in the DCS ecology.  So say HB does an F14...  ED should have them agree to create some number of kinda related assets.  Ground assets, other air assets etc.  That said... HB has already done what appears to be a good job with this.  That may or may not be contract related I have no idea.  Same should go for maps.  Someone wants to make a map...  ED should choose what other ground and air assets would reasonably go with that...  and write it into the contract.  Price accordingly.  I would have happily paid an extra $10 for the normandy map if it meant that everyone would have the WW2 assets pack.  The channel map should have a group of assets developed for that part of the war.

Edited February 18, 2022 by M1Combat

[upyr1]

22 hours ago, M1Combat said:

Eff the asset packs.

Not a fan.

 

I should clarify...  Sorry.  I'm a huge fan of asset packs :).  I know...  odd clarification...

 

BUT...  They need to be done in such a way that they don't split the community. 

That's the only problem I see with them. IMHO I think missing assets should be repalced with something similar is size from DCS core or an ugly blob. So you could still play on a server but it won't look right. 

22 hours ago, M1Combat said:

My suggestion would be to have all 3rd party devs agree to develop a small subset of assets in order to sell their product in the DCS ecology.  So say HB does an F14...  ED should have them agree to create some number of kinda related assets.  Ground assets, other air assets etc.  That said... HB has already done what appears to be a good job with this.  That may or may not be contract related I have no idea.  Same should go for maps.  Someone wants to make a map...  ED should choose what other ground and air assets would reasonably go with that...  and write it into the contract.  Price accordingly.  I would have happily paid an extra $10 for the normandy map if it meant that everyone would have the WW2 assets pack.  The channel map should have a group of assets developed for that part of the war.

 

I agree whenever possible map and modules should include assets, but I also have no problems with paid asset packs 

[_Hoss]

Would love a Korean map over the Faulklands. You can use the Korean map for modern what if scenarios too. But we need the straight deck Essex, F9F, F4U-4, and of course the awesome A-1. AI B-29's. 

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, 352nd_Hoss said:

Would love a Korean map over the Faulklands. You can use the Korean map for modern what if scenarios too. But we need the straight deck Essex, F9F, F4U-4, and of course the awesome A-1. AI B-29's. 

Then we also need some RedFor as well 

[Evoman]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:09 AM, rayrayblues said:

What we don't have, but need are flyable assets. F4U 5, A2 or 4 Skyraider, and especially F9F Panther.

Korea was the first helicopter war, so we would also need at least S-51, H-21, and Bell 47's.

The map is irrelevant. Parts of Caucasus, especially the mountains west of Batumi could be a reasonable substitute.

 

 

 

 

 

The Bell 47 would actually make a great candidate for a free helicopter to be included with the DCS download. They really need a simple free helicopter to help attract and train people that are interested in buying the helicopter modules but are hesitant because they won't be able to fly them well.

By the way the F4U-1D is coming for DCS by ED soon.

 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Evoman said:

The Bell 47 would actually make a great candidate for a free helicopter to be included with the DCS download. They really need a simple free helicopter to help attract and train people that are interested in buying the helicopter modules but are hesitant because they won't be able to fly them well.

By the way the F4U-1D is coming for DCS by ED soon.

 

The H-13 Souix would be awesome 

 

Edited February 20, 2022 by upyr1

[upyr1]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:09 AM, rayrayblues said:

What we don't have, but need are flyable assets. F4U 5, A2 or 4 Skyraider, and especially F9F Panther.

Korea was the first helicopter war, so we would also need at least S-51, H-21, and Bell 47's.

The map is irrelevant. Parts of Caucasus, especially the mountains west of Batumi could be a reasonable substitute.

 

 

 

Back to the issue at hand, do you think we would be better with a 1950s asset pack with assets that entered service too late for World War II and left service too early for Vietnam or do you think it should focus on Korea and over lap with the WW II asset pack with a discount if you have both

 

 

[Tank50us]

Hey, if we got this as a Static Object, I'd be all for it:

Edited February 20, 2022 by Tank50us

[Grievo]

13 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Hey, if we got this as a Static Object, I'd be all for it:

Static object? Should be a playable module.

[rayrayblues]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:34 AM, M1Combat said:

They need to be done in such a way that they don't split the community.

ED is not splitting the community!    This is a tired argument. Allow me to clarify.

MP servers are privately run. ED doesn't have anything to do with how they are managed.

A private server can require any modules or assets they want. It's their business, not ED's. 

It's not ED's fault that you can't join a particular server just because you won't or can't spend the money to buy the WWll package.

ED makes their money and pays their bills by selling products. The WWll asset pack is one of the many products that they sell.

@BIGNEWY, @NineLine and others have made it abundantly clear that no one is forcing you to buy or not buy any their products.

You get two free planes and two free maps to start and anything else you may want costs money, so stop blaming ED for your problem.

And now, back to the topic:

18 hours ago, Evoman said:

The Bell 47 would actually make a great candidate for a free helicopter to be included with the DCS download. They really need a simple free helicopter to help attract and train people that are interested in buying the helicopter modules but are hesitant because they won't be able to fly them well.

Excellent idea. They already give you two free planes so that new people can get a feel for how to fly in DCS.

A free helicopter module would definitely be in order and the Bell 47 would be the perfect choice. It's a plain, pure helo with no frills.

14 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Back to the issue at hand, do you think we would be better with a 1950s asset pack with assets that entered service too late for World War II and left service too early for Vietnam or do you think it should focus on Korea and over lap with the WW II asset pack with a discount if you have both

 

 

I would rather have a Korean asset overlap forward into Vietnam to catch up to the Huey, rather than backwards into WWll.

The period between the wars is irrelevant. We have the Mig-15 and the F-86 now, so let's move forward from there.

As I understand it, there are already plans for more cold war assets in the works so it only makes sense.

If you want discounts, do as I do and wait for the next sale. They have many sales every year with plenty of discounts.

29 minutes ago, Grievo said:

Static object? Should be a playable module.

Most definitely playable.    

[upyr1]

56 minutes ago, rayrayblues said:

I would rather have a Korean asset overlap forward into Vietnam to catch up to the Huey, rather than backwards into WWll.

The period between the wars is irrelevant. We have the Mig-15 and the F-86 now, so let's move forward from there.

As I understand it, there are already plans for more cold war assets in the works so it only makes sense.

If you want discounts, do as I do and wait for the next sale. They have many sales every year with plenty of discounts

So a cold war asset pack, which I think that would be the more logical choice. A pure Korean war asset pack would need to have two variants the first would be one that includes WWII assets and the second would be one without them that would be available only to people with the WWII asset pack. I could see that becoming a headache.

 

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, rayrayblues said:

ED is not splitting the community!    This is a tired argument. Allow me to clarify.

MP servers are privately run. ED doesn't have anything to do with how they are managed.

A private server can require any modules or assets they want. It's their business, not ED's. 

…and as the SC debacle showed, their business dictates that when a module comes out that splits the community into haves and have-nots, they must by necessity go for the lowest common denominator — i.e. the have-nots — to maintain critical mass and keep a useful population going on those servers. Consequently, they will not suddenly host any missions that use a community-splitting module. They will also not recommend the purchase of those modules since they will never be used on the servers. This then spreads throughout the server's large community to become a general word-of-mouth (non)recommendation: the people who aren't being provided with any content for the module in question use this as an argument to tell others also not to get it.

Yes, by making a module that makes it impossible for some players not to use content where that module's assets are present ED is inherently and by very definition splitting the community. ED — no-one else — choose to create a situation where the haves and have-nots cannot play together. Everyone else can only choose whether they want to be part of one group or another, but the split community doesn't go away. Indeed, the very fact that they must choose is a consequence of the community being split. The whole “no-one is forcing you” line doesn't make the split go away either — it just further proves that the split exists and that ED has created a situation where that choice matters and determines whether you can play a specific mission or not.

With the Supercarrier, ED decided against splitting the community and instead actively chose to create a module that could be included in missions and still let the have-nots play that mission. Again, ED made this choice, no-one else. The reason they did this was because the above logic was explained to them in painful detail: how just about all of the most active community groups saw the initial restriction, declared it pointless for them to own, and not worth recommending. If restricted, it would not be featured on their servers; if not featured, content creators had no incentive to create content with it; with no content created for it, regular users had far less incentive to buy it. Thus, what private servers required — or more accurately refused to require — became very much ED's (literal) business.

5 hours ago, rayrayblues said:

It's not ED's fault that you can't join a particular server just because you won't or can't spend the money to buy the WWll package.

Yes it is. They were the ones who decided to create that very restriction. No-one else can do anything about it without breaking the EULA and digging out the DRM and restriction code from the game. Being able to spend money on the package just means you're on the other side of that restriction, but the restriction still exists and is still entirely something ED decided on. They could also have decided not to do it that way, as proven by SC. Or are you suggesting that when ED decided to change SC so that even the have-nots could participate in missions where SC was included, was not actually something ED decided on and changed in the code?

We know that it's ED's “fault,” not just because they've proven that this restriction doesn't need to exist, but also because third-party mod makers have proven the same thing. Their way of maintaining non-required compatibility is a bit uglier and more kludgey than when ED does it by making certain bits part of the core game, but the fact that it can be done (and the fact that there are a fair amount of mods where it can't or wasn't done) further highlights that it's up to the dev to make that choice. No-one else.

[Rudel_chw]

On 2/19/2022 at 6:51 PM, Evoman said:

They really need a simple free helicopter to help attract and train people that are interested in buying the helicopter modules but are hesitant because they won't be able to fly them well.

ED already lets those people to try for free during two weeks each helicopter currently available, so I don't see a real need for yet another freebie.

[Evoman]

26 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

ED already lets those people to try for free during two weeks each helicopter currently available, so I don't see a real need for yet another freebie.

Lets be realistic. Two weeks is not enough time to train to fly a helicopter well unless your a teen or retired with no responsibilities. I my self tried to "Further" my basic helicopter skills I had acquired by playing Battlefield 3 and messing with an RC helicopter simulator a years ago with the Huey during one of those free to fly events. Needless to say it was a struggle to just get the helicopter to hover and land without wrecking it. Out of those two weeks I was only able to practice with the Huey for like 3 days with the free time I had available. And because of that I wont be buying a helicopter module that I can't really enjoy flying right away. Which is a shame because otherwise I would be very interested in the Apache.

I could not imagine how frustrating it would be for someone with no prior helicopter skills to try to learn in a span of only 2 weeks. Those two weeks were intended as a test drive for people that already know how to fly the aircraft not train.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Evoman

[Rudel_chw]

38 minutes ago, Evoman said:

And because of that I wont be buying a helicopter module that I can't really enjoy flying right away.

 

I understand your point of view, I own all helo Modules and with none of them I could fly right away. I agree that reading the manual, viewing tutorials and flying the training missions takes a lot of time. However, the idea of distracting development resources to create such a flyable Module does not appeal to me, even less if it won't generate direct revenue.

 

[Evoman]

On 2/20/2022 at 7:44 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

I understand your point of view, I own all helo Modules and with none of them I could fly right away. I agree that reading the manual, viewing tutorials and flying the training missions takes a lot of time. However, the idea of distracting development resources to create such a flyable Module does not appeal to me, even less if it won't generate direct revenue.

 

I understand your concern but ED has already stated before that they recognize that the current free aircraft that come with DCS are not the most appealing or helpful to attract new comers. So that has been at top of their list of things they are looking to change. The interview can be found here at 1:27:54min.

I am sure you can agree that changing the free aircraft that come with DCS would have an impact on new interest and revenue. And it does not have to be all new aircraft. They can simply  re-use current or future modules to make a simplified variant for the free version. In my opinion the best option for a free helicopter trainer would be making a Bell TH-67 out of the OH-58 Kiowa that will be out soon. The TH-67 is actually what the U.S. military uses to train their helicopter pilots in anyways.

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Evoman