Opinions on the asset pack

[upyr1]

A lot of people complain about asset packs because it prevents them from connecting to a server. Some ideas to get them to quit the whining.

 

• playable land and sea modules, I consider this to be the ideal but that would be a ways off.
• Replace the missing assets with something from DCS core with a similar size- it won't look right but it would work.
• Replace the asset with a blob- it will look even worse 

Ideally a combination of the first two would be best 

[Tank50us]

12 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Replace the missing assets with something from DCS core with a similar size- it won't look right but it would work.

I'd argue that this would be the best option. For example, if the mission designer places a mod in the mission, or an asset that not everyone else has, for *those* people, the item is instead replaced with something of a similar class, and appropriate side. Examples include:

• Someone adds the C-5A from the MAM, the aircraft is then replaced with a C-17, both because the two aircraft have similar performance characteristics, and are both Blue Force.
• Someone adds the An124 as a stand-alone mod, the aircraft is replaced by the IL76 for the reasons mentioned above.
• You have an M4 Firefly added to a mission. Those without the WW2AP see the bare bones M4 Sherman
• Someone mods in a UREP ship for Blue For Navy, the Tanker Enyo(?) gets thrown in it's place for those without the mod
• The Higgins Boat from the WW2AP is added to a mission. Those without the pack just see the Armed Speed Boat
• Someone with the High Digit SAMs throws in an SA20 site, those without the mod just see an SA10 with a missile that's somehow capable of higher speeds.
• You use the new Blackhawk mod, the base-game UH60A takes its place for those without the mod installed
• Someone mods in a Yorktown Class and some Hellcats, those without the mod see a Tarawa and a P-47 respectively
• Someone adds the A-4 into a mission, those without it see an F-86
• Someone loads a Bramos onto an Su30 and launches it at a target, those without that mod see the base-game Su30 or Su34, and the missile is replaced either with a Harpoonski, or a Sunburn.
• The towed guns in the WW2AP could all be replaced with the mortar unit.
• and much more.

Now, my personal thing is that ED should make this an option for when people join in public servers. Mods or Asset Packs should be either Required, or recommended. If the host sets it to 'required', then the joining player who may be missing one or more mods/AP items gets a prompt, telling them what they're missing, and where they can get it (or in the case of mods, an option to download then and there), but they won't be able to join without it. If the host chooses 'recommended', then the player joining is still prompted, but if they choose not to download the items, they still connect, and the substitutes are placed (with appropriate generic Blue and Red Force liveries, and maybe with text telling you what it's representing) on their end and on the F10 map, the subbed units are marked with their actual type (IE, what the mod calls it), just with a set of (text) to denote to those players that what they're seeing is a mod or AP items sub. Done right, this can ultimately make it where the mod community isn't belittled, and those who don't want to go through the 'hassle' of downloading and installing mods aren't necessarily forced to, or are able to more easily download and install since it's now just one press of a key.

[Northstar98]

Just change how asset packs are implemented for multiplayer.

Have it so that in multiplayer, the assets are visible to non-owning clients (requiring only the mission editor to own the asset pack), even if at a far reduced LOD, with no CA functionality.

But make it so that SP missions using the asset pack are unavailable and/or make the asset pack units unavailable in their own missions. This will mean that asset packs will no longer split up multiplayer, but there's still the incentive there to purchase it.

This isn't even different to what DCS does already with literally every other module besides maps - even things like the SC assets are visible to non-owners (and can even be spawned in their own missions), but unless you own the SC module, they'll have most of their functionality removed.

Hell other titles do the same thing, assets from DLCs in a certain other battlefield simulator focusing on infantry are visible to non-owners and can be spawned by them, but they're unusable unless you own it. In the other WWII orientated sim, you can even play on maps that you don't own and edit missions on them - you just can't fly on them in SP. 

I don't see why a similar thing could be done for the asset pack, especially when again, DCS already does the same exact thing for literally every other module that isn't a map.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Northstar98

[Tippis]

Only idea needed:

• Get rid of asset packs as separate purchases. Make all modules contribute an “asset tax” towards the development of decorative and environment-enhancing units and statics that all become part of the core package.

The game lives and dies by its content. By dividing the community in have and have-nots, you inherently reduce the audience for content creators that use those assets packs, thereby reducing the content being created with those assets, thereby reducing the value of the asset packs, thereby reducing the audience for and the income from the asset packs themselves. They had to learn this lesson the hard way with the SC — now it's only a matter of taking that lesson to heart and bring it to its logical conclusion.

Asset packs as something you need to purchase can only ever be self-defeating false economy that reduces the ability for ED to create the assets needed for content creators to create the content that keeps ED's customer base alive, attached to the game, and inclined to spend more money on the game. At most, there could be some “usage packs” to replace them, where functionality is added to integrate with CA and the like, thereby — much like what Northstar suggests — disentangling the existence of the assets and their active use by players in a given scenario.

[BIGNEWY]

Thank you for the feedback, however we have no plans to change how the asset pack works, we have already made some of those assets free from the pack to give mission designers more options. 

thank you

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Thank you for the feedback, however we have no plans to change how the asset pack works, we have already made some of those assets free from the pack to give mission designers more options. 

thank you

I hope ya'll have plans to add some more asset packs in the store. I'm willing to pay to get cold war assets

[Callsign112]

I guess its all in the way you look at things. I mean I really love the DCS war bird scene. Are they prefect... no. Are there issues that need to be addressed... definitely. But after buying anyone of the highly detailed and beautifully modeled WWII planes I have, the last thing I want is to fly it around in a less than interesting world. I have just about all of the props, and one of the major factors driving my enthusiasm in DCS is the WWII Assets pack with CA functionality. When I get tired of chasing it in a plane, being able to jump in a Tiger/Sherman to clear the way is a real plus... So tanks for dat ED!

 And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ED, can you PLEASE add a ground/support crew assets pack for the WWII maps so we can share in some of the same magic you created for jets with the Super Carrier?

[upyr1]

On 2/20/2022 at 5:30 AM, BIGNEWY said:

Thank you for the feedback, however we have no plans to change how the asset pack works, we have already made some of those assets free from the pack to give mission designers more options. 

thank you

Do you think ya'll could add an option to filter out a server using asset packs

[Beirut]

On 2/20/2022 at 2:10 PM, upyr1 said:

I hope ya'll have plans to add some more asset packs in the store. I'm willing to pay to get cold war assets

 

Cold War assets would be great! The more the merrier.

 

The money is sitting in my Steam wallet just for DCS stuff. 

[Callsign112]

You could probably add "continue increasing the value of the WWII Assets pack" as a way to make it that must have tech pack for your DCS install.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

You could probably add "continue increasing the value of the WWII Assets pack" as a way to make it that must have tech pack for your DCS install.

More assets are always welcomed 

[Tank50us]

Alternatively, make it so that those with the pack can take some level of control over units within the pack. Be it just being able to drive a Sherman around, or fly a Ju-87 in an FC-3 configuration, making the interaction and control of the units the main feature of the pack should be the thing that makes people pay the cost of entry. If people aren't interested in controlling the units, and just want to introduce them to a 500lb GP Bomb.... then they shouldn't be forced to buy the pack.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You could probably add "continue increasing the value of the WWII Assets pack" as a way to make it that must have tech pack for your DCS install.

53 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

More assets are always welcomed 

Definitely yes on both counts. But the more I think about it, and especially given the discussions in the other thread, the more I'm becoming partial to the seed of an idea Northstar offered: more assets, sure, but the actual value proposition might be better served by selling the usage part of the equation. The payware gives you the internal views and more detailed weapon and system sims that hook into CA; ground comms and better AI that can be coordinated with from the air (or from other ground positions, again tying into various CA mechanics); period-accurate spotting and fire direction. All that jazz.

That would make the value shoot up massively, and imo far more than having yet another angular boxy thing with treads or wheels to drop bombs onto. It's also two birds in one stone: the splitting problem could be done away with because the art asset is freely accessible by all and sundry, but those who really want to dig in get some very special functionality for their money — things that other players can miss out on with no ill effects, but can see in action and start being envious of…

Edited February 23, 2022 by Tippis

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, Tippis said:

definitely yes on both counts. But the more I think about it, and especially given the discussions in the other thread, the more I'm becoming partial to the seed of an idea Northstar offered: more assets, sure, but the actual value proposition might be better served by selling the usage page of the equation. The payware gives you the internal views and more detailed weapon and system sims that hook into CA; ground comms and better AI that can be coordinated with from the air (or from other ground positions, again tying into various CA mechanics); period-accurate spotting and fire direction. All that jazz.

I've also suggested that Eagle should do Combined Arms as a family of modules just detailed enough to work in VR and stand in for asset packs. I've also suggested a similar line of Naval modules called Fleet ops

[Callsign112]

39 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I've also suggested that Eagle should do Combined Arms as a family of modules just detailed enough to work in VR and stand in for asset packs. I've also suggested a similar line of Naval modules called Fleet ops

Yeah I do enjoy reading all of the suggestions you make. I think most of what we discuss back and forth would prove to be real fertile ground for ED, so much so that it would likely keep several additional teams busy full time.

52 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Definitely yes on both counts. But the more I think about it, and especially given the discussions in the other thread, the more I'm becoming partial to the seed of an idea Northstar offered: more assets, sure, but the actual value proposition might be better served by selling the usage part of the equation. The payware gives you the internal views and more detailed weapon and system sims that hook into CA; ground comms and better AI that can be coordinated with from the air (or from other ground positions, again tying into various CA mechanics); period-accurate spotting and fire direction. All that jazz.

That would make the value shoot up massively, and imo far more than having yet another angular boxy thing with treads or wheels to drop bombs onto. It's also two birds in one stone: the splitting problem could be done away with because the art asset is freely accessible by all and sundry, but those who really want to dig in get some very special functionality for their money — things that other players can miss out on with no ill effects, but can see in action and start being envious of…

 

All good points, but for me the main point is what we have today. And what we have today requires that we have the Assets pack for certain servers/campaigns. If they ever decide to change that, and I think there were some really good suggestions coming from your groups corner, then I will be happy just the same as long as we continue seeing improvements in assets and Ai logic.

What ever system ED decides on, I think the only way we can hope to see continued development is if there is continued support.

But again if anyone wants to improve the capabilities of their DCS install today, I am really recommending all of the tech packs and maps your budget allows. The flyable modules are obviously the main attraction, but the tech packs/maps really add to what you can do with the flyable modules. But I also realize that is not a solution, or even possible for everyone.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

If people aren't interested in controlling the units, and just want to introduce them to a 500lb GP Bomb.... then they shouldn't be forced to buy the pack.

Yes they should. Really this is the primary use for the assets, as targets or objectives etc. So allowing non-buyers to interact with them is essentially giving them away for free. And creating workarounds like this just discourages buying the content. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes they should. Really this is the primary use for the assets, as targets or objectives etc. So allowing non-buyers to interact with them is essentially giving them away for free. 

The actual interaction would be sold separately is the point. Those are the things that actually add value and are complicated to create.

Getting a tiger-striped boxy thing rather than a flecktarned boxy thing is simply not worth it and leads right back into the community split problem that massively devalues the entire asset pack and gives ED less resources to work with. Now granted, that would be entirely in line with much of your posting history so maybe you truly do wish that outcome.  

[upyr1]

59 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes they should. Really this is the primary use for the assets, as targets or objectives etc. So allowing non-buyers to interact with them is essentially giving them away for free. And creating workarounds like this just discourages buying the content. 

 

As Eagle sees things the same way you do, then I wish they would give us a filter I have the WW II asset pack but if I am running a server and using WWII assets, then I want people to avoid me instead of connect and get rejected.  Same thing with mods, if yu can filter out a server that uses mods or if we get a mod manual that enables is to check for mods we own then it would be fine

Edited February 23, 2022 by upyr1

[Beirut]

45 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

I got some damn good news!

No one gets "excluded" and nothing gets "divided" as some argue over and over again: DCS comes with two FREE planes and two FREE maps, also everybody can set up a server himself for FREE and run missions he designed or downloaded for FREE.

Available for everyone!

With this and the free 14 day module trials, ED gives potential customers enough opportunity to check out the product(s) and make a buying decision. No one is forced to buy anything tho, it is an option.

You're welcome, follow me for more "life is easy" tips.

 

I like your good news. Consider yourself followed. 

 

For my part, I'm happy to buy the "extras" like the Super Carrier and the Assets Pack and Combined Arms because they make for a richer experience. 

 

I'm here for the fun of it and I like my big fat high-tech super deluxe flightsim with extra cheese and spicy fries on the side. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Beirut

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes they should. Really this is the primary use for the assets, as targets or objectives etc. So allowing non-buyers to interact with them is essentially giving them away for free. And creating workarounds like this just discourages buying the content. 

 

You would still need the asset pack to play off line and to run a server. I figure the best stand in would be something from DCS core but I would like to see that done with mods first

[Tank50us]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes they should. Really this is the primary use for the assets, as targets or objectives etc. So allowing non-buyers to interact with them is essentially giving them away for free. And creating workarounds like this just discourages buying the content. 

 

OK, if you have no desire to land on a carrier, be directed by its crew, don't own a Tomcat or Hornet, and want to fling an Anti-ship missile at the Carrier.... guess what, you still can if you own a Viggin, Thunder, or just know how to use the Su25Ts AShM, you still can. You don't need Super Carrier to attack the Super Carriers or Burks, so why should someone be required to buy any future DLCs if you have no intention of doing anything but shooting at them and destroying them? By your logic, someone should just go out and buy every flyable aircraft available in order to go up against them in MP. Want to dogfight a Harrier in your Mirage? Better own the Harrier. Want to go up against F-5s in your Tomcat? better own the F-5. The list goes on.

The same holds true with the other DLCs, if someone only wants to attack them, they shouldn't be forced to buy the target. Especially when it's something that can still be used in any theater of conflict in a realistic scenario (like the C-47/DC-3, which can still be found all over the world, both in military and civil service, and the Jeep, which had so many built that they can be found in any conflict zone in the world.)

[SharpeXB]

11 hours ago, Tank50us said:

why should someone be required to buy any future DLCs if you have no intention of doing anything but shooting at them and destroying them?

The Asset Pack is different from other modules in that it doesn’t really have a substantial playable aspect. It could perhaps be sold as a WWII Combined Arms but that market is likely too small to fund its development. So it needs to be sold to the flight sim population. And as such to use it, whether that means shooting at it or making screenshots of it, requires that you buy it. 

[upyr1]

38 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The Asset Pack is different from other modules in that it doesn’t really have a substantial playable aspect. It could perhaps be sold as a WWII Combined Arms but that market is likely too small to fund its development. So it needs to be sold to the flight sim population. And as such to use it, whether that means shooting at it or making screenshots of it, requires that you buy it. 

I think the Combined Arms market might increase if they got it working in Vr and did an overhaul 

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The Asset Pack is different from other modules in that it doesn’t really have a substantial playable aspect. It could perhaps be sold as a WWII Combined Arms but that market is likely too small to fund its development. So it needs to be sold to the flight sim population. And as such to use it, whether that means shooting at it or making screenshots of it, requires that you buy it. 

Well said, thanks.

When you buy a plane/jet/helicopter, the reason you buy it and the value you take from it is not in watching someone else fly around in it, it is doing the flying part yourself. This naturally means that you can shoot at other players in other planes.

The same can be said for the SC. You can gawk at F18s launching off its deck as you whiz by in your CEII, but that is not the value of having the SC, and certainly not why you would buy it. You will buy the SC and PG map to increase the mission scenarios you can fly, and to immerse yourself into the world of a Navy fighter pilot.

On top of that, I am willing to bet that SC sales are strongly linked to the popularity of modules like the F18, F14, PG map. So in addition to being a module in its own right with its own set of features that are definitely worth getting if you want that type of experience, it has a very well established customer base to draw from.

The functionality you get from the WWII assets pack are the interactions it allows you to make with the world you place them in. The ability to lob bombs, rockets, bullets at them is the entire reason why you would buy the Assets pack. Sure ED could make it so that non-owners could fly on the same server and not receive any benefit from the assets themselves, but why should they bother wasting the time to do it?

Put your thinking caps on people, its not that hard to figure out if you really want to join that server.  

Edited February 24, 2022 by Callsign112

[Exorcet]

I also support a non divided community. The cost of assets is a non issue for me, but splitting the the community and increasing the difficulty of mission making/server running is something I'm concerned about. Including asset cost into modules or something similar would be for the best in my opinion.