FC2024 | Kola Development Progress | Virtual Carrier Wing 17

[LordOrion]

Just now, P1l0t said:

I don't know what it is and what to do with it,

Both are tools to manage a dynamic campaign in DCS: I think you and your friend should give them a try.

3 minutes ago, P1l0t said:

. Even before you bring up servers from the 80s, I wouldn't call it the 80s if an FA-18C or F-16CM flies older missiles with avionics from the 2000s! And we play real scenarios with airplanes from the 80s against modern airplanes that were made after 2000!

In the mission editor there is an option to restrict weapons (and maybe planes modules) at a certain age.

I'm not an MP expert (I use to play SP) but I think that apply to mission created for MP/COOP.

15 minutes ago, P1l0t said:

This is exactly why I am writing ideas on how to bring a more modern Flanker or Fulcrum into the DCS world, which seems to be in demand!

Just out of curiosity, have you tried the JF-17?

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, LordOrion said:

The day ED will introduce an EXP system to unlock module features in DCS World I will close my account and move to another game (and bet I won't be the only one there to do so).

 

 

Amen brother! If I want to grind, I'll go to work. 

 

I'm here to fly. 

[LuseKofte]

1 hour ago, P1l0t said:

If you don't have a squadron to fly missions with, the game quickly becomes monotonous after mastering the flight and procedures.

That is lack of imagination. And absolutely not true. I bought MI 8 the day it arrived. Still my favourite. 
You are making a huge thing about being a bit helpless. 
All you need is two guys , setting up a coop or join a server and look for something of interest. Take a brake for a while and do other stuff. We all need a break. I just stop when I notice a fatigue and fly GB or go hunting or fishing. 
Eventually you come back and have fun again 

[Beirut]

5 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

That is lack of imagination. And absolutely not true. I bought MI 8 the day it arrived. Still my favourite. 
You are making a huge thing about being a bit helpless. 
All you need is two guys , setting up a coop or join a server and look for something of interest. Take a brake for a while and do other stuff. We all need a break. I just stop when I notice a fatigue and fly GB or go hunting or fishing. 
Eventually you come back and have fun again 

 

Yes. That.

 

There are times when I don't fly for a bit, then I load DCS back up and always have the same reaction; "Holy ****! This is really cool!"  

[Roy35150]

Liberation is Amazing and has dynamic campaigns for all maps,

Ive flown the viper in every map and its truly great fun,

 

A handy link

Thumper goes through whole lot from setup to editing your own loadouts ect,

Greetz from Eire...

[LordOrion]

32 minutes ago, Roy35150 said:

Liberation is Amazing and has dynamic campaigns for all maps,

Ive flown the viper in every map and its truly great fun,

 

A handy link

Thumper goes through whole lot from setup to editing your own loadouts ect,

Greetz from Eire...

Liberation means a virtually infinite fun.

And you can fly more than one plane module in the same campaign!

Edited April 27 by LordOrion

[Bucic]

2 hours ago, Thamiel said:

Thats a remarkable statement. If true, why should I buy it in the first place? I have bought something very complex. Now begins the process of discovering how far I can climb that path.

And that's what skill-based gameplay is. Many of us do not play multiple stat-based genres for a reason.

[Exorcet]

7 hours ago, P1l0t said:

It's hard to imagine that the way you play now in Single Player, where you have a logbook that awards you when you play, would work online. If you achieve enough aerial combat victories in Single Player, you will continuously receive medals. Further thinking about this, if you exit an online server, it wouldn’t be difficult to report to a server how many ground units you have destroyed or how many planes you have shot down. Both take-off and landing are monitored by DCS World, which can inform others of your activities in the common chat. When you leave a server and say you played for 1.5 hours, the results can be linked to your account, sent to a server, and based on that, you can earn XP and credits. For instance, a landing could be worth 10 XP, an air combat victory 100 XP, and destroying a ground unit 50 XP. As you play, you accumulate XP and credits, which you can then redeem in the E-shop. For other companies, this concept has long been effective in attracting new players to the game and motivating veteran players. No one should be offended, but the current concept of DCS World is that you buy a product in the E-shop, and that’s the end. There is no maximum motivation to learn something with the module you bought. This free-to-play approach makes the DCS World attractive and encourages people to play, offering endless possibilities and significant motivation, and making money for the ED in the process!

That DCS lacks credits and XP is good. This is part of why DCS is better than other games. Credits and XP are just a bandaid to hide that your game isn't fun to play. If a game is good you play it out of enjoyment. Grinding is not fun, it's a waste of development resources, and it often leads to overpriced content. DCS is fine as it is.

 

Quote

This idea of mine only applies to FC modules. Fully clickable products should not be mixed in! These fully clickable products must be purchased for real money!

I can tell you that elsewhere, thanks to the fact that there are daily missions, I play there every day. If there wasn't a daily mission, I wouldn't be interested in going there because what's there is boring! Since there is motivation, I still go there and deal with it because I get a reward that I can then use for something!

Think about having a community skin sharing website where you can get skins for all kinds of aircraft. Let's say 5000 XP for a skin and some credits. Let's say you play 5-10 hours for this skin. I think this is a good thing. Or you can get, say, a missile with 3 days of play for your plane. Or you can buy it in the E shop immediately. Someone plays, someone gives money to ED. Both are in ED's interest, I think!

I think that you have to move with the times, and ED and the players benefit from this!

This is nothing about moving with the times. It's about destroying what DCS is and make it a generic and dull product. If you want daily missions, DCS can do better than something like assigning a random and what I'd consider predicable and meaningless objective to fulfill day after day. DCS will have a DC at some point to give you actual missions to do. Today it has the ME and online servers which are dynamic. If anything I'd want games in general to move toward the way DCS does things. It's so much better.

From reading you post it does seem that you like having a to do list in games. I guess DCS could include some guidance for players unsure of what to do, though none of that requires XP and the like.

 

5 hours ago, P1l0t said:

There are players who have been here for a long time and have no motivation because DCS World is developing in a direction different from what we would expect. Some like this direction, some don't. I have already discussed the Su-35 in other topics, all of its weapons are now available in DCS World. I've seen the Flaming Cliffs Closed Beta tester documentation, Flanker and Fulcrum together total 3 pages, and that's it. There was nothing secret in it, you can find what I saw on the Internet simply by using a Google search. The radar of the Su-35 Bars covers at least 2 pages, it is presented in such detail here on the forum. Growling Sidewinder flies a Su-47 in his latest video on the Youtube channel, and it has 2 large LCD displays and a HUD. I watching the video and ask myself, why didn't ED do this? Others make mods for free, and ED could make money with it because no modern Redfor aircraft has entered DCS World for 15 years. NATO planes are coming off the assembly line.

 

 

The website you showed where you can download skins for free, I think ED could also make money with that. I don't think $3 or $5 would be too much for a skin. Anyone who could upload a skin there would receive a skin as a gift, thereby helping ED to achieve success. With the XP system, you could earn additional skins, all you need to do is play or buy one for $5. There could even be an SD resolution skin for cheaper, or a UHD resolution skin for the most demanding, it's either game time or money for ED!

I haven't been motivated by anything for a long time. Unfortunately, I am not attracted to NATO equipment. Not playing anymore and looking for something else is not a good solution. There are many opportunities in DCS World that no one wants to take advantage of. I understand that this is a hardcore simulator, but the fact that MAC takes players away from here does not guarantee that they will come back. Ideas should be invented that encourage people to play and spend money.

There is a free-to-play player who grinds the FC MiG-29M and brags about how happy he is. Then his other 5 friends come to DCS World and immediately buy the FC MiG-29M. ED gets to it $75 immediately, and there could be a bunch of other versions, or if they like one of the fully clickable planes, then $80 per person goes to ED again. What I'm trying to write about has been successful everywhere. If you do the free-to-play concept normally, it won't bother anyone from the hardcore simulators. Meanwhile, DCS World is slowly growing and can achieve success.

I just wanted to share my idea on the forum, FC is the best basis for ED to earn more money and attract players!

You see, you too can write an FC product that could make money for ED or attract players here! The free to play concept keeps the players!

It's because ED is aiming for a certain level of fidelity, and because the Russian government is trigger happy. Growling Sidewinder's Su-47 has nothing to do with the topic. It doesn't change the fact that a realistic MiG or Su is risky for ED to model and that the documentation needed to model it in detail may not exist. You may have found some documentation, but that doesn't mean you've found enough to model a plane.

I do think that DCS, as a simulator, has room for less than perfectly modeled aircraft. FC does fit with that idea and now that ED has reversed their previous stance and are considering more FC planes, maybe it will open the door to aircraft that can't be simulated as FF.
 

Quote

 

The website you showed where you can download skins for free, I think ED could also make money with that. I don't think $3 or $5 would be too much for a skin.

 

It's an insane price. The problem with microtransactions is that they inflate the price of items by immense amounts. Just consider how many skins are in a given module, which you pay around $60 for. If you divide the number of skins by the price you get a price per skin. Let's say it's 20 skins. $60/20 is $3. However this would mean that the entire cost of the module is skins. Not flight model, not system model, not 3D model, etc. $3 a skin is ridiculous and standing video game marketing practice is to hide that ridiculous price behind a low transaction cost to make people unaware of how much they are spending.

 

Quote

Anyone who could upload a skin there would receive a skin as a gift, thereby helping ED to achieve success. With the XP system, you could earn additional skins, all you need to do is play or buy one for $5. There could even be an SD resolution skin for cheaper, or a UHD resolution skin for the most demanding, it's either game time or money for ED!

Effectively undoing the free user files system and making things worse for everyone.

Quote

I haven't been motivated by anything for a long time. Unfortunately, I am not attracted to NATO equipment. Not playing anymore and looking for something else is not a good solution. There are many opportunities in DCS World that no one wants to take advantage of. I understand that this is a hardcore simulator, but the fact that MAC takes players away from here does not guarantee that they will come back. Ideas should be invented that encourage people to play and spend money.

I disagree. Nothing should be about encouraging people to spend money. A good product makes money by being worth buying. Also if people don't want to play something then they don't need encouragement. They need to find something that interests them. Encouragement typically takes the form of unfun forced content or hoops to jump through before you can actually enjoy anything. My encouragement to play DCS comes heavily from the fact that it leaves what to do up to me.

Quote

There is a free-to-play player who grinds the FC MiG-29M and brags about how happy he is. Then his other 5 friends come to DCS World and immediately buy the FC MiG-29M. ED gets to it $75 immediately, and there could be a bunch of other versions, or if they like one of the fully clickable planes, then $80 per person goes to ED again. What I'm trying to write about has been successful everywhere. If you do the free-to-play concept normally, it won't bother anyone from the hardcore simulators. Meanwhile, DCS World is slowly growing and can achieve success.

I just wanted to share my idea on the forum, FC is the best basis for ED to earn more money and attract players!

You see, you too can write an FC product that could make money for ED or attract players here! The free to play concept keeps the players!

There is nothing to indicate that what you're saying will work. Your example also works just as well with the current system where people just buy the planes. Let's not forget DCS has free trials anyway so people can already play for free.

2 hours ago, P1l0t said:

Unfortunately, you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough, so you completely misunderstood. It will be interesting, however, if the NATO equipment runs out of the repertoire, then what source of money will be there to guarantee success, because at some point it will run out. Sellable skins or FC products that cannot be implemented in full fidelity and can be included in DCS World do not in any way interfere with the operation of fully clickable products. Everyone decides for himself whether to allow only FC or fully clickable planes on his server!
This rejection of everything that is new leads nowhere. This is an idea anyway, it doesn't have to be interpreted as arriving tomorrow!

ED will probably never run out of planes. Not unless they can greatly increase the rate of module releases. For most aircraft we have one version, out of the dozens on offer. Players want multiple versions or versions with additional capabilities. ED has catered to this demand with module upgrades like FC3 (upgrade to FC2), BS2 and BS3, and A-10C II. The same can be done for other modules.

2 hours ago, P1l0t said:

I've discussed this extensively with my community, and several people have pointed out that there's simply nothing more to do once you've mastered a particular aircraft. There's no dynamic campaign, no goals to strive for. If you don't have a squadron to fly missions with, the game quickly becomes monotonous after mastering the flight and procedures. This is especially true if you're playing solo, making it even more tedious. Consider this, if you've been solely engaged in air combat for 10 years, there's little novelty left to captivate a veteran who has achieved all their goals.

After 2-3 years it won't be boring if someone is a beginner pilot, but after a longer time it will be boring!

That's why I've attempted to formulate goals that can provide ongoing motivation and incentivize players to log in and play, particularly those who might otherwise go days or weeks without touching the game due to boredom. Providing players with goals to strive for will create more challenges and engagement within the game.

I've observed this pattern with several YouTubers as well. They develop a fondness for a specific plane, but after a few years, they find themselves in a position where they've reached a plateau and have nothing new to showcase. Consequently, they become inactive because there's no further goal to pursue.

DCS offers infinite content through the ME, and the DC is under development. While its current state might not be very attractive to some I don't see overpriced video game marketing as any kind of solution. The foundation for a great experience is already in DCS. It just needs more development, not to be replaced by price gouging system that just makes the sim harder to enjoy.

[sthompson]

4 hours ago, P1l0t said:

I've discussed this extensively with my community, and several people have pointed out that there's simply nothing more to do once you've mastered a particular aircraft. There's no dynamic campaign, no goals to strive for. If you don't have a squadron to fly missions with, the game quickly becomes monotonous after mastering the flight and procedures. This is especially true if you're playing solo, making it even more tedious. Consider this, if you've been solely engaged in air combat for 10 years, there's little novelty left to captivate a veteran who has achieved all their goals.

After 2-3 years it won't be boring if someone is a beginner pilot, but after a longer time it will be boring!

That's why I've attempted to formulate goals that can provide ongoing motivation and incentivize players to log in and play, particularly those who might otherwise go days or weeks without touching the game due to boredom. Providing players with goals to strive for will create more challenges and engagement within the game.

I've observed this pattern with several YouTubers as well. They develop a fondness for a specific plane, but after a few years, they find themselves in a position where they've reached a plateau and have nothing new to showcase. Consequently, they become inactive because there's no further goal to pursue.

You've mastered all of the aircraft to the point that you are bored? You win all your dogfights and never get shot down? The SAMS and AAA can't touch you? AAR is boring? You never miss a carrier trap? You've played all of the DLC campaigns without making a mistake? You dominate in online play? And you think that buying skins or low quality modules would solve those problems?

If you are bored and think the game is tedious I suggest you switch to a different game rather than try to remake this one into an arcade game. I've been flying sims for more than 10 years. (I started with Flanker 1.0) And I am nowhere close to getting bored with DCS.

[T.Power]

Regarding Liberation and Retribution, they're pretty much broken right now unless you want to design your own campaign, then it gets tedious.  Briefing Room has been a lot of fun as you can constrain the parameters to meet your exact requirements, this is much easier than for example trying to shoe horn a Mi24p into a pre designed campaign.

I am personally very excited by the dynamic campaign engine being in development as I gave up on Falcon 4 way before BMS took it over so the campaign was still broken.  There are so many more moving parts in DCS and that's likely to become more convoluted with the Super Carrier update and I wouldn't be surprised if Combined Arms becomes way more relevant in the near future.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could get bored of DCS because they've mastered every aspect of it, but that's just my two cents, other opinions are available.

[fagulha]

30 minutes ago, sthompson said:

You've mastered all of the aircraft to the point that you are bored? You win all your dogfights and never get shot down? The SAMS and AAA can't touch you? AAR is boring? You never miss a carrier trap? You've played all of the DLC campaigns without making a mistake? You dominate in online play? And you think that buying skins or low quality modules would solve those problems?

If you are bored and think the game is tedious I suggest you switch to a different game rather than try to remake this one into an arcade game. I've been flying sims for more than 10 years. (I started with Flanker 1.0) And I am nowhere close to getting bored with DCS.

Agreed. Started in the early 80´s with ACE in my Timex 2068 and now i fly DCS since day one and i´m nowhere bored. ME is a powerfull tool and i fly the Hornet with deployments/training sorties using RAT script for random air traffic, TiC script (troops in contact) for CAS, and no mission is ever the same. My point is, we have the tools. Your imagination is the limit.

Edited April 27 by fagulha

[DD_fruitbat]

6 hours ago, P1l0t said:

I don't know what it is and what to do with it, but Redfor's planes are 20 years behind modern NATO planes and it's not fun to play such campaigns. Even before you bring up servers from the 80s, I wouldn't call it the 80s if an FA-18C or F-16CM flies older missiles with avionics from the 2000s! And we play real scenarios with airplanes from the 80s against modern airplanes that were made after 2000!
This is exactly why I am writing ideas on how to bring a more modern Flanker or Fulcrum into the DCS world, which seems to be in demand!

Speak to Putin, I'm sure he'll acquiesce to your request for details of a more modern Flanker. Then you can pass it on to ED.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

9 hours ago, P1l0t said:

There are players who have been here for a long time and have no motivation because DCS World is developing in a direction different from what we would expect. Some like this direction, some don't. I have already discussed the Su-35 in other topics, all of its weapons are now available in DCS World. I've seen the Flaming Cliffs Closed Beta tester documentation, Flanker and Fulcrum together total 3 pages, and that's it. There was nothing secret in it, you can find what I saw on the Internet simply by using a Google search. The radar of the Su-35 Bars covers at least 2 pages, it is presented in such detail here on the forum. Growling Sidewinder flies a Su-47 in his latest video on the Youtube channel, and it has 2 large LCD displays and a HUD. I watching the video and ask myself, why didn't ED do this? Others make mods for free, and ED could make money with it because no modern Redfor aircraft has entered DCS World for 15 years. NATO planes are coming off the assembly line.

The website you showed where you can download skins for free, I think ED could also make money with that. I don't think $3 or $5 would be too much for a skin. Anyone who could upload a skin there would receive a skin as a gift, thereby helping ED to achieve success. With the XP system, you could earn additional skins, all you need to do is play or buy one for $5. There could even be an SD resolution skin for cheaper, or a UHD resolution skin for the most demanding, it's either game time or money for ED!

I haven't been motivated by anything for a long time. Unfortunately, I am not attracted to NATO equipment. Not playing anymore and looking for something else is not a good solution. There are many opportunities in DCS World that no one wants to take advantage of. I understand that this is a hardcore simulator, but the fact that MAC takes players away from here does not guarantee that they will come back. Ideas should be invented that encourage people to play and spend money.

There is a free-to-play player who grinds the FC MiG-29M and brags about how happy he is. Then his other 5 friends come to DCS World and immediately buy the FC MiG-29M. ED gets to it $75 immediately, and there could be a bunch of other versions, or if they like one of the fully clickable planes, then $80 per person goes to ED again. What I'm trying to write about has been successful everywhere. If you do the free-to-play concept normally, it won't bother anyone from the hardcore simulators. Meanwhile, DCS World is slowly growing and can achieve success.

I just wanted to share my idea on the forum, FC is the best basis for ED to earn more money and attract players!

You see, you too can write an FC product that could make money for ED or attract players here! The free to play concept keeps the players!

Just because information can be found in a google search doesn't mean it isn't restricted. Laws like these tend to be both proactive and reactive. And, since ED does have ties to Russia and possibly employees still located there, guess who is going to get blamed for it should they publish software with that information? This isn't something that can be argued, this is the reality of defense. ED wants cooperation from partners in defense to make high fidelity offerings. In very few situations can they afford to go it alone. The fact they found sources for the MiG-29A is the exception and not the rule. When RB made the M2000, they did so without input from Dassault and the Armee de L'Air. It was a mixed bag, but once they got some? It turned into a pretty good module to get. That support is really necessary. So, best case scenario? They go forward without the information operators and manufacturers can provide. Worst case? Prison.

I get that a lot of gamers don't seem to care about the latter, but I'm betting the programmers do. The conflict is real simple: ED requires a level of fidelity to something published. That fidelity is not possible with outproper documentation. Obtaining that documentation through means that don't upset manufacturer or defense ministries and departments is how that is done. Doing so without their approval can ruin one's professional reputation or even result in legal ramifications.

You probably don't know this, which is no big deal as people do tend to forget or really ever look into developers past "Do they make good stuff" and that's fair, but ED holds government contracts. The A-10 we have is derived from software they developed for the US Air National Guard, for example. They cannot just scrape google for references on modern airframes or even recently retired ones in the case of RedFor. Gamers can insist away to just use google results, but when you have a reputation to maintain in defense circles, you do it or you're out of work. Even the MiG-23 proved tricky to get. So, if you want to blame anyone for the dearth of RedFor, blame the Russian MoD. Before 2008, they weren't so strict and they allowed ED ample access to documentation to make the Ka-50. Since then, they've been a lot more rigid.

 

Also, charging for skins? Why would I even consider that when I know people who will make them for me for free? Most DCS collectives have a skin maker or two. Also, those skins don't appear unless all clients connected have them. $3 to $5? That's highway robbery for something that I'd probably only see. There is very much such a thing as overmonetization in a game, and it comes REAL fast. In fact, I recall War Thunder frequently having to change, albeit reluctantly, for that reason. Why would ED even establish the infrastructure for something that would absolutely ostracize their existing player base?

So far, your ideas, while maybe new, would only serve to divide the player base between FC players and the FF players. It's a moot point since, despite these ideas being new, they're inapplicable to DCS' own business model. VR is new, but what does its integration offer me when I'm playing one of the recent Dooms or any other boomshoot? Some things just aren't compatible. But, since we're talking free to play, you should know of the concept of whales. All of the free players are basically playing off the tab of the players willing to part with money for bonuses, premium things, etc.

The dude who 'grinds' (grinding isn't fun, it's busy work, but I digress) the MiG-29M who then his friends get interested in it and buy in? Cool, $75 there. They aren't the whales. It's the guys who are going to pay $60 to $80 for the full fidelity experience. They've always been the focus of DCS World. That is the draw of DCS and to deny that is just wrong. ED even says it themselves; FC is a means to provide a less intimidating experience for potential new players.

But, why should the development of other features, bug fixing, and even corrections of their weapons, flight dynamics, etc. have to be impacted by this attempt to 'bring in new players?' And what are they offering? An unnecessary grind? I put a lot less time into getting to where I am as a pilot than some F2P grinds and I even get paid. Also, what do you gain? Why should FC players have to earn weapons? The fact of the matter is that building the software to just divide the FC and FF player bases is a bridge to no where.

We aren't playing on ED servers, we're playing on private servers. That kind of divide is to be determined by the mission editors and server hosts. So, by saddling FC players with a grind to unlock weapons while being unable to enforce a game wide divide and ranking system to ensure some semblance of fairplay, a concept that a lot of these newcomers are looking for? They're going to have a bad time. A dude who just came over from War Thunder or other game like that is going to scramble in a MiG-29M could still need to unlock weapons. And, since he doesn't know the community, doesn't know the servers, doesn't know what the icons mean at the browser window and is used to matchmaking because it's all he knows? He's boned. What if he joins a server where I am?

Flying an F-14.
With a human RIO.
I got AIM-54s.

What does he have? R-60s? R-27Rs? He's boned.

He's just dead. He'll catch a Phoenix. I'm not even close to being top tier in the F-14, either. I know fellows who are way better. The fundamental issue of trying to bring that kind of experience to DCS is based upon the idea that DCS World, itself, possesses any concept of balance.

It doesn't. Because, actual conflict lacks balance. That's what DCS is trying to do; present an accurate portrayal of warfare. FC is for new players, it's that simple. It is meant to provide a more streamlined experience for newcomers to experience DCS World. It's why the Su-25T is free. By adding exp, grinding, paid cosmetics, you would essentially be lying to the player base. You'd be providing a product that is not an accurate representation of DCS. The reality is that ED wants you to get FC, like it, and then jump into an FF. You can look at FC as almost a loss leader to get people in the door. This would all be done at the cost of dev time, money, and resources, thus leaving the existing players unhappy, too. It is a situation that leaves no one pleased with DCS World.

It becomes a question of who ED wants to alienate? Their existing customers by dumping resources into a tremendous folly since this'd require a lot of resources that'd slow down DCS' development in other aspects or potential newcomers who will feel like they were just straight up victims of bait and switch. Sometimes, the best thing is to be content with your current fanbase and the type of player who wants this experience offered. So many mainstream franchises are dormant or just get batted about between publishers because of unrealistic sales and engagement expectations.

DCS will not be mainstream, it will not have hundreds of thousands of players, and that is perfectly fine.

Edited April 27 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, sthompson said:

 I've been flying sims for more than 10 years. (I started with Flanker 1.0) And I am nowhere close to getting bored with DCS.

You're not wrong, but uh.. Flanker 1.0 was 1995. I'm so sorry, I can barely believe Il-2 is 20 years old.

[MAXsenna]

Account is two days old. I believe we have met this dude before...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[P1l0t]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Just because information can be found in a google search doesn't mean it isn't restricted. Laws like these tend to be both proactive and reactive. And, since ED does have ties to Russia and possibly employees still located there, guess who is going to get blamed for it should they publish software with that information? This isn't something that can be argued, this is the reality of defense. ED wants cooperation from partners in defense to make high fidelity offerings. In very few situations can they afford to go it alone. The fact they found sources for the MiG-29A is the exception and not the rule. When RB made the M2000, they did so without input from Dassault and the Armee de L'Air. It was a mixed bag, but once they got some? It turned into a pretty good module to get. That support is really necessary. So, best case scenario? They go forward without the information operators and manufacturers can provide. Worst case? Prison.

I get that a lot of gamers don't seem to care about the latter, but I'm betting the programmers do. The conflict is real simple: ED requires a level of fidelity to something published. That fidelity is not possible with outproper documentation. Obtaining that documentation through means that don't upset manufacturer or defense ministries and departments is how that is done. Doing so without their approval can ruin one's professional reputation or even result in legal ramifications.

You probably don't know this, which is no big deal as people do tend to forget or really ever look into developers past "Do they make good stuff" and that's fair, but ED holds government contracts. The A-10 we have is derived from software they developed for the US Air National Guard, for example. They cannot just scrape google for references on modern airframes or even recently retired ones in the case of RedFor. Gamers can insist away to just use google results, but when you have a reputation to maintain in defense circles, you do it or you're out of work. Even the MiG-23 proved tricky to get. So, if you want to blame anyone for the dearth of RedFor, blame the Russian MoD. Before 2008, they weren't so strict and they allowed ED ample access to documentation to make the Ka-50. Since then, they've been a lot more rigid.

 

Also, charging for skins? Why would I even consider that when I know people who will make them for me for free? Most DCS collectives have a skin maker or two. Also, those skins don't appear unless all clients connected have them. $3 to $5? That's highway robbery for something that I'd probably only see. There is very much such a thing as overmonetization in a game, and it comes REAL fast. In fact, I recall War Thunder frequently having to change, albeit reluctantly, for that reason. Why would ED even establish the infrastructure for something that would absolutely ostracize their existing player base?

So far, your ideas, while maybe new, would only serve to divide the player base between FC players and the FF players. It's a moot point since, despite these ideas being new, they're inapplicable to DCS' own business model. VR is new, but what does its integration offer me when I'm playing one of the recent Dooms or any other boomshoot? Some things just aren't compatible. But, since we're talking free to play, you should know of the concept of whales. All of the free players are basically playing off the tab of the players willing to part with money for bonuses, premium things, etc.

The dude who 'grinds' (grinding isn't fun, it's busy work, but I digress) the MiG-29M who then his friends get interested in it and buy in? Cool, $75 there. They aren't the whales. It's the guys who are going to pay $60 to $80 for the full fidelity experience. They've always been the focus of DCS World. That is the draw of DCS and to deny that is just wrong. ED even says it themselves; FC is a means to provide a less intimidating experience for potential new players.

But, why should the development of other features, bug fixing, and even corrections of their weapons, flight dynamics, etc. have to be impacted by this attempt to 'bring in new players?' And what are they offering? An unnecessary grind? I put a lot less time into getting to where I am as a pilot than some F2P grinds and I even get paid. Also, what do you gain? Why should FC players have to earn weapons? The fact of the matter is that building the software to just divide the FC and FF player bases is a bridge to no where.
 

 

Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide such detailed feedback! I've been exploring ideas for the skins and considering how they tie into the XP grinding aspect. It's intriguing to see different perspectives on this.

Some individuals have offered compelling insights. I often find myself thinking that experiencing firsthand might shift perspectives. In the context of DCS World, the addition of fully clickable counterparts for NATO aircraft presents an immersive experience across various aircraft categories like helicopters, strike aircraft, interceptors, and air superiority fighters. However, it's noteworthy that Redfor hasn't seen updates in 4th generation machines for 15 years, which could impact efficiency but not necessarily enhance functionality, only detailing.

The essence of XP grinding lies in its ability to immerse players and maintain their engagement. The challenge lies in ensuring the product remains stimulating beyond repetitive tasks. Continuously engaging in air combat with the same aircraft can lead to monotony over time.

XP grinding serves as the foundation of the free-to-play model, attracting both free players and potential paying customers. This, in turn, bolsters the game's revenue for the developers. Presently, some aircraft like the Su-25T and TF-51 may not appeal to all players. The trial period of two weeks may not suffice for players to determine the value of a product in DCS World. However, committing extensive time to grinding might lead to regrets. It's essential to highlight that grinding primarily pertains to FC products, while fully clickable ones may not necessitate such an approach.

If we simply grind an FC product with a free to play game, the only thing we can regret is our time. However, if we regret an FC product that we bought for money, no one will return the money we spent on it. That's why free to play is better!

It can be highlighted here that it multiplies the player base, who can bring additional paying customers with them, who ultimately give money to ED! Anyone who judges this as bad doesn't understand what I'm talking about!

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

We aren't playing on ED servers, we're playing on private servers. That kind of divide is to be determined by the mission editors and server hosts. So, by saddling FC players with a grind to unlock weapons while being unable to enforce a game wide divide and ranking system to ensure some semblance of fairplay, a concept that a lot of these newcomers are looking for? They're going to have a bad time. A dude who just came over from War Thunder or other game like that is going to scramble in a MiG-29M could still need to unlock weapons. And, since he doesn't know the community, doesn't know the servers, doesn't know what the icons mean at the browser window and is used to matchmaking because it's all he knows? He's boned. What if he joins a server where I am?

Flying an F-14.
With a human RIO.
I got AIM-54s.

What does he have? R-60s? R-27Rs? He's boned.

He's just dead. He'll catch a Phoenix. I'm not even close to being top tier in the F-14, either. I know fellows who are way better. The fundamental issue of trying to bring that kind of experience to DCS is based upon the idea that DCS World, itself, possesses any concept of balance.

It doesn't. Because, actual conflict lacks balance. That's what DCS is trying to do; present an accurate portrayal of warfare. FC is for new players, it's that simple. It is meant to provide a more streamlined experience for newcomers to experience DCS World. It's why the Su-25T is free. By adding exp, grinding, paid cosmetics, you would essentially be lying to the player base. You'd be providing a product that is not an accurate representation of DCS. The reality is that ED wants you to get FC, like it, and then jump into an FF. You can look at FC as almost a loss leader to get people in the door. This would all be done at the cost of dev time, money, and resources, thus leaving the existing players unhappy, too. It is a situation that leaves no one pleased with DCS World.

It becomes a question of who ED wants to alienate? Their existing customers by dumping resources into a tremendous folly since this'd require a lot of resources that'd slow down DCS' development in other aspects or potential newcomers who will feel like they were just straight up victims of bait and switch. Sometimes, the best thing is to be content with your current fanbase and the type of player who wants this experience offered. So many mainstream franchises are dormant or just get batted about between publishers because of unrealistic sales and engagement expectations.

DCS will not be mainstream, it will not have hundreds of thousands of players, and that is perfectly fine.

 

You are on the wrong track here, the MiG-29M has a more powerful engine, it can deflect its radar at +-85 degrees in Azimuth and thus it can fly a beam maneuver during target tracking while guiding a missile at you.

The older MiG-29S can only deviate in the Azimuth by +-65 degrees during target tracking, which does not allow a beam maneuver.

After multiple missile launches, the MiG-29M can fly a beam maneuver several times with a radar lock, while the MiG-29S cannot!

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It doesn't. Because, actual conflict lacks balance. That's what DCS is trying to do; present an accurate portrayal of warfare. FC is for new players, it's that simple.

 

This is an ED marketing text invented to make money, the majority must agree with it. Years ago, a developer wrote that they would not produce FC products because it would not make as much money. Meanwhile, fully clickable planes are still at FC level with the only difference being that they are much more detailed and the cockpit is clickable and you can ask for more money.
I consider it the right decision because FC products do not bring in so much money and ED would not be able to achieve so much success.

Surely there are those who would be happy to have more FC-level aircraft or even helicopters!

The older generation in the old days solved a problem, you know, in that country they don't allow the modern Flanker and the modern Fulcrum to be made in DCS World! They simply swept the problem under the rug. Also, everything they did had to be praised and considered the best! Unfortunately, there was only one problem, that the whole system failed because of this mentality!

Edited April 27 by P1l0t

[twistking]

@BIGNEWY Can you confirm texture updates for the Sabre, Mig and F-5E? The "short" video on the official youtube channel makes me think that at least external textures got updated, but it's hard to tell with the fast cuts and relatively low resolution...

[LordOrion]

3 hours ago, T.Power said:

Regarding Liberation and Retribution, they're pretty much broken right now unless you want to design your own campaign, then it gets tedious.

Liberation has its own problems, but IMHO is far from being defined "broken".

Edited April 27 by LordOrion

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

17 minutes ago, P1l0t said:

Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide such detailed feedback! I've been exploring ideas for the skins and considering how they tie into the XP grinding aspect. It's intriguing to see different perspectives on this.

Some individuals have offered compelling insights. I often find myself thinking that experiencing firsthand might shift perspectives. For instance, envisioning the inclusion of FC F-15C and A-10A rather than NATO aircraft could significantly alter perceptions. In the context of DCS World, the addition of fully clickable counterparts for NATO aircraft presents an immersive experience across various aircraft categories like helicopters, strike aircraft, interceptors, and air superiority fighters. However, it's noteworthy that Redfor hasn't seen updates in 4th generation machines for 15 years, which could impact efficiency but not necessarily enhance functionality, only detailing.

The essence of XP grinding lies in its ability to immerse players and maintain their engagement. The challenge lies in ensuring the product remains stimulating beyond repetitive tasks. Continuously engaging in air combat with the same aircraft can lead to monotony over time.

XP grinding serves as the foundation of the free-to-play model, attracting both free players and potential paying customers. This, in turn, bolsters the game's revenue for the developers. Presently, some aircraft like the Su-25T and TF-51 may not appeal to all players. The trial period of two weeks may not suffice for players to determine the value of a product in DCS World. However, committing extensive time to grinding might lead to regrets. It's essential to highlight that grinding primarily pertains to FC products, while fully clickable ones may not necessitate such an approach.

If we simply grind an FC product with a free to play game, the only thing we can regret is our time. However, if we regret an FC product that we bought for money, no one will return the money we spent on it. that's why free to play is better!

You are on the wrong track here, the MiG-29M has a more powerful engine, it can deflect its radar at +-85 degrees in Azimuth and thus it can fly a beam maneuver during target tracking while guiding a missile at you.

The older MiG-29S can only deviate in the Azimuth by +-65 degrees during target tracking, which does not allow a beam maneuver.

After multiple missile launches, the MiG-29M can fly a beam maneuver several times with a radar lock, while the MiG-29S cannot!

This is an ED marketing text invented to make money, the majority must agree with it. Years ago, a developer wrote that they would not produce FC products because it would not make as much money. Meanwhile, fully clickable planes are still at FC level with the only difference being that they are much more detailed and the cockpit is clickable and you can ask for more money.
I consider it the right decision because FC products do not bring in so much money and ED would not be able to achieve so much success.

Surely there are those who would be happy to have more FC-level aircraft or even helicopters!

The older generation in the old days solved a problem in those old days, you know, in that country they don't allow the modern Flanker and the modern Fulcrum to be made in DCS World! They simply swept the problem under the rug. Also, everything they did had to be praised and considered the best! Unfortunately, there was only one problem, that the whole system failed because of this mentality!

 

I like how you went on a tangent about how you'd be so okay in the hamstrung MiG-29M situation, ignoring that the F-14 would still have height advantage, speed advantage, and 3 more Phoenix shots at a range you can't hope to touch. The 29M is still at a huge disadvantage and whatever choice he makes, he ends up with being tailed. Also, there's more to it than engine power and the 29M's engines are not that much more powerful, anyways. The point was no one is going to want to be ganked as a result of unfair hamstringing since you didn't get the right amount of magic numbers. Also, pointing out that walking back on no more FC aircraft ignores that 1. It could be an effort to shore up cash for overhauling those aircraft, which sorely need it and 2. These were already IN the game to begin with.

You completely ignored the point that forcing exp and grinds on FC aircraft, a completely unnecessary measure, would leave the incorrect impression upon new players and serve to only drive away newcomers while also angering existing players because it's effort and resources not applied to needed updates and fixes.

It would leave ED in a worse position. This has been discussed at length, as well as subscriptions etc. and it's always been assuredly shut down. It's one thing to make a cockpit static and simplify inputs. It's another to rebuild the methods of monetization from the ground up. Especially on a product that already has favorable monetization by its existing player base. If you want War Thunder, it's there. Along with World of Warplanes, etc. These products exist, not every game needs to be like them. Not every game needs to be an explosive success, even though what proposed would do more damage than good.

This is clearly not an argument being made in good faith or at least one not willing to come to grips with realities of software development and the very nature of the product, so I'm peacing out.

[LordOrion]

50 minutes ago, P1l0t said:

The essence of XP grinding lies in its ability to immerse players and maintain their engagement. The challenge lies in ensuring the product remains stimulating beyond repetitive tasks. Continuously engaging in air combat with the same aircraft can lead to monotony over time.

XP grinding serves as the foundation of the free-to-play model, attracting both free players and potential paying customers. This, in turn, bolsters the game's revenue for the developers. Presently, some aircraft like the Su-25T and TF-51 may not appeal to all players. The trial period of two weeks may not suffice for players to determine the value of a product in DCS World. However, committing extensive time to grinding might lead to regrets. It's essential to highlight that grinding primarily pertains to FC products, while fully clickable ones may not necessitate such an approach.

If we simply grind an FC product with a free to play game, the only thing we can regret is our time. However, if we regret an FC product that we bought for money, no one will return the money we spent on it. That's why free to play is better!

Sorry mate, but if need such kind of mechanics to keep your intertest up in this game then why you don't simply go playing games where they are already implemented?

War Thunder, World of Warplanes, Ace Combat... the choice is your.

[P1l0t]

21 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I like how you went on a tangent about how you'd be so okay in the hamstrung MiG-29M situation, ignoring that the F-14 would still have height advantage, speed advantage, and 3 more Phoenix shots at a range you can't hope to touch. The 29M is still at a huge disadvantage and whatever choice he makes, he ends up with being tailed. Also, there's more to it than engine power and the 29M's engines are not that much more powerful, anyways. The point was no one is going to want to be ganked as a result of unfair hamstringing since you didn't get the right amount of magic numbers. Also, pointing out that walking back on no more FC aircraft ignores that 1. It could be an effort to shore up cash for overhauling those aircraft, which sorely need it and 2. These were already IN the game to begin with.

You completely ignored the point that forcing exp and grinds on FC aircraft, a completely unnecessary measure, would leave the incorrect impression upon new players and serve to only drive away newcomers while also angering existing players because it's effort and resources not applied to needed updates and fixes.

It would leave ED in a worse position. This has been discussed at length, as well as subscriptions etc. and it's always been assuredly shut down. It's one thing to make a cockpit static and simplify inputs. It's another to rebuild the methods of monetization from the ground up. Especially on a product that already has favorable monetization by its existing player base. If you want War Thunder, it's there. Along with World of Warplanes, etc. These products exist, not every game needs to be like them. Not every game needs to be an explosive success, even though what proposed would do more damage than good.

This is clearly not an argument being made in good faith or at least one not willing to come to grips with realities of software development and the very nature of the product, so I'm peacing out.

Only novice pilots fly head on 1v1 duels against an AIM-54 equipped F-14. Trained pilots fly close to the ground with AWACS assistance. However, the MiG-29M's radar is more powerful and gives it more tactical options. It would approach the level of the current J-11A in terms of radar range, but because of the AIM-54, only novice pilots would really play a 1v1 duel with it at the same altitude! The opponent of the F-14 would be the MiG-31 with at least one R-33S or R-37 missile, where the MiG-31 would have a slight advantage against the F-14 or would be on the same level if the F-14 pilot is average or Ace!

I have a different opinion about the XP grind, I've been using it successfully for 11 years and I enjoy every minute of it, I got just as much joy when I gave money to another place, and I'm even more proud of it because I grinded for a couple of products that can be obtained for free but cost money for others.

[Trooper117]

I remember when another flight sim decided to use grinding and unlocks instead of continuing the tried and tested formula of it's predecessor... it went downhill rapidly and would have turned into a complete fiasco with fans hating it, if it hadn't been turned around by a new management... don't try and reinvent the wheel when the wheel is turning as it should.

[T.Power]

5 hours ago, LordOrion said:

Liberation has its own problems, but IMHO is far from being defined "broken".

 

Would you prefer I use the term flawed?  Both have issues one being the inability to assign individual callsigns, there was a workaround but that no longer works.  And the other is completely incapable of populating the campaign without nothing going on or every slot at every airfield being populated rendering it unplayable.  I try again with every update because I really want it to work, but so far no joy.

[LordOrion]

1 hour ago, T.Power said:

Would you prefer I use the term flawed?  Both have issues one being the inability to assign individual callsigns, there was a workaround but that no longer works.  And the other is completely incapable of populating the campaign without nothing going on or every slot at every airfield being populated rendering it unplayable.  I try again with every update because I really want it to work, but so far no joy.

Actually point 2 is a problem of of the DCS Game engine, not a flaw in Liberation or Retribuition: with too many units on the map the game slows down so much that is almost unplayable cause the simulation/IA thread is soaking the whole CPU and starving the graphic thread and GPU (I seen the same recently).

However this can be easily fixed (or at least yu can reduce the effect) by decreasing the amount of money available to buy units in turn 0, thus reducing their number on the field.

You can also disable settings like smoke, artillery strike, moving uints, infantry and/or apply culling to completly remove units and planes too far from your flight.

About point 1, it does not seems so serious to me, but I'm a lone wolf payer and maybe when playing Co-Ops might have a different impact.

Edited April 28 by LordOrion

[Beirut]

7 hours ago, P1l0t said:

 

The essence of XP grinding lies in its ability to . . . 

 

. . . drive existing DCS customers insane.

 

The joy I take, the pleasure I get, the satisfaction I receive, in knowing with absolute certainly that DCS will never ever ever! involve grinding makes every moment a heavenly delight of bliss and serenity. 

 

Y'all have a wonderful day.