Jump to content

Non-owners placing in ME


Swift.

Recommended Posts

Well we try to do our best to balance between free and paid (to try and avoid combat sim droughts), I am not sure it's a good argument to say that someone isn't interested in Navy stuff but wants to build missions for his squadmates, so it should be usable for that, then its I can place it, but can't test it, so now we have to make it work in single-player, etc etc.

 

If you need it to build missions, use it in campaigns, use it in single-player, or in multiplayer, then it's worth the investment.

 

Sorry but this is the stupidest thing I’ve read today. NO ONE in this thread wants the super carrier for free to use it IN a mission (I.e. spawn, launch, recover) we simply want the option to be able to place it (and the other items that come with it) in the mission editor just like other modules. I have absolutely no desire to actually operate off the super carrier. But I know a lot of people who do that are in virtual organizations. To pay 25 dollars (or more) just to be able to place objects into the ME is not north the investment lol.

 

This is a perfect example of where having the DLC being a compromise with certain limitations is causing issues. The super carrier module exists somewhere between the binary implementation of the WW2 Asset Pack and any other module where ownership is optional. Being a new type of DLC brings loads of unanswered questions and just general confusion over it.

 

The WW2 Asset Pack adds to what is effectively a sub-genre within DCS, so the inability to place those objects really only impacts non-owners for those wanting to make WW2 missions. The same can't be said for the carrier DLC. For starters its not just the US carriers, its a Kuznetzov that is still TBD if it is a separate ship, and more importantly to this thread topic the Arleigh Burke. For reference in game we currently have the Oliver Perry class frigate and Ticonderoga class cruiser. For those keeping score at home that means the USN in DCS simply doesn't have access to a destroyer class ship and will need a DLC to use it in a mission. In the context of reality destroyers make up a sizable portion of navies around the globe and the Burke is going to exist in larger quantities than both the ship classes above. Not to mention the Perry class is completely retired from the USN and the Ticos are starting to be retired, with the cruiser designation essentially being eliminated and their role being filled by the Burkes. The Arleigh Burke isn't a brand new ship either, they have been around since the 90s with the version we are getting since the early 2000s.

 

In the context of DCS the Arliegh Burke's dependence on the DLC pack means that a very common ship for the US Navy that 99% of the time will just be another AI ship in the mission won't be available. This is at the crux of my issues with the compromise for this pack. It takes the worst parts of the WW2 Asset Pack and applies it with the hyper focus of thinking it would only impact carrier players while ignoring the general impact to everyone as a whole.

 

Considering its already for sale, I still think the ideal solution is to make degraded but current CV functionality versions of the objects available for free with the DLC providing better art and unlocks the module functionality like how every other normal module works.

 

It really isn't since you're not getting anything out of it.

 

All you're doing here — just with like the initial decision to require the module to join an MP mission where it's present — is giving more people a reason not to get it: because there will be no content for it.

 

DCS is nothing without a good mission. Absolutely nothing. With this strategy, you are guaranteeing that there will be fewer good missions for the carriers, meaning there will be much less reason for players to get it, which drastically reduces the size of the audience for prospective mission makers who might think about including it, which in turn further reduces the value for the mission-makers to get it, which leads to fewer missions still. It's a vicious circle that only ever can have one outcome: less money for ED, and more bad word-of-mouth surrounding the module and its perceived uselessness for all parties.

 

Mission makers don't need to “test” a carrier any more or any differently than they need to test a wing of Bears coming over the horizon, or a FARP, or ever single Ural in a ground column. Once you understand the behaviours, figure out the timing, and learn to read the waypoint settings, it's all mainly just a matter of watching things play out at 10× speed and checking that the right flags get set off at the right time for the right reasons. None of that requires ownership of, or being able to actively play, any of those units.

 

If you want carrier ops to be as niche as WWII, then sure, treat it like the WWII asset pack, but then you should probably reconsider that whole Mariana Islands map as well, since you are quite clearly signalling that it's only meant for niche gameplay that only a small segment of your customer base should bother with.

 

Your game lives and dies by its content creation.

Don't impose artificial limitations on the content creation.

 

Mic drop!


Edited by Snoopy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this strategy, you are guaranteeing that there will be fewer good missions for the carriers, meaning there will be much less reason for players to get it, which drastically reduces the size of the audience for prospective mission makers who might think about including it, which in turn further reduces the value for the mission-makers to get it, which leads to fewer missions still.

Absolutely agree, just check the multiplayer servers for maps: Just compare how many of them are for the Caucasus map (because everybody can connect to it) and how many are for other maps? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more with the above posts. What a strange argument made by ED through NineLine. I just cannot wrap my head around the presented reasoning. To me it just seems based in some kind of inhouse ED-mentality how things should work or be, not really shared by non-partnered content producers.

You do you ED, but for me the reasons not to pre-order stuff anymore just becomes clearer and clearer each weird announcement.


Edited by TheBamse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
You can’t expect everyone to be on Discord

 

LOL, obviously Which is why Swift created this thread.

 

Just to be clear, it was me who suggested swift post here as things get lost on discord.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could really benefit from creating a stickied (and watched and updated) FAQ thread where all these off-forum answers are collected…

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Snoopy, Neck, Grimes and Tippis on this.

 

Although I have no numbers, looking around the forums and the number of external organisations who join us in our weeekly training/combat missions, I can only assume the MP playerbase it a substantial number of your customers.

 

By not allowing the DLC to be used by content creators, you are basically neutering the SC module before it's even released.

Sure, it'll run, sure it'll sell... a bit but boy it won't reach its full potential thanks to the neutering applied in the beginning.

 

Tread carefully, look at history. Plenty of publishers/developers out there who stepped into this nail one too many times and life to regret the decision.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Commodore 64 | MOS6510 | VIC-II | SID6581 | DD 1541 | KCS Power Cartridge | 64Kb | 32Kb external | Arcade Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Nineline and I will feedback to the team, for now we are in pre-order and things can change before early access. If they do we will let you all know.

 

Thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a mission maker for a very large community of DCS pilots, this is very disappointing, and instead of encouraging us to buy it, this actually discourages it. We're not going to fracture our community over a boat.

 

Why not just reduce the MP spawn slots available, mesh and texture quality and remove visibility for the deck crew for non-owners or something... this feels quite draconian and very single-player-minded-cash-grabby... there are other solutions that would not divide the user base and would still encourage people to buy it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some other sandbox FPS game has a similar DLC minded business , they ended up including all features availabile to use in game and mission editor but with a very low scale 3d models and textures.

 

I wont mind using the brief room or the LSO if I dont buy the DLC but excluding the ship from the mission editor is a serious own goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is the stupidest thing I’ve read today. NO ONE in this thread wants the super carrier for free to use it IN a mission (I.e. spawn, launch, recover) we simply want the option to be able to place it (and the other items that come with it) in the mission editor just like other modules.

...

To pay 25 dollars (or more) just to be able to place objects into the ME is not north the investment lol.

 

To be fair I think it should be free, but limited to only what you can do with the current Stennis. Which happens to just be spawn, service, launch, and recover. Having to place two ships in a scenario, 1 to allow those without the DLC to spawn and 1 for those with it, is a sub-optimal solution that creates a number of other problems on its own. Not to mention the single player ramifications. As stated elsewhere I am perfectly fine with LSO station, control of the ship, deck crew, etc to be part of the DLC.

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects:  Grayflag ServerScripting Wiki

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread)

 SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example of where having the DLC being a compromise with certain limitations is causing issues. The super carrier module exists somewhere between the binary implementation of the WW2 Asset Pack and any other module where ownership is optional. Being a new type of DLC brings loads of unanswered questions and just general confusion over it. [...]

Don't know, whenever I read a discussion like this, the contributions of Grimes (if any) are usually the ones that make most sense to me. Very clear, reasonable and logic thinking.

A warrior's mission is to foster the success of others.

i9-12900K | MSI RTX 3080Ti Suprim X | 128 GB Ram 3200 MHz DDR-4 | MSI MPG Edge Z690 | Samung EVO 980 Pro SSD | Virpil Stick, Throttle and Collective | MFG Crosswind | HP Reverb G2

RAT - On the Range - Rescue Helo - Recovery Tanker - Warehouse - Airboss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair I think it should be free, but limited to only what you can do with the current Stennis. Which happens to just be spawn, service, launch, and recover. Having to place two ships in a scenario, 1 to allow those without the DLC to spawn and 1 for those with it, is a sub-optimal solution that creates a number of other problems on its own. Not to mention the single player ramifications. As stated elsewhere I am perfectly fine with LSO station, control of the ship, deck crew, etc to be part of the DLC.

 

I agree but knew that wouldn’t happen so I didn’t even mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the community spirit! It would also be a departure from how other modules function in DCS regarding placement in missions, making the SC the red haired stepchild of the modules.

 

Lots of good points have been made. Here’s just a +1 from me.

Long live the mission creators who are the lifeblood of the community. :)

No, really.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

Asus Z390-E, 32GB Crucial Ballistix 2400Mhz, Intel i7 9700K 5.0Ghz, Asus GTX1080 8GB, SoundBlaster AE-5, G15, Streamdeck, DSD Flight, TM Warthog, VirPil BRD, MFG Crosswind CAM5, TrackIR 5, KW-908 Jetseat, Win 10 64-bit

 

”Pilots do not get paid for what they do daily, but they get paid for what they are capable of doing.

However, if pilots would need to do daily what they are capable of doing, nobody would dare to fly anymore.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this works with DCS: WWII Assets Pack? Are non-owners able to place units from it in mission editor?

 

No unfortunately. A major breakdown in logic. I also had to purchase a second copy for my server to be able to edit missions without major file transfers and it was required, along with the map, to run missions on a server initially.

 

I hate the way that it is dividing my squadrons online play never mind the community and I think it was a short term financial decision that cost ED long term profit and it looks like the SC may be the same. I want ED to be profitable long term so we keep getting more content,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair I think it should be free, but limited to only what you can do with the current Stennis. Which happens to just be spawn, service, launch, and recover. Having to place two ships in a scenario, 1 to allow those without the DLC to spawn and 1 for those with it, is a sub-optimal solution that creates a number of other problems on its own. Not to mention the single player ramifications. As stated elsewhere I am perfectly fine with LSO station, control of the ship, deck crew, etc to be part of the DLC.

 

A logical and fair argument. The WW II Asset Pack has divided my squadron so we don't play DCS now for WWII and have moved to the competition and we only fly DCS for modern a/c. Let's hope the SC doesn't drive the rest back to a simulation released two decades ago because I really love the potential of DCS.

 

The whole point of online play in a squadron is the comradery and sense of community engendered only by playing together. It is more satisfying to play a $25 sim made 10 or 20 years ago as a team than an $80 bleeding edge Sim alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully support Snoopy on this one, and I am in the same situation for the 132nd Virtual Wing, where we have both a F/A-18C and a F-14B Squadron, where I build many of the wings missions (but do not fly the F/A-18C or the F-14B, and thus personly, I am not in the need for the carrier).

I think ED should facilitate and support creating missions so pilots have a good way to spend their time within DCS , instead of making it harder to create good content for the communities out there.

 

agreed 100%, obviously.

While I can't wait for the supercarrier to come out, and Im super excited and ofc already bought it, I don't think anyone should be forced into buying it on the same server. That would be like forcing people to buy all planes that are being used on a server. Could ED not simply lift the restriction, and for people who dont own the module, the carrier simply won't render at all, or it would render a big black box or something. Anything really, that can't be that hard and it would make everyone happy, wouldnt it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding my support to this; in 132nd we have mission makers who create missions for many assets that they don't own themselves, for both land and sea based aircraft.

 

Not being able to utilise the super carrier unless they buy it - when they personally have no interest in using it - is a big limitation for mission creators when making complex and involving missions.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

+1 supporting this as well.

 

I only fly the Hornet and therefor naturally already pre-ordered the supercarrier, but in terms of mission / campaigns i heavily rely on much more talented people in my squad and another friendly squad we have joint ops with.

 

The friendly squad is a non naval squad, and i simply cannot expect their mission/campaign builders to buy the carrier if they don't even get close to it in the sim itself.

 

This leads to either less joint ops / awesome campaigns i can participate in, or having paid for the Supercarrier but leaving it unused just because mission builders cannot implement it in missions and therefor use the regular Stennis.

 

The purpose of the Supercarrier would be downgraded to a single player experience with my boring self made static training missions, which maybe even would interfere with behavior around the actual mission/campaign boat (given the Supercarrier will have proper dimensions, burble etc).

 

Lastly, as we have seen ED already found (or is working on) a solution to allow people who don't own the Supercarrier to join MP sessions that include it (without being able to interact).

 

It would make as much sense to allow mission builders to use the Supercarriers for the purpose of mission building, with same restrictions applied as to those joining Supercarrier MP sessions without actually owning it.


Edited by theIRIEone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand both sides of this. I've bought SC already so I'm set. I understand that some mission makers don't want to pay that amount of money to simply provide a better carrier for others to enjoy.

 

I also know and understand that you don't need to use a carrier to test the mission, unless you're able to do some scripting linked to player planes interacting with the carrier. But I think that's very rare if even possible.

 

However, I also understand that if someone is able to place it in the editor and join servers where it's active. You will need some sort of ability to interact with it. It's (virtually) physically there. So you should be able to "touch" it, not only with weapons. And that's where the entire thing becomes tricky in my eyes. Where and how do you draw the line? I personally think a work around would be people who do not own the SC to use it as the current Stennis is used. It works but is basic. However, I don't think this is an easy task to accomplish in a good manner unless it was designed to do that from the very start.

 

Or should it be there but not be able to interact with, making it so that mission designers might end up placing a SC carrier along with the classic Stennis side by side. But then, if it's there but not interactive. Will they crash on touchdown on it, or simply fly through it?

 

I haven't flown the F-14 much yet, so I am not sure if this is possible. But what if the pilot takes of from a SC, then a RIO who do not own the SC join later. Will the pilot be able to land on the SC or not?

 

It's not an easy thing to decide on or implement.

 

I'd love ED to make a solution that works, not only so that people can join a MP server that has the SC. Not only that, but to allow people to add it in the editor. But if it's placed in the editor, the mission needs to be able to be tested. Again, we're at a weird line that needs to be drawn. Will the mission designer not be able to start the mission if all player/client planes are on the SC? Or will the designer simply be stuck in place of the plane on said carrier?

 

 

Me, personally. I'm ok with the second part, he can test the mission and see if it works properly, but he can not use a plane that is on the SC.

 

There are plenty of good mission designers out there who will not buy the SC and plenty that will (or have not already) buy the SC. I don't think it will hurt the community as much as some will make it sound. It will take a hit, but it won't break.

 

I think that if ED is unable or unwilling to offer a good support for the SC for the mission editor. The ideas I can think is to retro-fit the carrier. It's not ideal but it works.

 

Designer creates mission with default carrier, mate adds the SC.

They realize mission is flawed, Designer can still fix the mission using the old carrier (hopefully the designer saved a copy). And a mate retro-fit the new SC to the mission again.

Extra steps, but it works, as long as the mate does not alter the mission besides the carrier.

 

Another idea if ED is unable or unwilling.

If a wing have a mission designer that does a lot of mission that includes carrier-ops but do not want or can afford to buy the SC for this. Maybe the wing should consider supporting the designer with a copy. I understand that not all can afford this, or want to.

 

These are simply suggestion if we end up in a spot where designers are unable to place the SC in the editor. The best solution would be that they are able to place them and join MP servers with them on without the need to go through extra steps or buy the SC.

 

Let's hope ED is able to find a solution that pleases as many as possible, but I hope that we understand that it's not an easy thing to do.

/Nasder, "I came, I saw, I got shot down."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
To be fair I think it should be free, but limited to only what you can do with the current Stennis. Which happens to just be spawn, service, launch, and recover. Having to place two ships in a scenario, 1 to allow those without the DLC to spawn and 1 for those with it, is a sub-optimal solution that creates a number of other problems on its own. Not to mention the single player ramifications. As stated elsewhere I am perfectly fine with LSO station, control of the ship, deck crew, etc to be part of the DLC.

 

I'm not sure that will happen, now you want to be able to spawn, service, launch and recover from it? I think with the discounts given, people getting it for as low as 15 bucks, the ideal solution is if you are a mission creator and want to create missions/campaigns with this content you should get it now while its so heavily discounted.

 

I know it doesn't matter much in this discussion, but these types of assets and the work that goes into them cant always be given away, and it's not like we don't give them away at times, i.e. the SCUD launcher with the new ballistic FM coming as one example.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ideal solution is if you are a mission creator and want to create missions/campaigns with this content you should get it now while its so heavily discounted.

 

That’s a huge no for me to even pay 1 dollar for icons to be visible for me to place in the mission editor.


Edited by Snoopy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
That’s a huge no for me to even pay 1 dollar for icons to be visible for me to place in the mission editor.

 

Well if that's all you plan to do then of course the module isn't for you, it has been selling extremely well, a big reason why Valve allowed the pre-order, so many people are very excited about it, but I can understand why someone not interested in it wouldn't want to buy it.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...