LN maps

With all the talk about LN making maps for their modules so that we'll have a more complete experience has left me wondering, if maps will ship with the modules themselves?

LN has stated that missions and campaigns will take part on the appropriate maps for each module. Does that mean that when you buy a LN module, you get a free map with it?

Can somebody from LN shed some light onto this?

I dont think it is free. I presume you buy the package including: plane, map, ai units , campaign, missions etc.

I think it is fantastic!!

I realy like the mirage but I save my money for the Viggen package!

AFAIK the modules come with a small map each that the campaign for the module takes place on. The maps will also be able to be purchased separately if people aren't interested in the aircraft.

Is my understanding back from the news post when it was announced.

Map should be attached to planes they sell. It would make sense. I don't like selling maps alone. They are overpriced like the Nevada. They might be sold separately, but under 30$.

They are overpriced like the Nevada.

I´d say it´s not cheap, but it´s not "overprized" given the time spent creating the map.

I´d say it´s not cheap, but it´s not "overprized" given the time spent creating the map.

Well, and considering the years spent on 1.5-2.0 updates the prices should go over the roof.

That's no argument.

The fact however is that maps are at best an addition, you can buy the map but can do nothing with it. It's just a map. On the other hand modules are a playable content. Paying same money for a map and for a MiG-15 or 21 constitutes for me the term "overprized".

Anyway, that idea of selling a small "package" with new module, map, ai and missions sounds very attractive.

It seems that their intention is to package the airframes with the maps. And they'll cost whatever the developers decide, whether that is maps or modules.

If you think they're too expensive, the answer is simple - don't buy! If however you want them at any price - and I have a feeling that applies to a good many of us here, then obviously it is a license for the developers to print money.

Only one thing will determine which is which, and that certainly isn't our individual opinions.

All I can say is when the Tomcat, Viggen and Corsair hit the marketplace, I'll be as close to the front of the queue as I can manage, maps included or added extras!

I still think that paid maps will be bad in the long run, at least for multiplayer. Only the Black Sea will ever get used, as most people will not buy ALL the maps available.

-Black Sea (FREE)

-Nevada

-Straits of Hormuz

-Normandy 1944

-Iwo Jima

-Okinawa

-Unannounced Viggen map

-Unannounced Tomcat map

You can see how MP is going to be massively fragmented. Honestly the way LNS is going to do it seems like the best way(Bundled with aircraft). Standalone maps are going to become a progressively tougher sell in the future, so knowing that players who have the Viggen for example have a certain map, means mission designers can plan missions around it.

I think that it was said some time ago, that you will be able to choose if you want only the aircraft or a complete bundle. The difference here will be the ending price.

It will be interesting to see how other modules will then compare to LNS ones in regards of content. Mirage, even though it looks promising, is a bare bone half functioning module with no missions, map... yet it cost more than anything else in the store. If LNS will be able to pull this full feature package right away for release for similiar price, then it will be epic for us, the customers.

I agree, if they pull this off (which I'm sure they will) then all other third party devs will have to step up their game. The recent thread about a job opening for a mission designer shows that they take that aspect seriously too.

I still think that paid maps will be bad in the long run, at least for multiplayer. Only the Black Sea will ever get used, as most people will not buy ALL the maps available.

This. It's already hurting squadrons that want to use new maps, but a few members can't justify spending the money.

Splitting the community in any way is detrimental even for the biggest of games such as CoD, yet alone a small but dedicated community such as DCS. As somebody said, in the long run maps are not viable to be sold for 50 $ at least to the multiplayer community, as we want to play together but then again they can't really give away a map for free either.

I think that lowering the prices of any multiplayer maps in the future will be key to their success. I bought Nevada and don't regret doing it but knowing that it has limited usefulness in a PvP scenario due to the lack of outer airfields and the relativly high price making some friends of mine refusing to buy it leaves me very skeptical about buying any new maps coming out in that price range.

On topic, i would imagine since they are small maps they are either packaged into the module or sold s eperatly for a substantially lower price then the nevada map.

I dont think it is free. I presume you buy the package including: plane, map, ai units , campaign, missions etc.

 

I think it is fantastic!!

I just hope the AI units are compatible with other maps and those that don't have it. The map itself and campaigns are understandable, but searching for each addon AI unit to delete when making an MP version of the mission would be a pain.

I still think that paid maps will be bad in the long run, at least for multiplayer. Only the Black Sea will ever get used, as most people will not buy ALL the maps available.

 

-Black Sea (FREE)

-Nevada

-Straits of Hormuz

-Normandy 1944

-Iwo Jima

-Okinawa

-Unannounced Viggen map

-Unannounced Tomcat map

 

You can see how MP is going to be massively fragmented. Honestly the way LNS is going to do it seems like the best way(Bundled with aircraft). Standalone maps are going to become a progressively tougher sell in the future, so knowing that players who have the Viggen for example have a certain map, means mission designers can plan missions around it.

Even locking it in with aircraft modules will hinder it. Not everyone will buy a Viggen or F-14. But that may be better than simply selling it standalone. I do wonder if the price is lowered enough so that everyone buys the maps because the cost is insignificant. As in the ~ $5 range. At that price point I think most maps would be bought by just about everyone. Now the obvious question - will that be enough to turn a profit? We can't say for sure.

Though I am wondering what map the F-14 will get. Hopefully not another desert map.

It will be interesting to see how other modules will then compare to LNS ones in regards of content. Mirage, even though it looks promising, is a bare bone half functioning module with no missions, map... yet it cost more than anything else in the store. If LNS will be able to pull this full feature package right away for release for similiar price, then it will be epic for us, the customers.

+1

This approach that LNS is pioneering (pioneering for DCS) is best way to experience an aircraft. This is how the "traditional" flight-sim used to work - things like the Jane's series, for example.

It would seem that LNS' business plan is sales volume over margin. Offering a big package with all of these extras on top of a MiG-21 quality module has to be more expensive/labor intensive to develop. But if the prices are similar to current DCS modules, then there is no comparison - buy the module that offers more. For example: I like the P-40F as an aircraft more than the F4U-1 (my own interest prior to DCS). However, if I were to choose between buying the VEAO P-40F vs the LNS F4U-1D with a theater and period AI - I would definitely buy the F4U-1D before the P-40F. It gives the player a chance to explore and experience the complete picture of operating an aircraft in combat - not just what it was (or is) like to fly the P-40F in isolation.

However, this approach will only work if the community really buys and the user base grows. Otherwise, a 3rd party cannot afford to do 2x-3x as much work for the same money. Otherwise, LNS will have to either charge more or start separating these other parts and sell them as "DLC".

Splitting the community in any way is detrimental even for the biggest of games such as CoD, yet alone a small but dedicated community such as DCS. As somebody said, in the long run maps are not viable to be sold for 50 $ at least to the multiplayer community, as we want to play together but then again they can't really give away a map for free either.

 

I think that lowering the prices of any multiplayer maps in the future will be key to their success. I bought Nevada and don't regret doing it but knowing that it has limited usefulness in a PvP scenario due to the lack of outer airfields and the relatively high price making some friends of mine refusing to buy it leaves me very skeptical about buying any new maps coming out in that price range.

 

On topic, i would imagine since they are small maps they are either packaged into the module or sold separately for a substantially lower price then the Nevada map.

I can see your point, but there is no good solution to this. These maps require a lot of manpower to develop, in addition to all the effort put into DCS/DCS2 which remains free.

As ED and 3rd parties gain experience and create new tools, map development may become faster and easier - meaning lower costs and lower price. But for now, there needs to be a way to recoup development costs.

Offering a lot of different options for players may fragment multi-player, but it will also (hopefully) bring more players into DCS. Players will probably have to prioritize and decide what the best environment is for multi-player - or just stick to the Black Sea map. But I don't see how this is better than not offering any new maps? (note - I don't consider maps for free as a viable choice - unless someone here wants to create and debug something like the Nevada map for free - anyone...? Beuller?...Beuller? ;)).

Anyway, my 2 cents.

-Nick

In general I think it would be best if ED built and hosted the maps and perhaps some that are free and some premium (with a cost). Then their modules and 3rd party modules need to fit in (assuming that there are some different locations and timer periods available). This would be best for multiplayer scenarios also.

This however would be a problem if a 3rd party developer builds a niche product, that doesn't really fit in...

For this particular example with the Viggen, I will pay a full price module for a stand alone aircraft module (assuming it is as good as the MIG-21). And I would pay as much for a map/scenario module also. But perhaps I would feel othervise if it wasn't a Swedish subject :music_whistling:

Though I am wondering what map the F-14 will get. Hopefully not another desert map.

I'm wondering the same, but it's unlikely to be a desert map. The Strait of Hormuz will be excellent for the Tomcat and I doubt that LNS would create a separate map that overlaps with SoH. Plus, they said it would be 'very oceany, very cold" - doesn't sound very desert like. Though a lot of areas in the Northern Pacific are pretty sparse - it could look a bit "deserty". Still, I suspect it will be very different from current maps - best way to maximize interest.

-Nick

My bet would be a North Cape - Murmansk map and a Cold War gone hot campaign. The area also saw a lot of fighting in WW2.

I´d say it´s not cheap, but it´s not "overprized" given the time spent creating the map.

No comment

It will cost to much for the maps to be free.

My main concern here is not map pricing (but I do think NTTR is rather expensive for what you get though) but the fact that charging money for scenarios will divide a small community even further. I would have preferred ED to take the helm and sort of "dictate" the general direction of DCS. As an example we see that Pacific planes and scenario are planned for WW2 eventhough Normandy is far from finished etc. And when both scenarios are released the small WW2 fanbase will be spread thin...

With that said, I'm sure all scenarios will be great and I will spend most my flying time over Sweden once LNS gets that map out. It is a long time flight sim dream becoming true!

You need to appreciate the work that goes into these maps, they can be as demanding as full blown DCS modules.

If not even more so

Pman

You need to appreciate the work that goes into these maps, they can be as demanding as full blown DCS modules.

I don't think anyone here thinks that ED are being lazy, greedy or otherwise. We all seem to understand that terrain development, especially to the standards we expect as DCS customers, can be incredibly complex and time consuming. We want ED to be compensated for their work, as that allows us to have something like DCS in a world where flight sims are a niche.

The problem is that as the amount of terrains increases, people will have a smaller and smaller portion of the selection that is available. In a multiplayer environment that means that some people will inevitably not be able to play with friends or squadron mates that have a different selection of terrains, let alone the ones that a server decides to run.

You end up with low numbers of maps sold at high cost, which are used rarely in multiplayer. No one wants to buy as no servers run the terrain, and few servers run maps other than the Black Sea as few players will be able to join. Nevada's pricing is steep given it's already often-noted lack of content, but that should help offset the R&D costs of EDGE at least in part. If all maps are going to cost the same, even substantially smaller ones, (IIRC Wiki states Nevada is 600x610km, and Straits of Hormuz is only 390x390) They are just not going to be used.

Once again however, I believe that ED has stated that only a small minority of DCS customers ever play online. So take that as you will.

TLDR - ED should maybe rethink how they sell the terrains, maybe even redirect their efforts elsewhere for now.

This. It's already hurting squadrons that want to use new maps, but a few members can't justify spending the money.

Hasn't been a problem in the 476th. I would pay for any good/detailed map.