Jump to content

Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, StormBat said:

  If you could make playable infantry, I would love a recon soldier with a laser pointer for JTAC.  An anti-tank soldier with Javelin/RPG.  Improved anti-air soldiers.  Of course assault Inf with various guns/rifle.  A demolition expert with fun explosive charges/satchels(when you just have to take out a bunker/enemy position), And a sniper/spotter.   Full immersive/clickable tanks/vehicles  would be amazing too!  Hope something comes out of this Battlefield Productions, I really do.

 

Well, we already have RPG troops, but a blue equivalent would be cool too!  Well, I guess the RPG troop model could be updated lol.  However, ATGM troops would be a game changer!  I'd be hyped for that.  Basically, infantry need some love lol

  • Like 2

Modules owned:

 

FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi Everyone, My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions. I would like to share some ideas with the community for content we would like to bring to the DCS platform, content which we hope

I fully support and agree with everything Battlefield Productions has suggested bringing to DCS.  Being former military and current DOD contractor, I get really tired of people referring to ARMA as re

Thanks for the comments so far. Just to clarify a couple of small bits 🙂 More Detailed Ground Vehicles "The Pipe Dream": Not sure what the take up of Combined Arms has been, but having

Agree on the infantry. The DCS environment is just way too big to be detailed enough to make some reasonable FPS infantry game play and i don't think a lot of folks (apart from ED themselves) would love some "arena style" highly detailed infantry 2x2km combat areas patch-worked into the lower detail maps we got - this would truly be just ridiculous CoD style. (Yeah, I'm aware certain folks will jump on that anyways)

 

What i indeed can imagine is some high fidelity playable special role infantry like JTAC or MANPAD/ATGM a commander would control temporarily but i don't see any full squad/platoon sized player infantry game play like in ArmA3 or similar happen in DCS. Because as said missing computing power needed for high enough terrain detail / mesh on one hand, and because of DCS happening on a different organizational level where a single squad or platoon is of no importance really. DCS is about companies and battalions when it comes to ground forces, with new capabilities maybe even full blown regiments.

 

When it comes to vehicles: take my money already, world detail really is good enough for that. Thinking about having a multi-crew tank and the commander can give orders to the rest of the tank platoon like we do with aircraft AI already. This really is the lowest level i see realistic in DCS.

  • Like 2

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

i don't see any full squad/platoon sized player infantry game play like in ArmA3 or similar happen in DCS.

And this is why people like me are always actively looking for a successor to DCS.  DCS doesn't seem to be going anywhere of late.  Too many "sky only" flight simulator types dragging it down.  Continue this thinking, and you better believe a "World" sim will eventually replace you.

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 3WA said:

And this is why people like me are always actively looking for a successor to DCS.  DCS doesn't seem to be going anywhere of late.  Too many "sky only" flight simulator types dragging it down.  Continue this thinking, and you better believe a "World" sim will eventually replace you.

 

Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out 😅

  • Like 6

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

 

Well, don't let the door hit you on the way out 😅

Exactly.  See?  This is the type of thinking that will eventually end DCS.  I don't know if you guys are total Boomers, or what, but you don't seem to see the future of simulation.  You don't want to move ahead to what can be.  You're locked in your old school ways and want ZERO change.  It's been that way for YEARS on this board.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of the World moves on and forward.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Exactly.  See?  This is the type of thinking that will eventually end DCS.  I don't know if you guys are total Boomers, or what, but you don't seem to see the future of simulation.  You don't want to move ahead to what can be.  You're locked in your old school ways and want ZERO change.  It's been that way for YEARS on this board.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of the World moves on and forward.

 

Looking at how you claim "DCS doesn't seem to be going anywhere of late" and "old school people wanting zero change" just let's me guess how small the box you sit in might possibly be. What i know is that this box got "Salty Zoomer" written on it.

It might not go where YOU'd like to see it, but DCS is doing big steps in the right direction as of late. It just isn't in the gamer direction you'd love to see but in the simulations direction.

 

More AI assets and better AI, human like AI crew, better weather effects, flight model improvements, IADS coming probably, ECM with it finally too, subs being worked on too right now, new ATC on the horizon, option for full fidelity vehicles, Vulcan implementation, new damage models... just little Joe's dream of larping a secret specOps soldier doing super tacticool helicopter insertions and exfils while being watched by a human A-10C pilot for CAS on his command isn't. Well, like i said above: don't let the door hit you while heading over to that cool open-world game you've apparently seen on the horizon.

 

Remind me in 5 years.

  • Like 5

bts_100.jpg.22eae5ddd2a463fc09375990ad043870.jpg

 

Hardware: MSI B450 Gaming Plus MAX | Ryzen 5 3600X (6*3.8 Ghz) | 16 GB RAM | MSI Radeon RX5700 | Samsung SSD 860 QVO 1TB | Win 10 (64-bit) TM Warthog HOTAS, MFD and rudder pedals, TrackIR5

Wishlist:  Northern Germany/Baltic Sea theater | DCS level Su-25A or SM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please treat everyone with respect when posting. 

 

thank you all

  • Like 5

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

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

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2021 at 1:55 AM, Battlefield Productions said:

Hi Everyone,

My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions.

I would like to share some ideas with the community for content we would like to bring to the DCS platform, content which we hope we can bring in an official capacity.

Before we take the next step of talking with Eagle Dynamics we would first like to conduct a small assessment to be assured our our ideas are compatible with this community, and that those visions meet the community wishes & expectations.

In the first instance Battlefield Productions are interested in producing the following content, the ideas below are visions only, and the ideas have come around from much reading here on these forums, these ideas are adaptable to some degree depending on how the community receive this, ultimately we only want to make content people actually want !
 

  • Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Cold War"
  • Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Post Cold War"
  • Airfield Assets Pack - Including Animated and Moving Ground Handlers etc - think along the lines of MS2020 or better - we need to firstly understand how flexible this engine is to achieve all that we would like tho, the goal  'is to bring a living and breathing ground environment on the Airfields


Ground Forces Sets would include vehicles, infantry, AAA, SAM's, everything on the ground in the battlefield, plus major revamp of Infantry & animation as well as increasing the quality of the models to at least quality of the latest DCS content (keep in mind we need to consider Framerate - so we accept ED's latest ground assets as a benchmark for poly count etc), we also be keen to expand the database for some civilian vehicle assets as well.

These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system.

The is NO pricing thoughts at this moment - this is something we would like to discuss with ED, but I can say this, here at Battlefield Productions we would rather sell our products to "everyone" at a good price than charge a premium to a "select few".

We look forward to community feedback at this point, and hopefully if the response is positive we can enter meaningful discussions with Eagle Dynamics.

 

Fantastic to hear! Hopefully you'll include static & mobile coastal missile battery defenses like the 4K51 'Rubezh', the 4K40/SPU-35B 'Redut', and the 4K44 'Utyos' as seen below👇

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Styx-PKRK-Rubezh-MAZ543M-TELAR-6S.jpg

https://weaponsystems.net/system/139-4K51+Rubezh

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/SPU-35B-Redut-Sepal-TEL-1S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/SPU-35B-Redut-Sepal-TEL-2S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Utyos-Sepal-Launch-1S.jpg

http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/Utyos-Sepal-Launch-2S.jpg

 

Also, I would love to see the addition of more Cold War era vehicles like the T-64BV, Chieftain, TOS-1 'Buratino', T-62. More support/supply vehicles is definitely need as well.

https://ray_forest_green.artstation.com/projects/ZboNZ

https://twitter.com/MickGrahamArt/status/750364520233758720/photo/1

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tos1.htm

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So my main concerns are the same everyone else likely has already aired out.

 

1) Fractured MP, this is already a pain in the ass issue with the WWII stuff and I feel like impacts the online WWII environment, and was a hot issue for MP. This was also a key factor in the super carrier stuff. I would rather not have a paid for asset that others would need to join my server, I won't buy that if that's the case.

 

And before someone goes "90% of players are Single player",  yeah, but multiplayer people are still the primary driving factor of content advertising (Grim Reaper, Redkite, Layobi, 104th, Chuck Owl all do multiplayer). Multiplayer people tend to have longer engagement, and spend more money on a per user basis. So while I understand 90% of players are single player, I would put a money bet that multiplayers are spending far more on a per use basis.

 

2) Performance. This is more on the ED side, but there is already huge performance issues with Syria, I worry that a bunch of high quality assets might just degrade performance more, but thats all option up to the player and map maker. 

 

 


Edited by Kocrachon
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Kocrachon said:

...  Multiplayer people tend to have longer engagement, and spend more money on a per user basis.

 

Wonder where you got the facts to sustain that assertion ... I have every Module and yet do no MP.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Wonder where you got the facts to sustain that assertion ... I have every Module and yet do no MP.

 

In general for gaming. I worked for a  gaming studio for 3 years. Multiplayer gamers tend to engage with content longer than single player, and are more likely to continue to spend money. People who engage with other people for a game are going be more comited to playing multiple days per week and will spend more money to maintain a set of balance with their friends (Think a person is more likely to buy a module if they want to fly in formation with the same aircraft or run missions with friends).

 

Also, I didn't say "Only". Yes, there are single player people who own all content. But on a per user basis. Again, I would put money that people who play online, on average, spend more money than the average single player user, and I would be willing to put a money bet that online players put more hours into the game on a weekly basis on a per user average.


Edited by Kocrachon
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome! I can't say I would personally pay for any ground units, as I don't play combined arms and don't care that much about ground unit details and specifics aside from how they impact me in the air, and whether I can kill them 🙂

 

As for airfield assets, in particular animated ground crew, I'd love to see it. I know ED is planning on revamping airfield ATC to the level of Supercarrier, but I'm not sure if they plan on animated ground crew themselves. Either way it's something I would definitely pay for.

Virpil WarBRD | Thrustmaster Hornet Grip | Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle | Logitech G Throttle Quadrant | Genovation 683U | VKB T-Rudder IV | TrackIR 5

 

 

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 | Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB | 32GB DDR4 3200 | SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for it, but I do have trouble seeing how you would have meaningful ground combat. Tanks and naval might be doable but infantry? I guess you could, but it would not be anywhere near the fidelity of Squad/ARMA without it becoming an interactive slideshow presentation. I'm for reserved judgement until the first few modules are out and working. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't know.  I have 7 year old computer with a GTX-770, and if I stick everything to Low on Graphics, I can hit over 70 fps at times.  Average about 65 fps.

I think the main thing is getting the engine up to modern standards.  Using Vulcan for the new Graphics should help a lot.

My vision is first MUCH BETTER AI on the Ground, and new units ( I get so tired of shooting at what appears to be no more than wooden cut out targets that just sit there ).

Then Ground Modules ( Armor, SAM, etc. ), and lastly FPS.  Hopefully, by the time FPS is ready to be started on, we will all have MUCH more powerful computers that can support such.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 3WA said:

I have 7 year old computer with a GTX-770, and if I stick everything to Low on Graphics, I can hit over 70 fps at times.  Average about 65 fps.

You clearly have not yet tried any complex mission which can easily put any high-end PC on its knees. AI calculations are mostly CPU dependant and while Vulkan can improve things the multi-core support is more needed here.

Try convoy or any moving target next time and targets with proper AA defences.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 16GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3, Win10Home64, 27" LCD FullHD, T16000M HOTAS, customTiR

Aircraft: FC3, F-14B / Supercarrier / Maps: NTTR, PG

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, draconus said:

You clearly have not yet tried any complex mission which can easily put any high-end PC on its knees. AI calculations are mostly CPU dependant and while Vulkan can improve things the multi-core support is more needed here.

Try convoy or any moving target next time and targets with proper AA defences.

 

 

Oh yeah... A DCS Liberation mission in Syria when dozens of missiles are suddenly launched - that doesn't put my PC on its knees, it knocks it on its back and straps it down to the floor.

 

 

17 hours ago, 3WA said:

My vision is first MUCH BETTER AI on the Ground, and new units ( I get so tired of shooting at what appears to be no more than wooden cut out targets that just sit there ).

Then Ground Modules ( Armor, SAM, etc. ), and lastly FPS.  Hopefully, by the time FPS is ready to be started on, we will all have MUCH more powerful computers that can support such.

 

I completely agree on the ground AI/cardboard cutouts thing. Soldiers who just stand there when an A-10C is bearing down on them is a bit immersion-breaking.

 

But FPS? Completely unfeasible on a technical level. Ground fidelity could never be high enough while maintaining performance. I remember when MSFS was being shown off and people were going nuts about how good the ground looked from 30,000ft and how they'd be walking and driving about on the ground. And then it was released, and... boom - technical limitations hit home.. "Why is that bridge merging into that skyscraper!?" I mean, Arma is arguably the most realistic commercial FPS game out there and it can be seriously taxing on an average PC. And it has only a fraction of the number of calculations DCS has to do.

  • Like 1

- i7-7700k

- 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz

- GTX 1080 8GB

- Installed on SSD

- TM Warthog

 

DCS Modules - A-10C; M-2000C; AV8B; F/A-18C; Ka-50; FC-3; UH-1H; F-5E; Mi-8; F-14; Persian Gulf; NTTR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am also very sceptical on the assets pack concept. The MP community will fracture further and the entry barrier for new people who might be interested in DCS might get even higher.
Oh, yes DCS is free, but you wanna participate in some fun MP missions? Well you first need to buy asset packs X Y Z, plus supercarrier plus whatever is next, land based ATC likely.
What do I know.

Yea I get it, some people dont mind throwing ever more money at their hobby and thats fine. But I see the serious risk of DCS becoming ever - more niche/exclusive to ultra hardcore simmers and being unable to attract or at least keep new players.

Another question I have is, if this hits the market, what incentive is there for ED to fix / improve on CA , which already seems abandoned.


Regards,

Snappy


Edited by Snappy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, modern (2000s) assets should be a part of the core. We can have "80s asset pack", "Vietnam asset pack" and so on, for era-specific stuff. A visual-only upgrade pack for the core would be acceptable, too. Anything else would split the community too much, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Snappy

I think CA pretty much is abandoned.  I don't see ED doing anything with it.  Why we are talking to these people.  As for costs, it's the dam HOTAS that really kills you in cost.

2. Not worried about MP.  Few people play it.  Almost everyone plays offline.  MP can be worked out between the few MP people.

 

@Dragon1-1

Agree with Dragon1-1 about modern 2000 assets pack.  What I really want to see.  Again, not worried about 10% MP community.  Sorry.  You guys can work it out between yourselves.


Edited by 3WA
  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how some people consider they have to be served for free... it's like written on clouds... or if is not in their area of interest then it has not to be here... 

 

From my point of view, anything on ground which can bring some life to DCS without killing FPS, is more than welcome. I'd rather pay for such content than buying who knows what other game that may keep me busy for several hours. DCS can be endless replayed and there will still be things to learn.

 

@Battlefield Productionsplease proceed with your plans... release  as "agile" and see how real things will work. You can assess later if is worthy or not...      

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Romanian Community for DCS World

HW Specs: i7-8700K@5GHz,ASUS Maximus X Hero, 32GB RAM 3000MHz, MSI Nvidia GTX 1080TI watercooled, Creative SoundBlaster Z, Intel/Samsung M.2 , VKB MCG Pro + Virpil Throttle + Leo Bodnar BU0836(A and X), MFG Crosswind, Logitech G13, TrackIR 5, Oculus Rift S, Stream Deck

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Abburo said:

It's funny how some people consider they have to be served for free... it's like written on clouds... or if is not in their area of interest then it has not to be here... 

 

From my point of view, anything on ground which can bring some life to DCS without killing FPS, is more than welcome. I'd rather pay for such content than buying who knows what other game that may keep me busy for several hours. DCS can be endless replayed and there will still be things to learn.

 

@Battlefield Productionsplease proceed with your plans... release  as "agile" and see how real things will work. You can assess later if is worthy or not...      

 

I could not agree more Abburo! You do not walk into a store because you have purchased something from them in the past and say, I expect the rest for free.  The time, research, and authorization work required from these aircraft manufactures, future armored manufacturers, and hell even small arms companies like SIG, HK, Colt ect.... cost A LOT of time and money. 

 

Nobody ever questions why console or even PC first person shooters have weapon models that look like MP-5's, M-4's, SR-25's ect.... but are given silly ass names, paint jobs, or retarded accessories that are not authentic.  The reason is simple, they will not brand a firearm in game because of the work it takes dealing with manufacturers.  DCS/ED strive to hit that mark.  If it is a Lockheed Martin F-16, then they go to LM to get rights to use the name and reproduce an accurate representation of their product.  I expect the same level of authenticity out of any ground unit or small arms and would gladly pay to see it.

 

ED's foundation is built upon authenticity and painstaking detail for its customers and the customer has proven we are willing to pay for that level of detail in a product.  It would be no different for ground or naval assets.  It is simple, you buy what you like and if you do not like it, do not buy it.  The game works in multiplayer/single player with or without it, so why complain.  Those of you complaining about performance hits with new maps and assets, well are you driving your new car with a 15 year old engine in it.  The way she goes, its time for an upgrade.  If you expect the technology to get better, the technology expects you to pay for it.  I think ED has done a fantastic job drawing out the amount of time you can get out of one PC before needing an upgrade.  I have been a customers since day 1 of Flanker, Lock On, and Black Shark.  I think I have purchased 3 PC's from the time I started playing with them to stay up to speed.  This one (4th) I just bought will last at least another 4 years or so.  In that time I believe it is the equivalent of going through 3 or 4 new game systems.  So they are really on par for what they are asking performance wise.  And before some one says something stupid like a computer costs more, yes I know.  But if you add the cost of games up now days plus the systems and accessories, I do not need to go further by saying you would spend more over a 3 or 4 year period than buying a PC and a few modules from DCS during the same time frame.     

 

And for god sakes, before you people complain and say something is not being worked or ignored, keep up with the weekly and quarterly emails/posts on the forum that ED puts out.  95% of the assumptions on here have been addressed and are currently being worked on or are on the radar, not abandoned.  If that bruises your backside, thats the way she goes.  Keep up the good work ED.  The vast majority of us are fired up about 2021's road map and what you and the third party boys are doing for us.

 

...............................................................................................still waiting for HB to say something about the Intruder...................................................................................................     

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would, however, like a clear CA roadmap. It seems WWII is getting far more attention. It might be that it's just because they simply got people who are interested. That's why I would say to anybody who wants to invest resources into CA: Go for it! Somebody has to take the first step. For now the fruits are hanging pretty low.

 

As I mentioned the WWII section. I would be interested in WWI!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@3WA

I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them?

Also, if really 90% of their customers  are playing SP ,its really ridiculous that they haven’t fixed the AI and their FM years ago.

Its so broken that it really takes the fun out of SP air to air.

ok if you re content with zapping them BVR with Aim 120s is likely doesnt make a difference.Lets not talk of the antics your supposedly friendly wingmen pull off.

 

@Aburro

 

You misunderstood me. I don‘t expect to get served for free. Personally , I have don’t have much interest in ground units anyway so I dont care if they are modelled in detail or not, or whether specific units are available in game or not.

 

However the future IADS module project showed that you can still find a way to sell the module while not excluding people who don’t own it from participating in missions that feature it.

In my opinion that the is a good way to forward. Its not my problem or my business model, but I don‘t think DCS will thrive in the long run if it becomes solely focused on ultra hardcore simmers that buy multiple asset packs and addons just to participate in MP missions or to make use of certain SP campaigns.

 

 

And btw about that „getting served for free“: ED already got money from people who bought CA and still has not gotten that module done well it seems. 

 

Or just sell DCS 3.0 for price X and include all that stuff in core.

 

 

regards,

 

Snappy

 

 

 


Edited by Snappy
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snappy said:

I don‘t buy that 90% of customers are SP, very few play MP claim that ED likes to put out as its really not clear how they arrive at that data and how it’s defined.If I play 2/3 SP and 1/3 MP in which camp do I end up according to them?

 

Same, I really don't buy that stat either.

 

Also, an easy way to not fracture the community with a new asset back is to go the supercarrier route and just simply not let people control the new assets.  That way they can still join servers and see how cool the new units are, thus encouraging them to buy the pack to gain control access.  This seems like a no brainer to me.


Edited by MobiSev

Modules owned:

 

FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...