Pacific Assets?

[Jester986]

I'm not a big fan of asset packs not because I mind spending the money but because they divide multiplayer. I am wondering though if we will get a seperate asset pack for the Pacific or if they will be included in this one? 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Jester986 said:

I'm not a big fan of asset packs not because I mind spending the money but because they divide multiplayer. I am wondering though if we will get a seperate asset pack for the Pacific or if they will be included in this one? 

 

ED has never before included new Assets with a DLC Map, so I doubt that the Marianas Map will include any. 

 

I do have the WW II Assets Pack, and I would love to see ED release an updated 2.0 version that added Pacific WW 2 Assets and hopefully a special upgrade price for those customers that already have the initial version. I don't care about Multiplayer division.

[Callsign112]

++ on a V2. Especially if it includes improved AI infantry variety/logic with more realistic vehicles. ED could easily increase the price of the assets inline with other high fidelity modules for first time buyers, while offering a discount to anyone that already owns the first version like they have already done with other modules.

 

The WWII assets/Normandy map, and Combined Arms make a really great package. I strongly recommend anyone with an interest in ground war game play to familiarize yourself with the mission editor's features and functions if you haven't already done that, and then give the WWII assets/CA a try when it goes on sale, or as a free trial if and when it is offered.

 

I think a lot more people would be big fans of the WWII assets pack if it saw more support from ED. But if anyone is interested in seeing the ground war capabilities grow in DCS world, picking up the WWII assets pack/Normandy map, or Combined Arms when they go on sale is a small commitment to show support when compared to what most players have invested in the air war.

 

Stating that the assets pack is responsible for multiplayer division is misrepresenting the facts of the matter. What is causing the multiplayer division are the players that have not purchased the assets pack. ED needs to do its part with better support of the assets pack, but you can't fly in an F18 squadron with your buddies unless you buy the F18. So if a group of players wants the added excitement of having a much more interesting target rich ground environment, then the best way to encourage their MP server of choice to use the assets pack is to buy the assets pack. Not only will the group get to enjoy a more intense target rich ground environment, but the group would also help support further development of a more capable target rich ground environment in DCS world.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Callsign112

[Nealius]

Since we've occasionally gotten updates to the WWII assets pack (Ju-88 and some other tidbits), I wouldn't be surprised if they simply added a few pacific assets to the existing assets pack.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Nealius

[StevanJ]

On 3/18/2021 at 4:56 PM, Jester986 said:

I'm not a big fan of asset packs not because I mind spending the money but because they divide multiplayer. I am wondering though if we will get a seperate asset pack for the Pacific or if they will be included in this one? 

I agree, you only have to search through Reddit, to see this division is quite a large problem for that part of the game..
 

While id love to pull my friends into DCS and garner players to support the growth of the player base.
Its just not going to happens while things are- the way they are.

Because of this structure DCS will always be pushed aside for Warbirds, And its older brother Il2 always get the players.

[Silver_Dragon]

No plans "yet" to pacific assets, and ED has none plan to release a new "Pacific assets pack". If add them, surely they add to WW2 assets pack. About  improved AI infantry variety/logic with more realistic vehicles, that is a core feature.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

On 3/25/2021 at 8:03 AM, StevanJ said:

I agree, you only have to search through Reddit, to see this division is quite a large problem for that part of the game..
 

While id love to pull my friends into DCS and garner players to support the growth of the player base.
Its just not going to happens while things are- the way they are.

Because of this structure DCS will always be pushed aside for Warbirds, And its older brother Il2 always get the players.

Maybe part of the problem is the word "ASSETS". Maybe ED should have called it the WWII ground war module, or something like that. Say the word "ASSETS", and @StevanJ takes it as something his friends should get for free to populate the map they fly on.

 

While I agree, being able to add static, or AI controlled assets in the mission editor is essential, I find your take on the two game platforms to be slightly misleading.

 

First of all, the two platforms are significantly different in a number of ways. While one currently offers better value in terms of the number of planes you get/module, the other offers more realistic/detailed models. And the static/AI controlled assets included with the IL2 mission editor are way below the detail standard of what is included in the WWII assets/CA modules.

 

But I think the key here is "VALUE", and the question should be focused on how ED can increase the value of the ground war side of DCS. Giving the WWII assets pack for free wouldn't likely sell that many more planes, and it certainly wouldn't do anything to help further develop the ground war side of things. What they should do is take a page out of IL2's play book and augment the current vehicles in the WWII assets pack. 

 

To compare both platforms at their current full price, $160.00 in IL2 would get you 10 planes + 10 highly detailed armored vehicles + 2 maps.  $150.00 on DCS would get you 1 highly detailed war bird, + 18 armored vehicles/SP artillery (WWII) + infantry + 2 maps + plus a large collection of post cold war tanks, APC's, artillery, ships, missile systems ect...

 

Augmenting the AI logic/infantry and WWII vehicles would likely increase the full price of the DCS WWII ground war, but it would also make it more competitive with IL2, with much more capabilities.

 

IMO, you need to get out of the "its an asset so it should be included with my map" concept, because that will do nothing to help develop the ground war side of DCS world.

 

On 3/25/2021 at 8:26 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

No plans "yet" to pacific assets, and ED has none plan to release a new "Pacific assets pack". If add them, surely they add to WW2 assets pack. About  improved AI infantry variety/logic with more realistic vehicles, that is a core feature.

 

I think your right about AI logic, but the models themselves (infantry/vehicles) are listed as part of the WWII assets pack.

[Silver_Dragon]

As I say, Infantry and vehicles has pressent and more as coming to the WW2 Assets pack, but make improvements on AI, Infantry on Vehicles has a core feature, no a exclusive "assets pack" or other module.

 

[Callsign112]

[StevanJ]

15 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Maybe part of the problem is the word "ASSETS". Maybe ED should have called it the WWII ground war module, or something like that. Say the word "ASSETS", and @StevanJ takes it as something his friends should get for free to populate the map they fly on.

 

While I agree, being able to add static, or AI controlled assets in the mission editor is essential, I find your take on the two game platforms to be slightly misleading.

 

First of all, the two platforms are significantly different in a number of ways. While one currently offers better value in terms of the number of planes you get/module, the other offers more realistic/detailed models. And the static/AI controlled assets included with the IL2 mission editor are way below the detail standard of what is included in the WWII assets/CA modules.

 

But I think the key here is "VALUE", and the question should be focused on how ED can increase the value of the ground war side of DCS. Giving the WWII assets pack for free wouldn't likely sell that many more planes, and it certainly wouldn't do anything to help further develop the ground war side of things. What they should do is take a page out of IL2's play book and augment the current vehicles in the WWII assets pack. 

 

To compare both platforms at their current full price, $160.00 in IL2 would get you 10 planes + 10 highly detailed armored vehicles + 2 maps.  $150.00 on DCS would get you 1 highly detailed war bird, + 18 armored vehicles/SP artillery (WWII) + infantry + 2 maps + plus a large collection of post cold war tanks, APC's, artillery, ships, missile systems ect...

 

Augmenting the AI logic/infantry and WWII vehicles would likely increase the full price of the DCS WWII ground war, but it would also make it more competitive with IL2, with much more capabilities.

 

IMO, you need to get out of the "its an asset so it should be included with my map" concept, because that will do nothing to help develop the ground war side of DCS world.

 

I think your right about AI logic, but the models themselves (infantry/vehicles) are listed as part of the WWII assets pack.

We keep revisiting this, and id love to take the things you say as 'great insight', but Instead of making an assumption- Just go over to the relevant forums, and ask everyone 'why they dont play DCS ww2?'..
Ill wait here..
This kind of discussion is always going to be a welcome one, in that the hope things improve for this area in particular.
We need this to be noticed.

Secondly- This is not just something ive 'made up', 16 days ago-
 

It's not the wording, the price, or the assets. Its the limitation.
Players should not be locked out of online play if the server chooses to use asset packs.
Take 5 minutes and go and look at the figures for online play- In fact ill do it now;

DCS 'Modern servers'. (170 before+ before i stopped counting)
DCS Warbirds 'online players' 3 players total. (2 SoW, 1 Gunzoo)

Il2 stalingrad (50+)
Cliffs of Dover (2!)

One more player than CoD! Thats it..
The players are there- in games other than the ones mentioned too, granted they arent a big figure, and right now isnt a peak time. But people are still there!
When peak times pick up, ive seen upto 150+ players on Stalingrad- while theres only been 25-27 players on Storm of War. And one or two on the aerobatics server..
We should have a third of all our players on Warbirds online. Thats what the stats are saying.
All you have to do is ask people in the other games (Il2 Stalingrad), Do you have DCS? And people will tell you 'Yeah- but i cant play online'.

This is all despite the fact that yes, you are right in that the pack is incredibly poor value, and its being amplified everytime anyone asks in the subs and forums and the people that do have it, explain why they arent happy with it..

Its too unreasonable to expect todays gamer to pay for an early release asset pack for $30. After he's shelled out $50 for a WW2 module, and $45 for a map.
When all you can do in the module is learn to bomb, and dogfight. Meanwhile the same gamer has paid for the Hornet with months of gameplay.
EA understood this (despite them being one of the worsed developers), and released 'EA Play' £90 a year, and you can play any game made or released by EA, instead of buying a different game every time..

$80 buys you the phenomenal FA-18, months of gaming and learning right there, and you can jump into any server online and play alongside people with the SuperCarrier, F16, Combined Arms, Huey, nothing stops that gamer from accessing any part of the game.
He can even play against a P-47 in the same server- if he chooses as such.
But, if he buys the P-47, and the Channel, he cant access the same game! He cant go to where everyone goes to play the game together- without forking over another $30 for the asset pack.

After a he's had a quick gander on the videos, he finally goes over to the subs and forums, before asking poeple (is it worth it)- Before a community mod/manager explains his thoughts on the asset pack, to which i stand by 100%.

So he does one of two things, he logs off and goes over to Il2, or he just plays on the modern server.
Occasionally you get a player thats tempted to buy the Asset Pack, but then he goes over to the reviews and videos. Which arent really very compelling, they kind of show why you shouldnt buy the asset pack. But some people still buy them anyway in the hope 'that we support the ground war side of DCS'.
Which is VERY misleading and quite frankly just plain wrong!

Lets have a look at the cost of this WW2 Ground war.
If a player buys the 'Asset Pack' in support of the 'Ground War' how much would it cost him to 'drive a tank online'?
Well;

$45 for a map

$30 for the Asset Pack

$40 for Combined Arms

$115 'to support the ground war side of DCS', and he's not even bought a Warbird.
So now he goes to the server he just- 'paid himself onto', he's now the only tank in a battlefield with 2 other fighters..
Vs

$40 (Combined Arms) online in any modern server.

I dont think ive ever found a single player that can suggest that is a good way to support the 'ground war side of DCS'.
 

You find MY view misleading? When there isnt a single link to a post where everyone recommends the asset pack.
Youre asking people to spend $30 on a target pack that only allows you to join a multiplayer game, when they could just buy an SU27 and an F15 instead.
The asset pack is a poor investment. That has been released way too early. If were paying for assets for a theatre of war it should have MORE assets than the base game to represent value, let alone good value.

Im 100% sure the Asset Pack as a module is no longer even needed right now, as the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign (and we still have the 'original Lock on' Assets in the game, which look like theyre from WW2)- Let alone worth paying for.
WW2 Combined arms? Yes- 100% Definitely welcomed! But if there are no players to play against online- Whats the point of that either?

Had the asset pack doubled the number of AI assets in the total game, and been released without bugs then id have welcomed it at the same cost of Combined Arms under CA- WW2.
I would have paid for it too.
But instead, its been released underwhelmingly, with poor value, too early, with 4% of the assets the game should have when compared to the modern assets, and to poor and bad reviews.
And to suggest that IM being misleading despite this, is in very poor taste-

'Its an asset and should be included in the map', IS the argument thats supported by the players, the mods over at reddit, a majority of mudspike, and myself -As ive experienced the Asset Pack, seen the trajectory its taken (in terms of actual development), and felt a little bit disappointed in the development of the overall Warbird game.
While not limiting gameplay, the numbers in Warbirds online might have seen expansion, instead its gone the other way.
If the game 'needed' more assets, ED should have paid to have them developed or took time to develop them, themselves.

They should have been included with the Maps, and ED should have sold Combined Arms WW2, but unfortunetly Combined Arms is in its worsed state of development, since it came out, and asking people to 'buy Combined Arms WW2', would have been laughed at, when combined arms is in its current state, so they had to change the sale point' and it still hasnt worked.
Id have loved it to. But its just not realistic, and the numbers are proof of that.
I kinda feel like they sold the asset pack to a third party to save themselves a load of bother making new ones.

I would love for you to have real proof of your points. Ive tried to find them myself in a hope that i can look at this unbiasedly, but no proof exists to why anyone should buy the Asset Pack, unless they really really love single player Warbirds and want the whole experience, and those people i can count on one hand..
And im afraid a handful of players arent going to save the 'ground war side of DCS'.

We need more.
 

[BIGNEWY]

8 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

We keep revisiting this, and id love to take the things you say as 'great insight', but Instead of making an assumption- Just go over to the relevant forums, and ask everyone 'why they dont play DCS ww2?'..
Ill wait here..
This kind of discussion is always going to be a welcome one, in that the hope things improve for this area in particular.
We need this to be noticed.

Secondly- This is not just something ive 'made up', 16 days ago-
 

It's not the wording, the price, or the assets. Its the limitation.
Players should not be locked out of online play if the server chooses to use asset packs.
Take 5 minutes and go and look at the figures for online play- In fact ill do it now;

DCS 'Modern servers'. (170 before+ before i stopped counting)
DCS Warbirds 'online players' 3 players total. (2 SoW, 1 Gunzoo)

Il2 stalingrad (50+)
Cliffs of Dover (2!)

One more player than CoD! Thats it..
The players are there- in games other than the ones mentioned too, granted they arent a big figure, and right now isnt a peak time. But people are still there!
When peak times pick up, ive seen upto 150+ players on Stalingrad- while theres only been 25-27 players on Storm of War. And one or two on the aerobatics server..
We should have a third of all our players on Warbirds online. Thats what the stats are saying.
All you have to do is ask people in the other games (Il2 Stalingrad), Do you have DCS? And people will tell you 'Yeah- but i cant play online'.

This is all despite the fact that yes, you are right in that the pack is incredibly poor value, and its being amplified everytime anyone asks in the subs and forums and the people that do have it, explain why they arent happy with it..

Its too unreasonable to expect todays gamer to pay for an early release asset pack for $30. After he's shelled out $50 for a WW2 module, and $45 for a map.
When all you can do in the module is learn to bomb, and dogfight. Meanwhile the same gamer has paid for the Hornet with months of gameplay.
EA understood this (despite them being one of the worsed developers), and released 'EA Play' £90 a year, and you can play any game made or released by EA, instead of buying a different game every time..

$80 buys you the phenomenal FA-18, months of gaming and learning right there, and you can jump into any server online and play alongside people with the SuperCarrier, F16, Combined Arms, Huey, nothing stops that gamer from accessing any part of the game.
He can even play against a P-47 in the same server- if he chooses as such.
But, if he buys the P-47, and the Channel, he cant access the same game! He cant go to where everyone goes to play the game together- without forking over another $30 for the asset pack.

After a he's had a quick gander on the videos, he finally goes over to the subs and forums, before asking poeple (is it worth it)- Before a community mod/manager explains his thoughts on the asset pack, to which i stand by 100%.

So he does one of two things, he logs off and goes over to Il2, or he just plays on the modern server.
Occasionally you get a player thats tempted to buy the Asset Pack, but then he goes over to the reviews and videos. Which arent really very compelling, they kind of show why you shouldnt buy the asset pack. But some people still buy them anyway in the hope 'that we support the ground war side of DCS'.
Which is VERY misleading and quite frankly just plain wrong!

Lets have a look at the cost of this WW2 Ground war.
If a player buys the 'Asset Pack' in support of the 'Ground War' how much would it cost him to 'drive a tank online'?
Well;

$45 for a map

$30 for the Asset Pack

$40 for Combined Arms

$115 'to support the ground war side of DCS', and he's not even bought a Warbird.
So now he goes to the server he just- 'paid himself onto', he's now the only tank in a battlefield with 2 other fighters..
Vs

$40 (Combined Arms) online in any modern server.

I dont think ive ever found a single player that can suggest that is a good way to support the 'ground war side of DCS'.
 

You find MY view misleading? When there isnt a single link to a post where everyone recommends the asset pack.
Youre asking people to spend $30 on a target pack that only allows you to join a multiplayer game, when they could just buy an SU27 and an F15 instead.
The asset pack is a poor investment. That has been released way too early. If were paying for assets for a theatre of war it should have MORE assets than the base game to represent value, let alone good value.

Im 100% sure the Asset Pack as a module is no longer even needed right now, as the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign (and we still have the 'original Lock on' Assets in the game, which look like theyre from WW2)- Let alone worth paying for.
WW2 Combined arms? Yes- 100% Definitely welcomed! But if there are no players to play against online- Whats the point of that either?

Had the asset pack doubled the number of AI assets in the total game, and been released without bugs then id have welcomed it at the same cost of Combined Arms under CA- WW2.
I would have paid for it too.
But instead, its been released underwhelmingly, with poor value, too early, with 4% of the assets the game should have when compared to the modern assets, and to poor and bad reviews.
And to suggest that IM being misleading despite this, is in very poor taste-

'Its an asset and should be included in the map', IS the argument thats supported by the players, the mods over at reddit, a majority of mudspike, and myself -As ive experienced the Asset Pack, seen the trajectory its taken (in terms of actual development), and felt a little bit disappointed in the development of the overall Warbird game.
While not limiting gameplay, the numbers in Warbirds online might have seen expansion, instead its gone the other way.
If the game 'needed' more assets, ED should have paid to have them developed or took time to develop them, themselves.

They should have been included with the Maps, and ED should have sold Combined Arms WW2, but unfortunetly Combined Arms is in its worsed state of development, since it came out, and asking people to 'buy Combined Arms WW2', would have been laughed at, when combined arms is in its current state, so they had to change the sale point' and it still hasnt worked.
Id have loved it to. But its just not realistic, and the numbers are proof of that.
I kinda feel like they sold the asset pack to a third party to save themselves a load of bother making new ones.

I would love for you to have real proof of your points. Ive tried to find them myself in a hope that i can look at this unbiasedly, but no proof exists to why anyone should buy the Asset Pack, unless they really really love single player Warbirds and want the whole experience, and those people i can count on one hand..
And im afraid a handful of players arent going to save the 'ground war side of DCS'.

We need more.
 

 

 

Sorry you dont feel it is good value, I dont agree, maybe in the future it will seem better value for you as we continue to add units.

 

But please read our forum rules, comparisons with other sims or games is not welcome. We are not trying to be like other sims or games. 

 

thanks

[Silver_Dragon]

Just now, StevanJ said:

but unfortunetly Combined Arms is in its worsed state of development, since it came out, and asking people to 'buy Combined Arms WW2', would have been laughed at, when combined arms is in its current state, so they had to change the sale point' and it still hasnt worked.
 

 

CA coming from a JTAC desktop trainer by the British Army from 2010.... "aproved" to release. Not sure wat is the "Worsed State of development" of you claim.

http://www.thebattlesim.com/joint_fires_jtac_simulation/

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[StevanJ]

55 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

 

Sorry you dont feel it is good value, I dont agree, maybe in the future it will seem better value for you as we continue to add units.

 

But please read our forum rules, comparisons with other sims or games is not welcome. We are not trying to be like other sims or games. 

 

thanks

Genuine apologies,
I am Sorry-
I didnt realise, Being honest I hadnt read the rules, and I didnt think this was an issue after coming from the Battlefield Production thread and the comparisons made there.
Ive read the rules and Ill refrain from further comparison.

Just to clarify, I do believe DCS is the best game out there and only gripe is that, i want more players in the Warbirds Servers.
I appreciate the heads up.

59 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

CA coming from a JTAC desktop trainer by the British Army from 2010.... "aproved" to release. Not sure wat is the "Worsed State of development" of you claim.

http://www.thebattlesim.com/joint_fires_jtac_simulation/

 

 

 

Hmm, well yeah, But the video is 11 years old..
Believe me, no one wants more people to get into this game than me.

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Genuine apologies,
I am Sorry-
I didnt realise, Being honest I hadnt read the rules, and I didnt think this was an issue after coming from the Battlefield Production thread and the comparisons made there.
Ive read the rules and Ill refrain from further comparison.

 

No problem, I did not think it was done intentionally so did not delete it

 

War bird server popularity will increase as the war bird choices fill out, we are playing the long game here and have big plans for the future. We have been around a lot longer than the rest and we are still going. So thank you for the support we appreciate it. 

[redcoat22]

5 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

No problem, I did not think it was done intentionally so did not delete it

 

War bird server popularity will increase as the war bird choices fill out, we are playing the long game here and have big plans for the future. We have been around a lot longer than the rest and we are still going. So thank you for the support we appreciate it. 

Be that as it may, a lot of what he wrote should be honestly examined.  I would suggest you guys consider building the cost of "assets" into the maps and planes.  Bite the bullet one time and never look back.  Maybe give the people that own the pack a "coupon" to ease their pain... or not.

[BIGNEWY]

25 minutes ago, redcoat22 said:

Be that as it may, a lot of what he wrote should be honestly examined.  I would suggest you guys consider building the cost of "assets" into the maps and planes.  Bite the bullet one time and never look back.  Maybe give the people that own the pack a "coupon" to ease their pain... or not.

 

The WWII asset pack description is listed on the store page, as a consumer you make the choice based on the information. 

 

With that said we continue to work on and add units to the asset pack. 

 

thank you

[MrExplosion]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

as a consumer you make the choice based on the store page information. 

 

True. But is the information on the store page relevant for the product that you deliver? Because I bought the A8 in early access and I am still waiting for alot of the apraised features to be delivered in a proper manner. I am talking mainly radio and weapon systems and post June 44 versions. 

[Callsign112]

13 hours ago, StevanJ said:

We keep revisiting this, and id love to take the things you say as 'great insight', but Instead of making an assumption- Just go over to the relevant forums, and ask everyone 'why they dont play DCS ww2?'..
Ill wait here..
This kind of discussion is always going to be a welcome one, in that the hope things improve for this area in particular.
We need this to be noticed.

Secondly- This is not just something ive 'made up', 16 days ago-
 

It's not the wording, the price, or the assets. Its the limitation.
Players should not be locked out of online play if the server chooses to use asset packs.
Take 5 minutes and go and look at the figures for online play- In fact ill do it now;

DCS 'Modern servers'. (170 before+ before i stopped counting)
DCS Warbirds 'online players' 3 players total. (2 SoW, 1 Gunzoo)

Il2 stalingrad (50+)
Cliffs of Dover (2!)

One more player than CoD! Thats it..
The players are there- in games other than the ones mentioned too, granted they arent a big figure, and right now isnt a peak time. But people are still there!
When peak times pick up, ive seen upto 150+ players on Stalingrad- while theres only been 25-27 players on Storm of War. And one or two on the aerobatics server..
We should have a third of all our players on Warbirds online. Thats what the stats are saying.
All you have to do is ask people in the other games (Il2 Stalingrad), Do you have DCS? And people will tell you 'Yeah- but i cant play online'.

This is all despite the fact that yes, you are right in that the pack is incredibly poor value, and its being amplified everytime anyone asks in the subs and forums and the people that do have it, explain why they arent happy with it..

Its too unreasonable to expect todays gamer to pay for an early release asset pack for $30. After he's shelled out $50 for a WW2 module, and $45 for a map.
When all you can do in the module is learn to bomb, and dogfight. Meanwhile the same gamer has paid for the Hornet with months of gameplay.
EA understood this (despite them being one of the worsed developers), and released 'EA Play' £90 a year, and you can play any game made or released by EA, instead of buying a different game every time..

$80 buys you the phenomenal FA-18, months of gaming and learning right there, and you can jump into any server online and play alongside people with the SuperCarrier, F16, Combined Arms, Huey, nothing stops that gamer from accessing any part of the game.
He can even play against a P-47 in the same server- if he chooses as such.
But, if he buys the P-47, and the Channel, he cant access the same game! He cant go to where everyone goes to play the game together- without forking over another $30 for the asset pack.

After a he's had a quick gander on the videos, he finally goes over to the subs and forums, before asking poeple (is it worth it)- Before a community mod/manager explains his thoughts on the asset pack, to which i stand by 100%.

So he does one of two things, he logs off and goes over to Il2, or he just plays on the modern server.
Occasionally you get a player thats tempted to buy the Asset Pack, but then he goes over to the reviews and videos. Which arent really very compelling, they kind of show why you shouldnt buy the asset pack. But some people still buy them anyway in the hope 'that we support the ground war side of DCS'.
Which is VERY misleading and quite frankly just plain wrong!

Lets have a look at the cost of this WW2 Ground war.
If a player buys the 'Asset Pack' in support of the 'Ground War' how much would it cost him to 'drive a tank online'?
Well;

$45 for a map

$30 for the Asset Pack

$40 for Combined Arms

$115 'to support the ground war side of DCS', and he's not even bought a Warbird.
So now he goes to the server he just- 'paid himself onto', he's now the only tank in a battlefield with 2 other fighters..
Vs

$40 (Combined Arms) online in any modern server.

I dont think ive ever found a single player that can suggest that is a good way to support the 'ground war side of DCS'.
 

You find MY view misleading? When there isnt a single link to a post where everyone recommends the asset pack.
Youre asking people to spend $30 on a target pack that only allows you to join a multiplayer game, when they could just buy an SU27 and an F15 instead.
The asset pack is a poor investment. That has been released way too early. If were paying for assets for a theatre of war it should have MORE assets than the base game to represent value, let alone good value.

Im 100% sure the Asset Pack as a module is no longer even needed right now, as the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign (and we still have the 'original Lock on' Assets in the game, which look like theyre from WW2)- Let alone worth paying for.
WW2 Combined arms? Yes- 100% Definitely welcomed! But if there are no players to play against online- Whats the point of that either?

Had the asset pack doubled the number of AI assets in the total game, and been released without bugs then id have welcomed it at the same cost of Combined Arms under CA- WW2.
I would have paid for it too.
But instead, its been released underwhelmingly, with poor value, too early, with 4% of the assets the game should have when compared to the modern assets, and to poor and bad reviews.
And to suggest that IM being misleading despite this, is in very poor taste-

'Its an asset and should be included in the map', IS the argument thats supported by the players, the mods over at reddit, a majority of mudspike, and myself -As ive experienced the Asset Pack, seen the trajectory its taken (in terms of actual development), and felt a little bit disappointed in the development of the overall Warbird game.
While not limiting gameplay, the numbers in Warbirds online might have seen expansion, instead its gone the other way.
If the game 'needed' more assets, ED should have paid to have them developed or took time to develop them, themselves.

They should have been included with the Maps, and ED should have sold Combined Arms WW2, but unfortunetly Combined Arms is in its worsed state of development, since it came out, and asking people to 'buy Combined Arms WW2', would have been laughed at, when combined arms is in its current state, so they had to change the sale point' and it still hasnt worked.
Id have loved it to. But its just not realistic, and the numbers are proof of that.
I kinda feel like they sold the asset pack to a third party to save themselves a load of bother making new ones.

I would love for you to have real proof of your points. Ive tried to find them myself in a hope that i can look at this unbiasedly, but no proof exists to why anyone should buy the Asset Pack, unless they really really love single player Warbirds and want the whole experience, and those people i can count on one hand..
And im afraid a handful of players arent going to save the 'ground war side of DCS'.

We need more.
 

Out of everything you wrote, I agree with this one statement; "This kind of discussion is always going to be a welcome one, in that the hope things improve for this area in particular.
We need this to be noticed."

 

Otherwise, one of the problems here Steve is that you keep misstating the discussion and pretending as if you are innocent, like when you asked me if I was high for making a suggestion, and then claimed that it was me who insinuated your a drunk.

 

The other problem is that your point is framed solely from a pilots point of view only, while my point is more interested in seeing the ground war side of the digital combat simulator grow for the sake of the ground war. I get it. You want to see ED release more free assets for you and your friends to attack while your flying war birds.

 

I think that would be great if ED accommodates your group and I agree, more assets will add interest for pilots, but I don't agree that everything should be free. And keeping things locked into the view that the ground war should be a free asset for pilots to shoot at is what is slowing its development IMO. 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but if your friends want to follow you in your F18 with a similar jet, they would have to buy the jet wouldn't they? And if your friends want to play MP on the Persian Gulf map, wouldn't they also have to buy that too? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I am assuming that if your friends need the assets pack, they are going to need the map and jet/plane too.

 

There is likely an historical reason why the assets pack was released when it was, and why it was intended and marketed initially as an assets pack. But what I am suggesting is that it might be time to develop it into something more then just an asset for pilots, and the fact that you and your friends wont buy it seems to support that idea. I realize that ED has already made great strides in this direction and that most of what I am raising here has more to do with Combined Arms, but I stress the WWII assets because I would like to see further development on more then just the post cold war stuff. The post cold war stuff is awesome though.

 

Misleading: "Lets have a look at the cost of this WW2 Ground war..."

 

You can purchase the Normandy map/WWII assets pack, and Combined Arms for $100 full price. I think all 3 are around $60 on sale, and I think the Assets pack sale is around $15 by itself. So if the Assets pack is such a detriment to the MP experience with your buddies, then what is the fix to that situation? At $15, I am wondering how much you actually value the MP experience with your buddies. 

 

Since when is anyone expected to provide proof of their opinion? Quoting a pilot on an internet forum that thinks the assets should be free is hardly proof of anything Steve. But my opinion is that the WWII assets pack/CA is worth supporting. As proof, your just going to have to take my word for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StevanJ]

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

The other problem is that your point is framed solely from a pilots point of view only, while my point is more interested in seeing the ground war side of the digital combat simulator grow for the sake of the ground war. I get it. You want to see ED release more free assets for you and your friends to attack while your flying war birds.

No- As ive Already stated 'the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign'. This has been backed up on the userfiles page, the highest rated WW2 campaign on userfiles- is 'No Asset pack needed'..
 

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

think that would be great if ED accommodates your group and I agree, more assets will add interest for pilots, but I don't agree that everything should be free. And keeping things locked into the view that the ground war should be a free asset for pilots to shoot at is what is slowing its development IMO. 

That first statement is the fight here 'accomodate everyone', we dont want more assets, they wont help anyone in a dogfight- and we dont want things for free. We want the ability to play in any server without having to pay 'before we've bought the first module'.

 

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but if your friends want to follow you in your F18 with a similar jet, they would have to buy the jet wouldn't they? And if your friends want to play MP on the Persian Gulf map, wouldn't they also have to buy that too? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I am assuming that if your friends need the assets pack, they are going to need the map and jet/plane too.

Yes, You are wrong, If i have an FA-18 my friend in the TF-51/F16/Huey/Yak52/SU25 can come fly with me no problem on any server EXCEPT a WW2 server.
If my friend decides he likes and prefers the Warbirds and wants to invest in that part of the game so he can dogfight online on a WW2 server, his expenditure is $30 before he's chosen his Warbird and Map.
If he wants to fly an FA-18, his expenditure is only the FA-18.
If we want to play on the Persian Gulf online, yes he'll need the map, but if he choses Warbirds, he'll still need to spend $30 before buying the map to do the same thing.
Any time any new players- come to the forums, as ive linked above- the subject and the Warbirds take a beating by those that have it, and it puts the new players off from coming into DCS and committing to the game. It sucks for me, as i WANT new players to fly with. Sadly, others are right- its a valid reason, and thats why it needs highlighting.

Now- Im not complaining about the COST of the Asset Pack, Im complaining about the COST its having on the 'Warbirds game'.

Im not making this a personal thing about me and my friends, im highlighting the only reason to why none of the other communties play on Warbirds. Im doing this because i want more players on Warbirds. And from active discussions that are only getting more common, on SRS during flying of modern jets, Reddit, Muspike, the largest reason to why others wont play IS the one i keep highlighting.

So my efforts are in the hope, once this gets addressed- the players that are using this an a reason to stay on 'other games', will start to come over to DCS and make the game 'what it is for the modern side'..
 

8 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You can purchase the Normandy map/WWII assets pack, and Combined Arms for $100 full price. I think all 3 are around $60 on sale, and I think the Assets pack sale is around $15 by itself. So if the Assets pack is such a detriment to the MP experience with your buddies, then what is the fix to that situation? At $15, I am wondering how much you actually value the MP experience with your buddies. 

So my buddies want to dogfight in storm of war, why should they pay for an 'asset pack' they'll never use, when all they are doing is dogfighting?
Its going to cost them $15 BEFORE theyve bought a map or warbird to play on that server.
Thats not reasonable.

While i understand 'people need to get paid' with regards to the designers, The WW2 assets pack COULD be converted to the first supercarrier module for WW2 naval operations, all they'd need to do, is add a carrier. Then people who play on Warbirds, like myself can enjoy the luxury of such assets. And the immersion of the high fidelity game with others.
But- It would still need to be changed in the same way the supercarrier isnt a 'required asset' to enter any server.
The next argument would then be 'why isnt there a non paid carrier for the hellcat- Like the stennis is for the FA18?', but by that point hopefully we'd have the players to carry the warbird game. And someone else can argue that.

Im 100% behind paying for new modules, but the target is always going to be new players and overall sales figures.
Get the players in the servers, charge them for luxuries, but dont charge them for luxuries before theyre even in the game..

[MrExplosion]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

So my buddies want to dogfight in storm of war, why should they pay for an 'asset pack' they'll never use, when all they are doing is dogfighting?
Its going to cost them $15 BEFORE theyve bought a map or warbird to play on that server.
Thats not reasonable.

 

 

There are other servers that were made specifically so you could fly warbirds in MP without the need for a map or the asset pack.

SoW pays great attention to atmosphere & detail and would not work without WW2 assets.

[StevanJ]

1 hour ago, MrExplosion said:

 

There are other servers that were made specifically so you could fly warbirds in MP without the need for a map or the asset pack.

SoW pays great attention to atmosphere & detail and would not work without WW2 assets.

Yeah, I know, but this argument has come up numerous times, and despite every effort to 'bypass' the limitation- new players are stuck.
There is no way around the limitation of;

The asset pack,

The lack of players,
The growth of new players.

Bare in mind, this argument is for the player like me, that 'PVP's'.
Im 100% behind the growth of new players, and modules.
The argument doesnt effect the single players 'who want the free flight (fly around take in the scenery) experience, UNLESS they want to buy campaigns - in which theyre again forced to buy the Asset pack.

So, Ive just checked the list of every single Warbird server.
If i buy the Normandy map- I HAVE to buy the asset pack to play online, as there isnt a single server right now that will let you in without the Asset Pack.
Which is why im asking, Why even sell them seperately?
Merge the pack with the map, and charge us more. Everyone wins.
Charge us more for the maps, and include the assets- That way designers get paid, players fly raids..

Right now, Im forced to buy the Channel IF i want to dogfight online..
If i buy the Channel, there are 2 servers (out of a total of 31) where i can dogfight against another person if i dont have the Asset Pack.
But there are 0 players on those servers.
Right now, there are 0 players on all of the Channel servers online (And this is THE best WW2 map by a mile).
 

So i pay $90 for a P47 and the Channel, just to dogfight, but i cant play online because there is no one online..
Or I pay $45 plus $30 for Normandy (Im aware they are cheaper together) and $50 for the P47, and i can do anything within the game on Normandy.
I cannot play online with others IF i dont buy the asset pack.
As a new player Im limited in choice and all i want to do is dogfight and 'get into the game'.

The limitation is down to one thing; 'the number of Warbird players', when you ask in the places where 'these players do go' 'Why arent you playing on DCS? Its 10X better than this!', the response is always the same- 'I agree, But 'the Asset Pack'.
Which is what im highlighting. This isnt one person here and there, is a majority.
Most of the players i fly with HAVE a warbird, and LOVE dogfighting, but they wont pay for the Asset Pack because why should they pay for a few extra units that they'll never see in the online game because they just want to dogfight.
Thats the limitation that keeps others 'from getting into the game'.

Your choices are limited (which is my whole argument for Warbirds).
Youre forcing a new player to either buy the newer and better Channel, just to dogfight against me. With the hope ill be online as no one else is in the servers. Or he's forced to buy 'an asset pack' and Normandy, just to enjoy dogfighting in a popular server.

And that limitation doesnt exist in any other part of this game.

Do you think he's gonna then go and invest another $60 for Normandy and the assets after he's paid $40 for the 'ability to dogfight with no one online in the channel' + $50 for the P47?
Or should he should just buy Normandy with the Asset pack for $60. Because even if he buys just Normandy- He STILL cant dogfight online.
There just isnt an choice that exists where a new player, can pick up Normandy for $45, then go and dogfight online 'to experience the game'.

A new player HAS to buy an asset pack if he chooses to experience 'a dogfight with other humans' in this game.

There are 31 servers for all the Warbirds Maps and only 3 people in total playing right now (last night there were 37 at peak) in ALL of the Warbird maps, the 3 players are on Normandy (SoW).
There are no players on the Channel.

There are more than 200+ players now in DCS modern fighter servers (which is UP 15-ish percent from yesterday).

The question is why i need the asset pack when all i want to do is dogfight against others?
The choice, is taken away and becomes mandatory IF i choose to buy a warbird for dogfighting other people.
Instead they choose to go other places, and end up staying there.

If i had an extra $30 to spend, id much rather put that to a new map or even a new module, than be forced into buying an asset pack.
Its unreasonable to ask new players to buy the Asset Pack, so they just dont..

No matter how many people i can get into the modern side of this game, even if i try and push them into Warbirds during a sale, they never buy the asset pack.
As one said (And ive used this before on here) 'dont invite me to play Monopoly, then get suprised that im angry youve asked me to pay for the monopoly money.'

Edited March 30, 2021 by StevanJ

[Callsign112]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

No- As ive Already stated 'the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign'. This has been backed up on the userfiles page, the highest rated WW2 campaign on userfiles- is 'No Asset pack needed'..
 

That first statement is the fight here 'accomodate everyone', we dont want more assets, they wont help anyone in a dogfight- and we dont want things for free. We want the ability to play in any server without having to pay 'before we've bought the first module'.

 

Yes, You are wrong, If i have an FA-18 my friend in the TF-51/F16/Huey/Yak52/SU25 can come fly with me no problem on any server EXCEPT a WW2 server.
If my friend decides he likes and prefers the Warbirds and wants to invest in that part of the game so he can dogfight online on a WW2 server, his expenditure is $30 before he's chosen his Warbird and Map.
If he wants to fly an FA-18, his expenditure is only the FA-18.
If we want to play on the Persian Gulf online, yes he'll need the map, but if he choses Warbirds, he'll still need to spend $30 before buying the map to do the same thing.
Any time any new players- come to the forums, as ive linked above- the subject and the Warbirds take a beating by those that have it, and it puts the new players off from coming into DCS and committing to the game. It sucks for me, as i WANT new players to fly with. Sadly, others are right- its a valid reason, and thats why it needs highlighting.

Now- Im not complaining about the COST of the Asset Pack, Im complaining about the COST its having on the 'Warbirds game'.

Im not making this a personal thing about me and my friends, im highlighting the only reason to why none of the other communties play on Warbirds. Im doing this because i want more players on Warbirds. And from active discussions that are only getting more common, on SRS during flying of modern jets, Reddit, Muspike, the largest reason to why others wont play IS the one i keep highlighting.

So my efforts are in the hope, once this gets addressed- the players that are using this an a reason to stay on 'other games', will start to come over to DCS and make the game 'what it is for the modern side'..
 

So my buddies want to dogfight in storm of war, why should they pay for an 'asset pack' they'll never use, when all they are doing is dogfighting?
Its going to cost them $15 BEFORE theyve bought a map or warbird to play on that server.
Thats not reasonable.

While i understand 'people need to get paid' with regards to the designers, The WW2 assets pack COULD be converted to the first supercarrier module for WW2 naval operations, all they'd need to do, is add a carrier. Then people who play on Warbirds, like myself can enjoy the luxury of such assets. And the immersion of the high fidelity game with others.
But- It would still need to be changed in the same way the supercarrier isnt a 'required asset' to enter any server.
The next argument would then be 'why isnt there a non paid carrier for the hellcat- Like the stennis is for the FA18?', but by that point hopefully we'd have the players to carry the warbird game. And someone else can argue that.

Im 100% behind paying for new modules, but the target is always going to be new players and overall sales figures.
Get the players in the servers, charge them for luxuries, but dont charge them for luxuries before theyre even in the game..

Like I said Steve, your contribution to this discussion is purely from a pilots perspective. Not that its wrong to have only pilot interests as a DCS player, as that is essentially what the SIM is about at the moment, but to fully understand the points I am raising, you would have to realize that they are being made in support of a better ground war experience in DCS.

 

That being said though, your being misleading again; "...If i have an FA-18 my friend in the TF-51/F16/Huey/Yak52/SU25 can come fly with me no problem on any server EXCEPT a WW2 server." Have you ever tried the "Clash of Wings" server? Apparently you don't need the assets pack there.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjqhuiK9tfvAhXEK80KHYFaBPIQrAIoA3oECAIQBA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fhoggit%2Fcomments%2Fjja4m3%2Fentry_level_wwii_dcs_server_clash_of_wings%2F&usg=AOvVaw3kSu41-2ijPyptm81kGRk4

 

But your argument makes little to no sense! Just as an aside before I respond, I am assuming that you were able to implement a tow cable on your FA-18, and your friend in the TF-51 glider is getting use to making his final approach without wings Yeah I get how your friend wouldn't find the assets pack very useful.

 

But back to your argument, so you would spend $80 to enjoy the F18, but you wouldn't spend the same amount to enjoy the beautifully modeled, and exquisitely detailed 109 in a realistic WWII setting (109 + assets pack)? You would support it if ED built the cost of the assets pack into the maps, but if they ask for the $15 as a separate purchase, you just can't rap your head around the concept? If the reason the assets pack is marketed separately is attached to the history behind WWII development in DCS, is it really being fair to blame ED for the solution it found in its attempt to correct the past failures of another group? 

 

You say that you are not complaining about the cost of the assets pack, but your entire purpose seems to be to convince others to find fault in what amounts to a $15 purchase. Its a digital combat simulator Steve. Typically simulators have a slightly higher overhead then the average game.

 

TBH, none of my comments to these threads were ever made while considering whether I could join this, or that MP server. I mean, it seems to be a mute point really, and I can't imagine why anyone would torment themselves for months and months over a $15 purchase. If being able to join a particular server was so important to me that it would cause me to spend hours, days, and months of my time complaining about how I can't join that server, I think I would probably just pay the $15 and STFU already. I mean both you and your friends aren't getting any younger, and there is still time to join the server.

 

If you want to help out Steve, stop propagating the false narrative that the developer is somehow responsible for locking players out of servers with the WWII assets pack.

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Yeah, I know, but this argument has come up numerous times, and despite every effort to 'bypass' the limitation- new players are stuck.
There is no way around the limitation of;

The asset pack,

The lack of players,
The growth of new players.

Bare in mind, this argument is for the player like me, that 'PVP's'.
Im 100% behind the growth of new players, and modules.
The argument doesnt effect the single players 'who want the FS20 (fly around take in the scenery) experience, UNLESS they want to buy campaigns - in which theyre again forced to buy the Asset pack.

So, Ive just checked the list of every single Warbird server.
If i buy the Normandy map- I HAVE to buy the asset pack to play online, as there isnt a single server right now that will let you in without the Asset Pack.
Which is why im asking, Why even sell them seperately?
Merge the pack with the map, and charge us more. Everyone wins.
Charge us more for the maps, and include the assets- That way designers get paid, players fly raids..

Right now, Im forced to buy the Channel IF i want to dogfight online..
If i buy the Channel, there are 2 servers (out of a total of 31) where i can dogfight against another person if i dont have the Asset Pack.
But there are 0 players on those servers.
Right now, there are 0 players on all of the Channel servers online (And this is THE best WW2 map by a mile).
 

So i pay $90 for a P47 and the Channel, just to dogfight, but i cant play online because there is no one online..
Or I pay $45 plus $30 for Normandy (Im aware they are cheaper together) and $50 for the P47, and i can do anything within the game on Normandy.
I cannot play online with others IF i dont buy the asset pack.
As a new player Im limited in choice and all i want to do is dogfight and 'get into the game'.

The limitation is down to one thing; 'the number of Warbird players', when you ask in the places where 'these players do go' 'Why arent you playing on DCS? Its 10X better than this!', the response is always the same- 'I agree, But 'the Asset Pack'.
Which is what im highlighting. This isnt one person here and there, is a majority.
Most of the players i fly with HAVE a warbird, and LOVE dogfighting, but they wont pay for the Asset Pack because why should they pay for a few extra units that they'll never see in the online game because they just want to dogfight.
Thats the limitation that keeps others 'from getting into the game'.

Your choices are limited (which is my whole argument for Warbirds).
Youre forcing a new player to either buy the newer and better Channel, just to dogfight against me. With the hope ill be online as no one else is in the servers. Or he's forced to buy 'an asset pack' and Normandy, just to enjoy dogfighting in a popular server.

And that limitation doesnt exist in any other part of this game.

Do you think he's gonna then go and invest another $60 for Normandy and the assets after he's paid $40 for the 'ability to dogfight with no one online in the channel' + $50 for the P47?
Or should he should just buy Normandy with the Asset pack for $60. Because even if he buys just Normandy- He STILL cant dogfight online.
There just isnt an choice that exists where a new player, can pick up Normandy for $45, then go and dogfight online 'to experience the game'.

A new player HAS to buy an asset pack if he chooses to experience 'a dogfight with other humans' in this game.

There are 31 servers for all the Warbirds Maps and only 3 people in total playing right now (last night there were 37 at peak) in ALL of the Warbird maps, the 3 players are on Normandy (SoW).
There are no players on the Channel.

There are more than 200+ players now in DCS modern fighter servers (which is UP 15-ish percent from yesterday).

The question is why i need the asset pack when all i want to do is dogfight against others?
The choice, is taken away and becomes mandatory IF i choose to buy a warbird for dogfighting other people.
Instead they choose to go other places, and end up staying there.

If i had an extra $30 to spend, id much rather put that to a new map or even a new module, than be forced into buying an asset pack.
Its unreasonable to ask new players to buy the Asset Pack, so they just dont..

No matter how many people i can get into the modern side of this game, even if i try and push them into Warbirds during a sale, they never buy the asset pack.
As one said (And ive used this before on here) 'dont invite me to play Monopoly, then get suprised that im angry youve asked me to pay for the monopoly money.'

 

This has been discussed many times after the asset pack became a thing, you are not forced to buy the asset pack, you make that choice.

 

We have made some models free already for the WWII scene which helps, but the asset pack is a paid product and that is not going to change.

[Silver_Dragon]

8 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

Bare in mind, this argument is for the player like me, that 'PVP's'.
Im 100% behind the growth of new players, and modules.
The argument doesnt effect the single players 'who want the FS20 (fly around take in the scenery) experience, UNLESS they want to buy campaigns - in which theyre again forced to buy the Asset pack.

So, Ive just checked the list of every single Warbird server.

 

Continue Breaking the rules......

 

Quote

If i buy the Normandy map- I HAVE to buy the asset pack to play online, as there isnt a single server right now that will let you in without the Asset Pack.
Which is why im asking, Why even sell them seperately?
Merge the pack with the map, and charge us more. Everyone wins.
Charge us more for the maps, and include the assets- That way designers get paid, players fly raids..

-Normandy Map was buld by a 3rd party (Ugra Media) with the TDK terrain develop tools. They dont receive nothing by your work? they dont have anithing to do with any assets pack.

-WW2 assets pack has build a team separate of Ugra Media Work, part of the old WW2 team KS and now into ED..... thank by considerate your work awnfull and not receive nothing by your work.
-The ED maps has build by Minks map team and has nothing to do with the WW2 assets pack.

Edited March 30, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[StevanJ]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

Continue Breaking the rules......

 

-Normandy Map has buld by a 3rd party (Ugra Media) They dont receive nothing by your work? they dont make any assets pack.

-WW2 assets pack has build a team separate of Ugra Media Work, part of the old WW2 team KS..... thank by considerate your work awnfull and not receive nothing by your work.
-The ED maps has build by Minks map team and has nothing to do with the WW2 assets pack.

Thanks for the highlight- Ive amended the wording. Apologies.

It would be great if we could hear about the 'long game' and the strategy for bringing in new players to the Warbirds.
Please bare in mind, that im only trying to help others, and the game (including trying to help the devs sell more), im human- and if i make a mistake ill rectify it with an apology too.

My understanding is if we were to be charged more for a map, is there no way in which ED could give a 'cut' of the larger payment to the designers?

I understand why youre getting angry, I get it.  Id like to see more players in the servers.
All i can do is give you guys an insight into 'whats in the game from the players that dont go there'. And give you the reasons why they wont.
Hopefully, with this insight this information will only result in higher sales on your end.
Its not meant to highlight 'wrong doings'.
Ive argued with new players for them and against them, and while im on your side and will continue to put money into the game, theres only so much I can do from where i am.
Im not trying to start an argument, im just trying to relay why other arent coming into the game in the hope that this might improve.

If there arguement was down to a bug' or something that wasnt right' then it would be higlighted in the same way.
Please try not to hold me personally accountable, thats why ive placed the links, to highlight the wider thought.

Surely overcoming these points will result in a larger player base.

No offence is intended.
 

10 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

This has been discussed many times after the asset pack became a thing, you are not forced to buy the asset pack, you make that choice.

 

We have made some models free already for the WWII scene which helps, but the asset pack is a paid product and that is not going to change.

Yeah, i know. Still- How would you approach the new people that arent on board with Warbirds because of how they view the asset pack?

Do you think there might be a possibility we might see some WW2 servers from ED for a boost to player numbers?
Servers that were open to everyone on both Normandy, and the Channel?
Servers that wouldnt need the asset pack?

If after a year theres no sign of new players, then at least if we still didnt see new players -we'd know?
That would be alot cheaper than the alternatives.