Jump to content

Recommended Posts

🍿 ... watching this from the SP side of the fence 🙃 

 

... wondering how this thread went so far off the topic ... from asking for Pacific Front assets, to complaining why the WW2 pack is not free (can't you just simply purchase it when on sale?)

  • Like 3

 

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
10 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

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.

 

But we are seeing new players, the numbers show us the player base is increasing, sure most of them are not multiplayer users, but as mentioned before in time Multiplayer numbers will increase. 

 

At the moment we have no plans to run ED servers, maybe in the future, but we are very busy currently.

 

I appreciate you dont like the situation, I can not help that I am sorry.  

  • Like 3

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
20 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

But we are seeing new players, the numbers show us the player base is increasing, sure most of them are not multiplayer users, but as mentioned before in time Multiplayer numbers will increase. 

 

At the moment we have no plans to run ED servers, maybe in the future, but we are very busy currently.

 

I appreciate you dont like the situation, I can not help that I am sorry.  


I trust you guys to do right by us. Wether or not I like the situation..
My views dont represent all the players.
Im sure whatever you guys do, its always for the greater good of the game.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

🍿 ... watching this from the SP side of the fence 🙃 

 

... wondering how this thread went so far off the topic ... from asking for Pacific Front assets, to complaining why the WW2 pack is not free (can't you just simply purchase it when on sale?)


The bigger question is when are you making a 'none asset pack MP mission' for all the Channel servers? 🤞😃

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

The bigger question is when are you making a 'none asset pack MP mission' for all the Channel servers? 🤞😃

 

I make only SP missions, and since I like WW2 of course I use not only the WW2 Assets Pack, but also any User Mod that works well and fits the particular scenario:

 

3dI97Ut.jpg

  • Like 4

 

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
2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I make only SP missions, and since I like WW2 of course I use not only the WW2 Assets Pack, but also any User Mod that works well and fits the particular scenario:

 

3dI97Ut.jpg

 

And it's greatly appreciated!!!

Justificus

 

System Specs:

i7 4970K @ 4.8, GTX 1080 SC, 32GB G.Skill DDR 2133,Thermaltake Level 10 Full Tower Case, Noctua NH-D15 6 Cooler, Win 10 Pro, Warthog, CH Pro Pedals, CH Throttle Quadrant, Oculus, 1 32" & 2 19" Monitors

 

 

 

Modules Owned: A-10C I+II, Ka-50, FC3, F-86, Mig-15, Mig21, UH-1H, Mi-8, CA, P-51D, BF-109K-4, FW-190 D-9, Hawk, NTTR, M-2000C, SA342, F-5E, Spit Mk. IX, AJS-37, Normandy, WWII A.P., AV-8B, F/A-18C, L-39, Persian Gulf, Mig-19P, I-16, Super Carrier, F-16, Channel, Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

🍿 ... watching this from the SP side of the fence 🙃 

 

... wondering how this thread went so far off the topic ... from asking for Pacific Front assets, to complaining why the WW2 pack is not free (can't you just simply purchase it when on sale?)

With the new FREE map coming from ED, I am hopeful that we will see something in terms of Pacific front assets. But while we wait for more news on this, I would just like to add that the current WWII assets pack is a great addition to DCS world for any WWII buffs out there.

 

Anyone reading this thread might get the impression that the Assets pack has little to no value, but that is simply not true. Whether it is used in SP missions, or on MP servers, the Assets pack greatly enhances realism of the WWII setting. What better way to get more enjoyment out of your favorite war bird then to improve the realism of the world you fly it in.

 

And for anyone that wants to step outside the cockpit to mix it up a bit, adding the Combined Arms module lets you drive most of the included armored vehicles. The WWII Assets pack adds two important elements to the DCS world most in need of support, armored vehicles and infantry.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the point is lost here.  It’s not about money per se, it’s about removing fences that ultimately increase confusion and shave off players.  Charge more and tear down the fences.   
 

I don’t really care, I happily buy all the crap...  but my friends can’t be bothered to navigate all the fences.  If you feel like DCS has a vibrant and thriving WWII scene, so be it.


Edited by redcoat22
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 6:19 AM, StevanJ said:

Bare in mind, this argument is for the player like me, that 'PVP's'.

The argument doesnt effect the single players 'who want the free flight (fly around take in the scenery) experience,
 

 

 

I am insulted that you think that SP players are just "taking in the scenery."

You have gone on and on, about this and that, who and what, how and when, up and down, inside and out for nearly two pages, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So, tell me Mr. Expert (who doesn't seem to know what an apostrophe is) what is the population of DCS as YOU know it?

How many MP vs SP are there?

 

On 3/30/2021 at 7:06 AM, Rudel_chw said:

🍿 ... watching this from the SP side of the fence 🙃 

 

... wondering how this thread went so far off the topic ... from asking for Pacific Front assets, to complaining why the WW2 pack is not free (can't you just simply purchase it when on sale?)

 

Just ask Steve.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

ASUS 990FX R2 Sabertooth MoBo - AMD FX 9590 @4.7Gb. No OC
GSkill RipJaws DDR3 32 Gb @1866 MHZ - EVGA GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6Gb. No OC.
Game drive, Samsung 970 M.2 EVO SSD - OS Win10 Pro drive, Samsung 860 EVO SATA SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rayrayblues said:

 

I am insulted that you think that SP players are just "taking in the scenery."


+1 ... but I’m also now relieved that I don’t really care about the MP crowd needs, the above phrase helps me not feel guilty anout it 😄

  • Like 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
4 hours ago, rayrayblues said:

 

I am insulted that you think that SP players are just "taking in the scenery."

You have gone on and on, about this and that, who and what, how and when, up and down, inside and out for nearly two pages, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

So, tell me Mr. Expert (who doesn't seem to know what an apostrophe is) what is the population of DCS as YOU know it?

How many MP vs SP are there?

 

 

Just ask Steve.


Once again we're starting to revolve around insults because of grammar, when all the context is being pulled away from the whole post.
Where did i say that 'every single player plays free flight'? I said that the player that wants to 'take in the scenery' wont have to worry about this thread.
Youre making stuff up. Right after THAT phrase, i go on to explain that if you want to buy a campaign, you are again forced to buy the asset pack.
Yet you deleted that part of the comment.
If you read the posts, youll see that i went online and pulled in the numbers for you.
Just take note that English is not my first language, I apologise for my mistakes in grammar, i do try my best and im sorry if you feel that isnt good enough.


If you'd like the number, go start a post in the relevant thread, and ill come join you and support you.

My argument is not towards a single player who wants to 'take in the scenery' during a freeflight. Its for the single player that might want to buy the campaigns or the player who want to dogfight online, who also have to buy the Asset Pack for them.
Op opens with a comment about the division in multiplayer, another person comments that 'that there is no division' to which i point out that 'the division is real' with links to sources from other forums.
An argument ensues.

If all you have for the discussion is an attempt to pick on grammar, then maybe this thread isnt for you- My posts arent the worsed posts for grammar, and so stop singling mine out.

Look at @Callsign112 post. While his message was missed by me, all you have to do is actually view post comments.

Whats the first comment say? Bare in mind he runs the SoW server..
Go into there discord, and read their home page.
Then tell me that 'they are wrong'.

Now i went into this server last night, For an hour me and a mate couldnt find anyone else. It was us alone for that hour.
Like here, i went into the discord and gave them feedback.

What a great bunch of guys.
Not a single person in that discord turned around and pointed out 'my grammatical errors'.
They like all the others understood and shared the want- to make Warbirds, a more active market.
They welcomed and re-iterated my feedback. Actively being a good sport about it.

Youre welcome to be angy at me, because i support them.
I genuinely dont know how you guys can look at the points raised by op, the CoW post and the numerous links ive put forward, and then just say- It doesnt exist.
But dont get angry at me, because im choosing to point out what others are thinking.

If anyone would like to keep on arguing my points, just send me a message, or start a thread and send me the link.
 

 

6 hours ago, redcoat22 said:

I think a lot of the point is lost here.  It’s not about money per se, it’s about removing fences that ultimately increase confusion and shave off players.  Charge more and tear down the fences.   
 

I don’t really care, I happily buy all the crap...  but my friends can’t be bothered to navigate all the fences.  If you feel like DCS has a vibrant and thriving WWII scene, so be it.

 


Yes, i agree.
Thanks.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StevanJ said:

...Op opens with a comment about the division in multiplayer, another person comments that 'that there is no division' to which i point out that 'the division is real' with links to sources from other forums.
An argument ensues.

...I genuinely dont know how you guys can look at the points raised by op, the CoW post and the numerous links ive put forward, and then just say- It doesnt exist.

 

Steve,... your misleading again!

 

No one said there is no division, and no one said it doesn't exist.

 

The point being made in counter to your assertion that the developers are locking players out of servers is that it is up to each player to decide whether they want to purchase that content to receive the benefits of having it. The lockout is therefore in the hands of each player. The responsibility of the developer is to bring exciting content to DCS world, but they hold no responsibility for the decisions you make as a player/consumer.

 

The developers made a product. If server hosts and campaign/mission designers use the Assets pack to enhance the WWII setting of the service/product they offer, which I believe is the raison d'être of the Assets pack, what options do you as a player have?

 

You can either purchase the Assets pack and enjoy all its benefits along with the MP servers/campaigns/missions that also use it, or you can spend months and months of your time complaining on internet forums about what essentially amounts to a $15 purchase when timed right. According to you, you would happily pay $80 for a jet, $50 for a map, or even more if the developer wants to build the cost of assets into its maps, but you would not pay for the assets pack as a stand alone product?

 

The question being asked in this thread is whether Pacific assets will be added in light of the upcoming FREE MAP! In case you missed that part, I will repeat again... FREE MAP from ED! The same group responsible for the WWII Assets pack!

 

The question I have is if a server opens up using that new FREE MAP along with the WWII Assets pack, what are you going to do?

 

Are you going to keep smashing your head against the wall because you would be happy to pay ED for the map, but not if its packaged as an Assets pack? Your being gifted a FREE MAP Steve. So the next time ED has a sale, take $15 of the $50 you just saved, buy the Assets pack, and then take your wife out for lunch using the other $35 so that when you get back home, she will be happy to leave you alone while you log on to that MP server you been dying to join.

 

The impression I get from reading your posts Steve is that you feel the Assets pack has no value, and I know from my own experience that this is just not true.

 

If I take myself as the example as someone who bought the Assets pack on sale, assuming that a MP server using the new FREE MARIANAS MAP and the WWII Assets pack materializes, owning the Assets pack will not only give me access to all MP servers using the 3 WWII maps, but any other map/campaign/mission that makes use of it as well. That's like spending $5 for each of the WWII maps to gain MP access, and that is without considering the value I get from the assets pack when I use it to build my own missions, or the enjoyment I get from being able to drive the Tiger across Normandy.  


Edited by Callsign112
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

...So the next time ED has a sale, take $15 of the $50 you just saved, buy the Assets pack ...

 

I'm so glad to have had the foresight to purchase the WW2 Assets back when it was bundled together with the Normandy Map ... I ended up paying just US$ 8 for the Assets Pack (back on March 2017).  And since that date I've enjoyed the additions that the Pack has received over the years ... for free 😄

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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
2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Steve,... your misleading again!

 

No one said there is no division, and no one said it doesn't exist.

 

The point being made in counter to your assertion that the developers are locking players out of servers is that it is up to each player to decide whether they want to purchase that content to receive the benefits of having it. The lockout is therefore in the hands of each player. The responsibility of the developer is to bring exciting content to DCS world, but they hold no responsibility for the decisions you make as a player/consumer.

 

The developers made a product. If server hosts and campaign/mission designers use the Assets pack to enhance the WWII setting of the service/product they offer, which I believe is the raison d'être of the Assets pack, what options do you as a player have?

 

You can either purchase the Assets pack and enjoy all its benefits along with the MP servers/campaigns/missions that also use it, or you can spend months and months of your time complaining on internet forums about what essentially amounts to a $15 purchase when timed right. According to you, you would happily pay $80 for a jet, $50 for a map, or even more if the developer wants to build the cost of assets into its maps, but you would not pay for the assets pack as a stand alone product?

 

The question being asked in this thread is whether Pacific assets will be added in light of the upcoming FREE MAP! In case you missed that part, I will repeat again... FREE MAP from ED! The same group responsible for the WWII Assets pack!

 

The question I have is if a server opens up using that new FREE MAP along with the WWII Assets pack, what are you going to do?

 

Are you going to keep smashing your head against the wall because you would be happy to pay ED for the map, but not if its packaged as an Assets pack? Your being gifted a FREE MAP Steve. So the next time ED has a sale, take $15 of the $50 you just saved, buy the Assets pack, and then take your wife out for lunch using the other $35 so that when you get back home, she will be happy to leave you alone while you log on to that MP server you been dying to join.

 

The impression I get from reading your posts Steve is that you feel the Assets pack has no value, and I know from my own experience that this is just not true.

 

If I take myself as the example as someone who bought the Assets pack on sale, assuming that a MP server using the new FREE MARIANAS MAP and the WWII Assets pack materializes, owning the Assets pack will not only give me access to all MP servers using the 3 WWII maps, but any other map/campaign/mission that makes use of it as well. That's like spending $5 for each of the WWII maps to gain MP access, and that is without considering the value I get from the assets pack when I use it to build my own missions, or the enjoyment I get from being able to drive the Tiger across Normandy.  

 


Hi, Then forgive me.
I thought that when you said:

 

Quote

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.


You meant that Op's Statement was mis-representative to why people play multiplayer Warbirds in DCS. Not only were you suggesting he was wrong for his view, but you were highlighting that the asset pack is poorly supported and poorly marketed.
Which is why i placed the links where i did, to validate Op's statement, and agree that he has a point.
I was midly trying to highlight you were right, I AGREE that the problem IS the sale of the Asset Pack, and the lack of support.
I apologise - I still dont understand that if i was wrong what you actually meant.

The conversation was then diverted by you firstly saying this:

 

Quote

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.


Where i assumed you were insinuating that the Asset Pack should be called 'WW2 Ground War module' (Or WW2 Combined Arms?)
And this:

 

Quote

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. 


Im sorry that my links towards supporting Op. created your discussion towards a ground war.


Then you finish by again commenting:
 

Quote

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 genuinely tried to keep the discussion towards Op, and his view.
My apologies but im still confused by your views in relation to Op's post.

My argument has never been that the 'developers are locking players out of the server', The asset pack is.
I agree that the lockout IS in the hands of each player, But if Each of the player choose to NOT buy the asset pack, how does that help the players that do?

The free map IS NOT from the same group responsible for the WW2 Asset pack. From my understanding, ED will create the map, and the third party will still create the Asset Pack. Apologies if im wrong, im on a phone and cant find a reference.
I understand that brings the costs down significantly and i support this strategy.
In the same way i orginally supported the Asset Pack strategy many moons ago.
If the server opens up with the asset pack requirement and NO ONE ELSE buys the asset pack, then the issue of the asset pack is still a problem.
If however, magically 100's of players flood to these servers, then i think everyone will be happy.
And if everyones happy, so will i be.

Might i just add that Im behind the new map so long as the servers that are popular dont have a requirement 'for the asset pack'.
Otherwise were just adding another map, with the same problem.
The map will just turn into a modern jets playground which will be awesome for modern jets so winner winner!

No matter which way i try enter this discussion here, im aware im always trying to 'ice skate uphill'.
But if someone else starts a discussion with a similar view, i think its fair we hear him out.
 

Quote

or the enjoyment I get from being able to drive the Tiger across Normandy.  


I have genuinely no idea what this means in regards to Op's original post.
Is this a reference to Combined Arms?

A polite request can we leave this here, or can we carry on in PM's?
Were just arguing over opinion now, nothing solvent is in our discussions anymore, weve both said what we need to say and we'll just carry on bickering as we arent willing to compromise on each others views, wether or not were both right or both wrong.
You love DCS, I too love DCS. You want a 'Ground War', I want more players'. These views can co exist in every aspect of this game.
No amount of further discussion in this post is going to get us what we want.


But a discussion over in Combined Arms might..

I would advise that you start a post with and towards this 'ground war' you and I desire, not only will i come team up WITH you and help discuss possibilities towards the part of the game you desire, but it will be a great reference point to have a start in towards a 'road map' on what might me possible as it moves in to the future.
Us talking about our much wanted 'Combined Arms 2' in these posts does nothing for the greater good of the game, and it works against the possibilty of us actually getting this 'Ground Wars'. as people get sick of hearing it over and over again..

So, as you seem to have great ideas towards the subject, why not start a discussion in the relevant place, and then you and i can start working together? How does that sound?
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I'm so glad to have had the foresight to purchase the WW2 Assets back when it was bundled together with the Normandy Map ... I ended up paying just US$ 8 for the Assets Pack (back on March 2017).  And since that date I've enjoyed the additions that the Pack has received over the years ... for free 😄

Like you, I bought the bundle back in 2019 and have no regrets. My only hope is that it continues to improve, as I am sure it will. Considering the coming map and its emphasis on a Pacific theater, additions to the Assets pack in this regard would make sense, but only time will tell. 

 

What doesn't make sense is the argument that fails to recognize each player is in control of his/her purchases and whether or not they have access to the content in question. It's kinda like going out to see a movie, but not wanting to pay for the movie because you only want to eat popcorn.

 

The argument that the Assets pack should be free because a player only wants to dog fight on a MP server is a fruitless one. Any MP server that has implemented the Assets pack has likely done so as an enhancement to the game world by adding the ability to include ground target missions in unison with the air war raging above. YouTube is filled with good examples of this. The greatest threat to German armor on the Western front was air power, and the only way to properly simulate that is by using realistic ground assets. The WWII Assets pack adds significantly to support this ability. 

 

I support programs like DCS World because of the added realism it offers, and I would like to think that is what drives most here, but at times it is hard to tell. Its like some guy's comment on an internet forum about the added cost of making the SIM more realistic and what it means for MP servers has turned into the cave dwellers mantra; Grrrrrrrrrr Assets pack bad.... break up hunting party grrrrrrrrr.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The argument that the Assets pack should be free because a player only wants to dog fight on a MP server is a fruitless one.

 

Yes, most people fail to see that ED has already done a lot to ease the burden on the MP scene:

 

1) They developed a Server version of DCS that can run on much cheaper hardware than on years previous.

 

2) They allowed the Server Admins free licences for ALL the Terrains (not sure if that includes WW2 Assets and the Supercarrier .. I think it does, but not sure) .. previously the Servers needed their own licenses, I still have the licenses I purchased during my Server Admin "phase" ... useless now 😞 :

 

49k1UY9.jpg

 

So, when I read people still moaning and ranting about ED not supporting the MP scene I can't avoid to feel a bit of dismay and have to hold the need to puke my guts out 🙄

 

Best regards.

 

  • Like 3

 

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
14 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Like you, I bought the bundle back in 2019 and have no regrets. My only hope is that it continues to improve, as I am sure it will. Considering the coming map and its emphasis on a Pacific theater, additions to the Assets pack in this regard would make sense, but only time will tell. 

 

What doesn't make sense is the argument that fails to recognize each player is in control of his/her purchases and whether or not they have access to the content in question. It's kinda like going out to see a movie, but not wanting to pay for the movie because you only want to eat popcorn.

 

The argument that the Assets pack should be free because a player only wants to dog fight on a MP server is a fruitless one. Any MP server that has implemented the Assets pack has likely done so as an enhancement to the game world by adding the ability to include ground target missions in unison with the air war raging above. YouTube is filled with good examples of this. The greatest threat to German armor on the Western front was air power, and the only way to properly simulate that is by using realistic ground assets. The WWII Assets pack adds significantly to support this ability. 

 

I support programs like DCS World because of the added realism it offers, and I would like to think that is what drives most here, but at times it is hard to tell. Its like some guy's comment on an internet forum about the added cost of making the SIM more realistic and what it means for MP servers has turned into the cave dwellers mantra; Grrrrrrrrrr Assets pack bad.... break up hunting party grrrrrrrrr.


The argument is still fruitless.

You come to my cinema with the wife- pay for the film, get yourself some candy and popping corn and I stop you 'because youre wife didnt buy popcorn' and the screen is 'popcorn required'..
Hows your experience in my cinema?

While some people will just pay for popcorn, others might not want to- when watching the same film. Popcorn shouldnt be a required module to watch a film.

I support DCS too. While you believe one thing might bring players, I believe another thing will bring players.
We both want the overall product to sell thats what were both fighting towards here.

Callsign, why not look at this from your own perspective? Create some content, a few missions, or even a campaign- a cinematic maybe? You sound pretty passionate about the subject, id like to see it from your perspective, What about reviewing the asset pack and creating some content to push good PR towards the asset pack and about 'how and why' the asset pack might be good value?
Id enjoy a positive review, or even a test of sorts 'to show that those who have it' can get more from the game?

 

15 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

So, when I read people still moaning and ranting about ED not supporting the MP scene I can't avoid to feel a bit of dismay and have to hold the need to puke my guts out 🙄

 

Best regards.


I agree they made the SuperCarrier a none required asset too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

Hi, Then forgive me.
I thought that when you said:

 


1. You meant that Op's Statement was mis-representative to why people play multiplayer Warbirds in DCS.


2. I agree that the lockout IS in the hands of each player, But if Each of the player choose to NOT buy the asset pack, how does that help the players that do?

3. The free map IS NOT from the same group responsible for the WW2 Asset pack. From my understanding, ED will create the map, and the third party will still create the Asset Pack.
 

Clearly Steve, you can type. The problem you have seems to be more with comprehension. I mean no disrespect in saying that, but your interpretation of the quotes you reference is for the most part completely out in left field somewhere. I will not go over your entire post to explain everything to you again, but i will humor you with a reply to the three bold points above.

 

1. As an example of your inability to comprehend my text, nothing I wrote has anything to do with WHY people play MP war birds. If you go back and read my post, the meaning is very clear and to the point. Suggesting that the Assets pack is responsible for creating division among players is wrong, because it is up to each player to decide if he/she wants access to that content. If a MP server uses the Assets pack, then you need that content to access the server, plain and simple. If you notice Steve, the reason why someone might join a MP server isn't a consideration here.

 

2. It doesn't. Each player that buys the Assets pack helps him/herself. That's how it works Steve, you have to pay to ride the pony!

 

3. ED is listed as the developer for the Assets pack on ED's website. But even if it wasn't Steve, I doubt a third party could make and market an Assets pack on ED's website without ED giving the go ahead. I added this point simply to demonstrate how hollow you argument has become. You would be happy to pay ED for the map, but you refuse to pay for the Assets pack. If any of the higher ups from within ED are listening in here, would it be possible to sell Steve the upcoming Marianas Island map for $15, and then throw the WWII Assets pack in for free? Just a suggestion.

 

Steve, I wish you would do us all a favor and just buy the Assets pack the next time its on sale. In fact, if 14 other people here want to join me, I will throw the first dollar down.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, I guess I still haven't gotten an answer to my question. Which is more populated, MP or SP?

If I hazard a guess I would say that the majority of players are on the SP side.

The company (ED) will always do what is in favor of their largest player base.

 

You, Steve, are very passionate about MP I get it. After two pages of ranting and being warned by two moderators,

believe me, you have made your point, but I don't see too many people agreeing with you.

 

I believe that SP players make up most of the total player base.

Still waiting  for someone to answer the question.

As BigNewy said, no one is forcing anybody to buy anything.

I'm sorry that you don't like the way ED does business, but I and many others do. I bought WW2 assets because I wanted to.  SRsfa58.gif


Edited by rayrayblues
  • Like 1

ASUS 990FX R2 Sabertooth MoBo - AMD FX 9590 @4.7Gb. No OC
GSkill RipJaws DDR3 32 Gb @1866 MHZ - EVGA GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6Gb. No OC.
Game drive, Samsung 970 M.2 EVO SSD - OS Win10 Pro drive, Samsung 860 EVO SATA SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Clearly Steve, you can type. The problem you have seems to be more with comprehension. I mean no disrespect in saying that, but your interpretation of the quotes you reference is for the most part completely out in left field somewhere. I will not go over your entire post to explain everything to you again, but i will humor you with a reply to the three bold points above.

 

1. As an example of your inability to comprehend my text, nothing I wrote has anything to do with WHY people play MP war birds. If you go back and read my post, the meaning is very clear and to the point. Suggesting that the Assets pack is responsible for creating division among players is wrong, because it is up to each player to decide if he/she wants access to that content. If a MP server uses the Assets pack, then you need that content to access the server, plain and simple. If you notice Steve, the reason why someone might join a MP server isn't a consideration here.

 

2. It doesn't. Each player that buys the Assets pack helps him/herself. That's how it works Steve, you have to pay to ride the pony!

 

3. ED is listed as the developer for the Assets pack on ED's website. But even if it wasn't Steve, I doubt a third party could make and market an Assets pack on ED's website without ED giving the go ahead. I added this point simply to demonstrate how hollow you argument has become. You would be happy to pay ED for the map, but you refuse to pay for the Assets pack. If any of the higher ups from within ED are listening in here, would it be possible to sell Steve the upcoming Marianas Island map for $15, and then throw the WWII Assets pack in for free? Just a suggestion.

 

Steve, I wish you would do us all a favor and just buy the Assets pack the next time its on sale. In fact, if 14 other people here want to join me, I will throw the first dollar down.

 

 


I have the pack, I explained that during the conversation in Battlefield Productions.

1 Im so confused- Do you agree with or disagree with Op?
This post now makes me think that you disagree with Op? Is that right? Because thats why i was initially suggested you did- before i pointed 'Op opens with a comment about the division in multiplayer, another person comments that 'that there is no division' to which i point out that 'the division is real' with links to sources from other forums.'

 

2 I AGREE, with the problem being that no one else does- Which effect MY ability to play with my friends when in relation to other modules.
If people arent buying a product which results in a low number in the servers. I think thats a problem. Thats my opinion.
Others might not see it as a problem, but like you. I do.
But these analogies are redundant, when you say "You have to pay to ride the pony", and then after you pay, I say "saddles extra.."

 

3 This is also redundant, because then- when Im given a 'free asset pack' my friends STILL cant play. Youve solved nothing which has brought us full circle to Op's original Post.

Youve solved nothing.

 

15 minutes ago, rayrayblues said:

Gee, I guess I still haven't gotten an answer to my question. Which is more populated, MP or SP?

If I hazard a guess I would say that the majority of players are on the SP side.

The company (ED) will always do what is in favor of their largest player base.

 

You, Steve, are very passionate about MP I get it. After two pages of ranting and being warned by two moderators,

believe me, you have made your point, but I don't see too many people agreeing with you.

 

I believe that SP players make up most of the total player base.

Still waiting  for someone to answer the question.

As BigNewy said, no one is forcing anybody to buy anything.

I'm sorry that you don't like the pack, but I and many others do. I bought it because I wanted to.  SRsfa58.gif


Yeah, youve either not been reading the post's where i break down all the numbers online, Or youre choosing to once again ignore it. Im not going to spoonfeed you Ray. Do the work yourself, Ill help- but if you make a request in a new post if youd like?

If you cant find the numbers, and youd like to know the single player numbers, please start a new topic. Ill do my research and come deliver the findings to you. The analytics wont be too hard to find.

I was warned about my use of mentioning another game, Id like to feel i learned my lesson anyone can make this mistake.
If you feel it was wrong, I can go back and change the wording if youd like?
It was only a mistake and mistakes happen. For example:

Like you right here, where you personally break the rules yourself.
 

Moving forward im actively trying to respect the rules more, but im still going to support those who create new posts, if i feel there views are acknowlegable.

 

Its not a big deal, i understand why you feel the need to highlight another persons mistake.
Very big of you. Dont worry though, Ive not reported you. As were all discussing the same game, and we all want the same thing in the end.
 

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


I have the pack, I explained that during the conversation in Battlefield Productions.

1 Im so confused- Do you agree with or disagree with Op?
This post now makes me think that you disagree with Op? Is that right? Because thats why i was initially suggested you did- before i pointed 'Op opens with a comment about the division in multiplayer, another person comments that 'that there is no division' to which i point out that 'the division is real' with links to sources from other forums.'

 

2 I AGREE, with the problem being that no one else does- Which effect MY ability to play with my friends when in relation to other modules.
If people arent buying a product which results in a low number in the servers. I think thats a problem. Thats my opinion.
Others might not see it as a problem, but like you. I do.
But these analogies are redundant, when you say "You have to pay to ride the pony", and then after you pay, I say "saddles extra.."

 

3 This is also redundant, because then- when Im given a 'free asset pack' my friends STILL cant play. Youve solved nothing which has brought us full circle to Op's original Post.

Youve solved nothing.

 


Yeah, youve either not been reading the post's where i break down all the numbers online, Or youre choosing to once again ignore it. Im not going to spoonfeed you Ray. Do the work yourself, Ill help- but if you make a request in a new post if youd like?

If you cant find the numbers, and youd like to know the single player numbers, please start a new topic. Ill do my research and come deliver the findings to you. The analytics wont be too hard to find.

I was warned about my use of mentioning another game, Id like to feel i learned my lesson anyone can make this mistake.
If you feel it was wrong, I can go back and change the wording if youd like?
It was only a mistake and mistakes happen. For example:

Like you right here, where you personally break the rules yourself.
 

Moving forward im actively trying to respect the rules more, but im still going to support those who create new posts, if i feel there views are acknowlegable.

 

Its not a big deal, i understand why you feel the need to highlight another persons mistake.
Very big of you. Dont worry though, Ive not reported you. As were all discussing the same game, and we all want the same thing in the end.
 

 

 

sz4M0Ns.png  I give up.

  • Like 1

ASUS 990FX R2 Sabertooth MoBo - AMD FX 9590 @4.7Gb. No OC
GSkill RipJaws DDR3 32 Gb @1866 MHZ - EVGA GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6Gb. No OC.
Game drive, Samsung 970 M.2 EVO SSD - OS Win10 Pro drive, Samsung 860 EVO SATA SSD

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I'm sorry I was unable to clear up your confusion after clarifying my view in two separate posts. If you go back and read my posts again, I am confident you will get it eventually.

 

2. But your not being told the saddle is extra. You yourself said that you would be happy to pay extra for the maps if ED bundled them with the assets. So instead of paying more for the maps that you purchased, you got them at a slightly reduced price because they weren't bundled with the Assets pack. So if you, or any of your friends go ahead now and purchase the Assets pack, you can rest comfortably with the knowledge that you weren't charged extra.

 

3. But no one is responsible to solve this for anyone but themselves Steve. I am encouraging your friends and anyone else listening in to buy the Assets pack, but if they don't see any value in doing that, who am I to disagree?

 

But if your friends don't see any value in the Assets pack, then why are they so bothered about not being able to access the MP servers?

 

It seems to me that even if you don't create missions/campaigns for yourself, or you have no intentions to buy CA so that you can drive/fight in a WWII tank  on the Normandy map, access to the MP servers by itself seems to at least be worth something. So the question is whether you think adding realism to the WWII MP DCS World is worth $15?

 

The other point here Steve is that you complain that non of your friends own the WWII Assets pack, but if you go back and read all of your posts on this subject, can you really blame your friends for not wanting to buy it? There is a good chance Steve that you are one of the reasons your friends aren't jumping in. If you and your group belong to an organized community, and you provide that community with missions/campaigns, then you probably have some sway with the group, and what you say and do will likely have an effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

1. I'm sorry I was unable to clear up your confusion after clarifying my view in two separate posts. If you go back and read my posts again, I am confident you will get it eventually.

 

2. But your not being told the saddle is extra. You yourself said that you would be happy to pay extra for the maps if ED bundled them with the assets. So instead of paying more for the maps that you purchased, you got them at a slightly reduced price because they weren't bundled with the Assets pack. So if you, or any of your friends go ahead now and purchase the Assets pack, you can rest comfortably with the knowledge that you weren't charged extra.

 

3. But no one is responsible to solve this for anyone but themselves Steve. I am encouraging your friends and anyone else listening in to buy the Assets pack, but if they don't see any value in doing that, who am I to disagree?

 

But if your friends don't see any value in the Assets pack, then why are they so bothered about not being able to access the MP servers?

 

It seems to me that even if you don't create missions/campaigns for yourself, or you have no intentions to buy CA so that you can drive/fight in a WWII tank  on the Normandy map, access to the MP servers by itself seems to at least be worth something. So the question is whether you think adding realism to the WWII MP DCS World is worth $15?

 

The other point here Steve is that you complain that non of your friends own the WWII Assets pack, but if you go back and read all of your posts on this subject, can you really blame your friends for not wanting to buy it? There is a good chance Steve that you are one of the reasons your friends aren't jumping in. If you and your group belong to an organized community, and you provide that community with missions/campaigns, then you probably have some sway with the group, and what you say and do will likely have an effect.


I dont know why youve brought the conversation here when we were talking in DM's? Why carry on here, when the conversation was better had in the personal messages?

1. Seriously- Right now i feel like your pointing at a blackboard and telling me its yellow. You telling me 'to go back and read your posts'- No, I dont understand, plus were passed that. Lets move on.

 

2. Paying more more Maps across the game means devs get MORE money.
This means you Win.

It also means, im not pushed into a corner with regards to which Map im pushed towards paying for 'because of a bundle' or bias to access towards popular servers.
I personally would choose the Channel (Its phenemonal and my most favourite map by a mile!), but If i buy the Channel, I cant enjoy a part of the game, that i crave- Multiplayer because there are no players.
If i buy the map i dont want because it comes with a bundle, I can play online but then my squad have to get onboard with it to. Which means all of them buying the map that we dont want in the first instance- just to enjoy a part of the game we all enjoy in other modules.
Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Now, if you can convince a very well known subreddit- that too enjoys this game, that they should come and play multiplayer and also buy the Asset Pack- That will solve everyones issues in regards to the online play.

3. I cant say this enough to you, All im doing is pushing the reasons to why a majority of the people i play with wont buy the asset pack. Im not here to solve that problem but ill try and help from the feedback i get, if i can.

We've gone back and forward many numerous times, and yet it seems you feel im personally responsible for every link ive pushed forward from other people.

My argument from day one:
I love DCS, I want to play DCS, I want to support the Warbird part of the game, I do by purchasing warbirds, maps and packs.
I build campaigns, I make videos, but no matter how many times i try and 'convince new players' to get on board. They dont.
Because of the points ive highlighted.
I approach forums, explain the reasons to why others arent or im not 100% happy with this part of the game, people talk to me like im offending their mother because im not 100% happy (95% deffo) despite my investment of time and money.
I understand why. But that still doesnt solve the part of the game myself and the others i pointed to crave, thats suffering from low numbers.

Thats been and gone. Weve discussed it over and over.
Ive not even started the conversation about it, im supporting Op. and it doesnt mean i wont support another who has the same worries that i do next week.

The team have told me theyve a plan. Good enough for me.. I Cant wait. And if that plan works ill be happy, it it doesnt, i wont and i dont think the players that share these worries will be either..
Ive two options with regard the problems were experiencing. I ignore it. I share my worries when a relevant post comes up.

My friends see value in DCS, they love DCS. They all own nearly all the modern modules and some even own a few Warbirds, But like your analogies, The products just dont add up.
With direct comparison in with the modern modules, and maps are accessible to anyone in the modern game, the Warbirds arent.
There's nothing new, Ive given you all my insight, and done my utmost to portray why they feel they can 'expand into that aspect of the game'.
You can keep questioning here so we can keep on boring people, or you can come back to the DM's and let everyone do their own thing.
But if another person comes along with a point thats valid, wether it be this one, or another ill keep on sticking by them, because were all on the same team.

The best thing i can advise you, is to start another topic on the things you love (or hate).
Despite my attempts to support Op, you seem to be hung on me personally.

Try this from a different perspective.
Ive noticed you havent started a new topic of discussion with regards the subject youve brought up numerous times in many differing threads?
Am i to suggest the reason you havent done that is that youve chosen not to support your own subject of the DCS 'Ground War'?
Because no matter how many times you shoe horn that into other discussions, if wont pick up traction until you start a discussion in the correct topic.
Im just curious to understand why we are still going around in circles, when you could be gathering support for the module you seek?

Lets end this now, Ill say youre right, and we can all move on.


Edited by StevanJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, StevanJ said:


I dont know why youve brought the conversation here when we were talking in DM's? Why carry on here, when the conversation was better had in the personal messages?...

...Lets end this now, Ill say youre right, and we can all move on.

 

With all due respect Steve, I am not the one that brought the discussion back here. You asked me to join you in a private discussion, and I happily did that. My last message to you was Wednesday evening, and instead of responding to me, you moved the discussion back here Thursday morning.

 

This is not about "BEING RIGHT" Steve. We are part of a community where ideas are shared freely, but I see a fundamental misstep in the argument you are pushing that is worth fighting for because I want to see the ground war get more support, not less.

 

As a SIM, it goes without saying that realism is top on the agenda, and assets are a very important and integral part of that realism. If we take the Super Carrier as an example, the deck crews/handlers are what brings it to life. The feeling you get sitting in your F18 as you are queued up on the catapult for launch is that you are actually sitting in a real F18. That feeling of really being there is the reason most here paid $80 for the F18, another $40 for the carrier, and an untold amount on video cards, monitors, flight sticks, and a long list of other goodies to make it all REAL. 

 

I expect that this will be the initial mission of Battlefield productions if the proposal goes forward. Bringing the airfields to life will help to greatly enhance the SIM experience. If you don't see any value in enhancing the realism of DCS world, then I have to wonder if you haven't lost touch with the reason you came to the SIM in the first place. The hope I was expressing in the other thread was that in addition to this initial first mission, the armored ground vehicles and AI infantry would also receive much needed support. Again, what would amount to another major realism booster.

 

The connection between the WWII Assets pack and the ground war is that you can't drive/fight in a Tiger tank in Combined Arms unless you have the WWII Assets pack. I bought the Assets pack and Combined Arms together, so I have never tried to open CA without the WWII Assets installed, but I am pretty sure that is how it  works.

 

To address what seems to be your main concern, my advice would be to choose the map that corresponds to the MP server you want to fly on. You only have to purchase the WWII Assets pack once to be able to access any and all of the servers that use it regardless of the map.

 

Regarding the assets themselves, the biggest problem I have with your argument is that it places both ED and the WWII side of DCS in a negative light in an unfair way. While I agreed with you in our private conversation that building the cost of the assets into the final price of the maps could work, it seems that there is an historical reason as to why and how the WWII side of DCS developed. And this likely includes the WWII Assets pack as well.

 

But IMO, we should actually be thanking ED for the efforts they made to support this community. I believe ED is doing me a great service by giving me the option to choose. Instead of charging me an extra $10/map, they have separated the products and are allowing me to choose the ones I want. Its much cheaper for me to pay $15 for the assets once, then to pay an extra $10 for each map. This strategy will make even more sense to the community after the new Marianas map roles out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

With all due respect Steve, I am not the one that brought the discussion back here. You asked me to join you in a private discussion, and I happily did that. My last message to you was Wednesday evening, and instead of responding to me, you moved the discussion back here Thursday morning.


Im still looking at the reply i sent you, you ignored it.
I came back here to reply to Ray and Redcoat- Not you. As i was talking to you in DM (still waiting for the reply too).
I even validate a post youve made that i forgot to respond to.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

This is not about "BEING RIGHT" Steve. We are part of a community where ideas are shared freely, but I see a fundamental misstep in the argument you are pushing that is worth fighting for because I want to see the ground war get more support, not less.


We've addressed this, the ground war has 0 to do with Op's post.
Its a conversation that needs to be started in Combined Arms.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

As a SIM, it goes without saying that realism is top on the agenda, and assets are a very important and integral part of that realism. If we take the Super Carrier as an example, the deck crews/handlers are what brings it to life. The feeling you get sitting in your F18 as you are queued up on the catapult for launch is that you are actually sitting in a real F18. That feeling of really being there is the reason most here paid $80 for the F18, another $40 for the carrier, and an untold amount on video cards, monitors, flight sticks, and a long list of other goodies to make it all REAL. 


We've addressed this also, the supercarrier is not a required asset and does nothing to equate to Op's post.
Its off topic, and has no bearing on Op's post.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I expect that this will be the initial mission of Battlefield productions if the proposal goes forward. Bringing the airfields to life will help to greatly enhance the SIM experience. If you don't see any value in enhancing the realism of DCS world, then I have to wonder if you haven't lost touch with the reason you came to the SIM in the first place. The hope I was expressing in the other thread was that in addition to this initial first mission, the armored ground vehicles and AI infantry would also receive much needed support. Again, what would amount to another major realism booster.


We've address this in that thread, this is also not relevant to Op's topic.
Its also a conversation that needs to be started in Combined Arms.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

The connection between the WWII Assets pack and the ground war is that you can't drive/fight in a Tiger tank in Combined Arms unless you have the WWII Assets pack. I bought the Assets pack and Combined Arms together, so I have never tried to open CA without the WWII Assets installed, but I am pretty sure that is how it  works.


Yes, But if you buy just the asset pack YOU STILL - CAN NOT drive the assets. Which is not relevant to Op's post.
Which is a discussion that needs to be started in Combined Arms.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

To address what seems to be your main concern, my advice would be to choose the map that corresponds to the MP server you want to fly on. You only have to purchase the WWII Assets pack once to be able to access any and all of the servers that use it regardless of the map.


Yes! YOU ARE RIGHT! THIS IS MY ARGUMENT -Hence why Op pointed this out, and I argued for him. No one should have to purchase anything to access servers.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Regarding the assets themselves, the biggest problem I have with your argument is that it places both ED and the WWII side of DCS in a negative light in an unfair way. While I agreed with you in our private conversation that building the cost of the assets into the final price of the maps could work, it seems that there is an historical reason as to why and how the WWII side of DCS developed. And this likely includes the WWII Assets pack as well.


Im allowed to have an opinion on a part of the game i think needs improving.
Im also allowed to support OTHERS, if they share an view i believe is valid.

 

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But IMO, we should actually be thanking ED for the efforts they made to support this community. I believe ED is doing me a great service by giving me the option to choose. Instead of charging me an extra $10/map, they have separated the products and are allowing me to choose the ones I want. Its much cheaper for me to pay $15 for the assets once, then to pay an extra $10 for each map. This strategy will make even more sense to the community after the new Marianas map roles out.


You arent doing your homework- Go through the discussions started and the posts made, you find lots of comments/discussions like this.

Youll find a URL in my profile where ive dedicated much of my time to highlighting AWESOME videos made BY OTHERS in the game (among others), Youll find cinematic videos ive made where ive also done my best to create 'Hype for DCS WW2', And youll find Missions and Campaigns which are rated highest in the community.
And despite that, You argue with ME- Not redcoat, and Not OP, because i fight for the discussion in hand- Despite numerous times youve pushed the discussion off topic.

What have you done for DCS, and your fight for the 'ground war'? Because ive politely asked you to start a discussion, and suggested ill come join you and validate your points.
Done everything i can to approach a discussion with you, and yet youre still here, arguing with me?

Now, were going around in circles. The conversation is seriously not worth carrying on in this thread.
Come back to the DM's or start a conversation about the 'Ground War' and send me the link.


Edited by StevanJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...