Jump to content

Assets pack please


AvgeekJoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Ok, fair enough..

 

To be honest, I create missions because I just like doing it. But I guess I'm going off topic once again.

 

On the matter of paid asset packs. It also quite depends on the extent of the packs. I guess I'm afraid that we'd be heading in a microtransaction kinda direction...

If they were to add these packs, I'd certainly hope they would make them big. I'd rather see one huge asset pack, for a ff module price (or even double that if necessary), than seeing all kind of small $10 asset packs..

I agree completely. It will be interesting to see what ED does with the WWII Pacific stuff for the Marianas. Will they create a whole new pack, include it with the map, or add to the current pack?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So weve just been given the Xian H-6 for free, The question is why was this for free?
And not part of a DLC Asset Pack- I mean we all want to support DCS with module purchases right?
Surely they'd allow us to buy the DLC pack with all the Chinese Assets in it?

ED isnt that stupid, they know what would happen if they tried to charge the 'new market' for assets..
However, they also know that us 'mature gamers', are used to the other flight sims that have come along, and the way they used to do business.

They cant approach the kids and say 'buy this DLC target pack' it just wont fly.
If we look carefully over the last 2 years, nearly every youtuber has tried (and failed) to get new users into some sort of WW2 server.
You can see the numbers on the new GS WW2 server. Its down to a total of 6 players as of this moment and guess what, its 2 weeks after it launched.
Last night in my normally prime time it was 7.. And 5 of the players werent even in the air..

Why have i paid for the Asset Pack, and still not seeing the same amount of Assets coming through that pack, that ED are giving away for free to the FA18 customers..
While us 'mature gamers' are fans of the game, and want to do 'everything we can' to help ED', the newer players that are coming through and into the game, arent here in this forum.

The habits of younger players- who game, have changed, and now the same person that buys the FA18 gets one hell of a decent game for their money.
They dont get anything like the same game for MORE of their money, in Warbirds.


 

Quote

Your focus shouldn't be on the person that wont play your mission, it should be on the person that will!


While yes' we can be ignorant to users that 'wont' play our 'Asset Pack' missions, its more about the focus on the person that 'Cant' play our missions..
A majority of people (including youtubers) are ploughing bad reviews into the Asset Pack, and ED's lack of awareness towards the MP game, and the younger people that want to take the game over, are actively damaging Warbirds with bad press.
This is because us older folk, are far too stubborn to accept change, in welcoming new players come into the game.

Young gamers shouldnt be treated like fools, theyre the generation who will own the Warbird game in 10-20 years..
Instead of having one standard towards Assets and A/Packs- Like we do in the modern game, we have two standards.. And thats why we have two very different opinions in this forum.
 

19 hours ago, sirrah said:

Ok, fair enough..

 

To be honest, I create missions because I just like doing it. But I guess I'm going off topic once again.

 

On the matter of paid asset packs. It also quite depends on the extent of the packs. I guess I'm afraid that we'd be heading in a microtransaction kinda direction...

If they were to add these packs, I'd certainly hope they would make them big. I'd rather see one huge asset pack, for a ff module price (or even double that if necessary), than seeing all kind of small $10 asset packs..


Ive heard were going that way anyway..


Edited by StevanJ
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StevanJ said:

So weve just been given the Xian H-6 for free, The question is why was this for free?

Why have i paid for the Asset Pack, and still not seeing the same amount of Assets coming through that pack, that ED are giving away for free to the FA18 customers..
While us 'mature gamers' are fans of the game, and want to do 'everything we can' to help ED', the newer players that are coming through and into the game, arent here in this forum.

"The habits of younger players- who game, have changed, and now the same person that buys the FA18 gets one hell of a decent game for their money.
They dont get anything like the same game for MORE of their money, in Warbirds.
"

 

See how that worked, you posted something and I read it!

 

Here's my response.

 

I get the point your trying to make. One could easily argue whether ED did the right thing by making a number of the WWII assets free, as they run the risk of making the people who bought WWII assets feel left out. But notice that the WWII assets pack is still listed as "EARLY ACCESS", so there is always hope that the early supporters can still expect it to be filled out.

 

But at the same time, I also sense that it was an effort to help grow interest in DCS WWII, which is a good thing IMO. Imagine if there were no free maps and planes, and the only way you could experience DCS World would be to purchase a map and plane of your choice from the get go? I think the barrier to attract new people would be much higher under those circumstances. So what we have at the moment are a couple free maps with two free planes, free trial periods, and to help make game play a little more interesting, a few free assets.   

 

But to answer your question more directly, the H-6 is a post WWII asset that is being supplied by a third party. I have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship that exists between ED and DEKA, but I am quite happy to receive anything they are willing to model for the community. Does this mean that I shouldn't buy the WWII assets pack if that is the era I am interested in? No it does not IMO.

 

Have you ever considered the price difference between the P-51 and the F/18? I'm not saying it's an obligation of ED's, but I see having a few extra assets for the modern jet scenarios I might want to make as a good thing. 

 

2 hours ago, StevanJ said:

While yes' we can be ignorant to users that 'wont' play our 'Asset Pack' missions, its more about the focus on the person that 'Cant' play our missions..

I think this point of view goes against current market trends quite frankly. All you have to do is google what the average gamer spends on gaming in a year to realize the "Can't" in your statement cannot be true.

 

I recognize that some here have gotten stuck in an argument that seems to be based on principle, and regardless of where those principles lay, the petty cost of the Assets pack especially when it is on sale can hardly be seen as a serious factor.

 

I encourage anyone with an interest in WWII mission making to get the assets pack and make the most interesting missions you can with it. It doesn't take long for news of something really interesting to travel. And who knows, someone with your talent Stevan could easily turn the energy you spend arguing against it on the forums into something more positive like this:

 

 

campaign.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

"The habits of younger players- who game, have changed, and now the same person that buys the FA18 gets one hell of a decent game for their money.
They dont get anything like the same game for MORE of their money, in Warbirds.
"

 

See how that worked, you posted something and I read it!

 

Here's my response.

 

I get the point your trying to make. One could easily argue whether ED did the right thing by making a number of the WWII assets free, as they run the risk of making the people who bought WWII assets feel left out. But notice that the WWII assets pack is still listed as "EARLY ACCESS", so there is always hope that the early supporters can still expect it to be filled out.

 

But at the same time, I also sense that it was an effort to help grow interest in DCS WWII, which is a good thing IMO. Imagine if there were no free maps and planes, and the only way you could experience DCS World would be to purchase a map and plane of your choice from the get go? I think the barrier to attract new people would be much higher under those circumstances. So what we have at the moment are a couple free maps with two free planes, free trial periods, and to help make game play a little more interesting, a few free assets.   

 

But to answer your question more directly, the H-6 is a post WWII asset that is being supplied by a third party. I have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship that exists between ED and DEKA, but I am quite happy to receive anything they are willing to model for the community. Does this mean that I shouldn't buy the WWII assets pack if that is the era I am interested in? No it does not IMO.

 

Have you ever considered the price difference between the P-51 and the F/18? I'm not saying it's an obligation of ED's, but I see having a few extra assets for the modern jet scenarios I might want to make as a good thing. 

 

I think this point of view goes against current market trends quite frankly. All you have to do is google what the average gamer spends on gaming in a year to realize the "Can't" in your statement cannot be true.

 

I recognize that some here have gotten stuck in an argument that seems to be based on principle, and regardless of where those principles lay, the petty cost of the Assets pack especially when it is on sale can hardly be seen as a serious factor.

 

I encourage anyone with an interest in WWII mission making to get the assets pack and make the most interesting missions you can with it. It doesn't take long for news of something really interesting to travel. And who knows, someone with your talent Stevan could easily turn the energy you spend arguing against it on the forums into something more positive like this:

 

 

campaign.jpeg


This is such a poor argument...

Who could argue that? Are you arguing that? Im not..
EA, Yes.. And while im waiting for an appropriate amount of assets to be released for the air, sea and civil units, weve just recieved another tank..
You can find it described as 'DCS: WWII Asset Pack will be receiving yet another free of charge update.' - I mean that sentence is bordering on patronising, we should be grateful yeah?

Again, the free stuff we have for modern- Is not even on the level we have for stuff for warbirds and we've all paid to contribute to that pack being developed.. And its not growing at a rate that the free stuff is.. You work that out.

The asset pack is being supplied by a third party. Notice how modern assets are being released free, nearly every update, and yet were still only getting tanks while waiting long and far for the paid assets?

The difference between the P-51 and the FA18

image.png
So, whats the difference in cost- between the two modules? If a new user wanted to purchase each of these campaigns?

How much would it cost for me to play your campaign in the P51, vs how much would it cost to play mine in the FA18?

The 'cant' in my statement..  Notice the first and most upvoted comment, and then the name that goes with it?
My arguments are not a personal vendetta towards ED, My arguments are for the player base.
I want a larger player base, Ive waited, Ive struggled to watch people try and grow it, and nothing has happened so far.

Why would anyone wait for the asset pack to go on sale? Which is my point- Everyone with a brain, waits for the sales- Youve given us the number one reason for NOT buying the module, they are naturally far too expensive...

Something more Positive.. Show me what youve spent your energy on...
 

What i know,
We will always get modern assets for free (because the new users that plow their pocket money into that part of the game, will NEVER pay for them)..
Warbirds will always be second fiddle and at a higher cost, because it only sells to the mature player, and the model is wrong to attract the new players..
EA only works for ED, not the customer..


Edited by StevanJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@StevanJ, its not that I think your argument is poor, its that I think it is misdirected. An issue that repeats in your posts is that you seem to think DCS World is overpriced, and there is really no argument I can offer to counter that view point because it is essentially 100% subjective.

 

Aside from the fact that both you and I have absolutely no insight into how ED works as a company or the amount of work it has to do to realistically simulate something like an F/A-18 Hornet, all that can be said on this point is that my view is completely opposite to yours. I don't think DCS World is overpriced at all, and I believe it offers excellent value as a REAL digital combat learning simulator. A digital combat simulator that strives for realism in everything it does.

 

You wouldn't be the only one disappointed with the amount of time it takes to develop any of the DCS World modules/assets/maps, but I think the fact that it does should give us a clue as to the amount of work required and associated costs vs the available resources.

 

But I think this discussion has run its course, and I don't see how you and I will resolve anything in a circular argument about subjective view points, especially when you seem intent on purposely misinterpreting/misdirect my comments.

 

Case-in-point, you suggested that anyone buying into DCS WWII doesn't get the same value for their money as someone buying into the modern modules in DCS World.

 

Truth be told, If I bought the Hornet, and you bought the Mustang, we could both use the free maps to create missions/game play on. Now if we wanted to add a purpose built map for our planes of choice, I might buy the Persian Gulf, and you might by Normandy map. So far not too bad, although I would have spent a little more than you at this point. Then we both might want to add a tech pack to add even more options/realism to our game play, so I might buy the Super Carrier and you might buy the WWII assets pack. Again, you seem to be coming out a little ahead in terms of money spent. At this point, we might also want to add even more immersion so we both add Combined Arms, which costs the same regardless of the era you are interested in. The point isn't the subjective value you assign to any of the above mentioned modules, the point is that road maps and the reasons/decisions used to form them are complex, and now you are complicating the matter even further by throwing a third party into the mix. I doubt very much that you are privy to the relationship between ED and Deka, let alone where the incentive comes from to make the Chinese assets pack.

 

So while the purpose of my question to you regarding the cost of WWII vs modern era and the availability of related assets was clear, you reference cost of the available campaigns to purposefully misinterpret/misdirect my question. The cost of the Hornet is almost double the cost of the Mustang, and the cost of the Persian Gulf map and related Tech Pack for modern era scenarios also costs more than their WWII counterparts.

 

But as a conclusion to my contribution to this thread, I will leave you with this thought; follow in the footsteps of Reflected Simulations and provide an Eagle Dynamics recognized WWII campaign for sale on its website that requires either the P-51/P-47, the WWII assets pack, and either the Channel or Normandy maps, and I will give two free copies of the WWII assets pack to any two members of your group in support of your efforts. That is a serious offer, and you can PM me if you would like to discuss it further.          

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

and I don't see how you and I will resolve anything in a circular argument about subjective view points, especially when you seem intent on purposely misinterpreting/misdirect my comments.


You are wasting your time debating with this person, I have him on the ignore list to preserve my enjoyment of visiting this Forum.

  • 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 comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

 

@StevanJ, its not that I think your argument is poor, its that I think it is misdirected. An issue that repeats in your posts is that you seem to think DCS World is overpriced, and there is really no argument I can offer to counter that view point because it is essentially 100% subjective.

 

Aside from the fact that both you and I have absolutely no insight into how ED works as a company or the amount of work it has to do to realistically simulate something like an F/A-18 Hornet, all that can be said on this point is that my view is completely opposite to yours. I don't think DCS World is overpriced at all, and I believe it offers excellent value as a REAL digital combat learning simulator. A digital combat simulator that strives for realism in everything it does.

 

You wouldn't be the only one disappointed with the amount of time it takes to develop any of the DCS World modules/assets/maps, but I think the fact that it does should give us a clue as to the amount of work required and associated costs vs the available resources.

 

But I think this discussion has run its course, and I don't see how you and I will resolve anything in a circular argument about subjective view points, especially when you seem intent on purposely misinterpreting/misdirect my comments.

 

Case-in-point, you suggested that anyone buying into DCS WWII doesn't get the same value for their money as someone buying into the modern modules in DCS World.

 

Truth be told, If I bought the Hornet, and you bought the Mustang, we could both use the free maps to create missions/game play on. Now if we wanted to add a purpose built map for our planes of choice, I might buy the Persian Gulf, and you might by Normandy map. So far not too bad, although I would have spent a little more than you at this point. Then we both might want to add a tech pack to add even more options/realism to our game play, so I might buy the Super Carrier and you might buy the WWII assets pack. Again, you seem to be coming out a little ahead in terms of money spent. At this point, we might also want to add even more immersion so we both add Combined Arms, which costs the same regardless of the era you are interested in. The point isn't the subjective value you assign to any of the above mentioned modules, the point is that road maps and the reasons/decisions used to form them are complex, and now you are complicating the matter even further by throwing a third party into the mix. I doubt very much that you are privy to the relationship between ED and Deka, let alone where the incentive comes from to make the Chinese assets pack.

 

So while the purpose of my question to you regarding the cost of WWII vs modern era and the availability of related assets was clear, you reference cost of the available campaigns to purposefully misinterpret/misdirect my question. The cost of the Hornet is almost double the cost of the Mustang, and the cost of the Persian Gulf map and related Tech Pack for modern era scenarios also costs more than their WWII counterparts.

 

But as a conclusion to my contribution to this thread, I will leave you with this thought; follow in the footsteps of Reflected Simulations and provide an Eagle Dynamics recognized WWII campaign for sale on its website that requires either the P-51/P-47, the WWII assets pack, and either the Channel or Normandy maps, and I will give two free copies of the WWII assets pack to any two members of your group in support of your efforts. That is a serious offer, and you can PM me if you would like to discuss it further.          


No, You seem to think its overpriced.. I buy modules on EA release day. Youre openly waiting for sales before buying them..

If you honestly dont believe DCS World is overpriced.. Buy the Yak now, stop waiting for sales..

The next paragraph can be answered by the search engine. We all know how much work goes into a module, They tease us, then it goes to EA, then it goes to module complete.

This discussion ran its course weeks ago, buy you keep quoting me so here we are in the midst of yet another pointless discussion with regard personal opinion.

Truth be told- Here you are yet again, not reading the question and side tracking the question by pushing the conversation Off Topic.
Heres a forum mod and his opinion on the openly suffering MP game (granted it was before the release of the GS server- lets see how that does).
The question was how much to play the campaign YOU recommended to me, vs how much to play the campaign I recommended to you.
All you had to do is add up the module, and the requirements..
You point refuse to answer. This is the poor argument i talk of.
Despite the majority views towards the subject of any assets. You just cant help but argue and swerve the question..
So i dont think you and i will ever reach a point where you'll be empathetic to the general opinion of assets.

I dont care if the relationship is goods between ED and third parties, I care if the product i buy isnt performing how it should be.
And thats the bottom line.

As a conclusion, youre suggesting i make a Campaign (which i know im good at) with the Asset Pack - For ED to sell on its website? That i have to maintain for the rest of my life after ED's Open Beta patch breaks it? That is two things i dont ever want to do.
My campaigns are free to everyone. Not just those who buy the Asset pack.
Not only that, the AP isnt optimised and runs like kack on my friends machine..  So no..

Well thats offensive, you feel a campaign is worth £80 of my time? Well now i know your trolling..
 

3 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:


You are wasting your time debating with this person, I have him on the ignore list to preserve my enjoyment of visiting this Forum.


Hey man, did you manage to complete Schnellkampfgeschwader 10 I. Gruppe?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@StevanJ
Have you ever considered that 80 percent are SP players and that maybe all of them (at least if you're into WWII) have purchased the asset pack?
I just checked the DLC campaigns. Only ONE of them doesn't require the asset pack. Even Reflected's F-86 campaign require it.
I do understand you want more players to the DCS WWII MP scene, and that you are very frustrated because it doesn't happen. And you maybe right that it should be free. I can even agree to that it would be a great idea to bake in the asset cost into maps and modules.
But right now I feel you're flogging a dead horse, and your stance is well known to us all.
Best of luck!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk



  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

@StevanJ
Have you ever considered that 80 percent are SP players and that maybe all of them (at least if you're into WWII) have purchased the asset pack?
I just checked the DLC campaigns. Only ONE of them doesn't require the asset pack. Even Reflected's F-86 campaign require it.
I do understand you want more players to the DCS WWII MP scene, and that you are very frustrated because it doesn't happen. And you maybe right that it should be free. I can even agree to that it would be a great idea to bake in the asset cost into maps and modules.
But right now I feel you're flogging a dead horse, and your stance is well known to us all.
Best of luck!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk


 


Thanks for the support, All im doing is responding to a user.
Youd never hear about it from me, if said user wouldnt start the conversation with me.
Ive asked, Ive pleaded and yet here we are..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Thanks for the support, All im doing is responding to a user.
Youd never hear about it from me, if said user wouldnt start the conversation with me.
Ive asked, Ive pleaded and yet here we are..
Okay, might have missed that part.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 8:27 PM, Callsign112 said:

But here's the thing, why should the people that bought the assets pack concern themselves with the people that haven't? If they don't want to purchase the assets pack, and this in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps, then the only question that pops into my mind is, are they sure they want to be here? I think most here have likely spent well over $1000.00 to be able to enjoy DCS. And I seriously question anyone's intentions that tries to build an argument on principle, when the principle being discussed is the bread and butter on someone else's plate.

Easy. Your friends dont have it, you cannot play it with them. This is the absolute principle of DLC division.

  • Thanks 2

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:


You are wasting your time debating with this person, I have him on the ignore list to preserve my enjoyment of visiting this Forum.

You are probably right, I mean what are you supposed to think when someone's point of view is that you don't value something if you purchased it on sale? Where I come from, the value of something increases when on sale. It makes me wonder though if the community sees someone making a purchase during a sale as not supporting/valuing DCS World, how does the same community see a friend who refuses to purchase regardless of a sale?

 

And what should you think if after offering to support someone in recognition of their work, they not only return the favor with insults by suggesting your offered support wasn't good enough, but they accuse you of trolling as well? I mean aside from trying to sincerely help increase the size of someones MP squadron by providing free access to the WWII Assets pack, which is apparently a pretty big issue for some, you would think it would be obvious that any financial gain from a proposition like that would come from sales, not the amount of support given to incentivize the work. But that misunderstanding might also help explain how someone could believe that an open Beta patch update could somehow only affect missions sold on a website.  

 

 And if that isn't rich enough, apparently it is because I am constantly quoting him that has caused him to continue contributing to this discussion. Apparently he has asked and pleaded, but forgets that he was the one doing the following after my response to sirrah and Aarnoman last Thursday at 11:37. 

 

And while I am also being accused for side stepping/not reading questions, the question I asked which was never answered but simply sidestepped with another question was whether consideration was ever given to the price difference between the Mustang and the Hornet. The cost of campaign requirements is a mute point because campaigns can be made with, or without requirements. Everyone has access to the mission editor, and specific assets/maps are not a requirement.  But regardless of the campaign and or its requirements, it cannot be used unless you own the plane module needed to complete it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pikey said:

Easy. Your friends dont have it, you cannot play it with them. This is the absolute principle of DLC division.

But that is like saying you can only play on-line games that you have in common with your friends. Isn't that common sense?

 

If you have an on-line game that your friend doesn't own, how do you expect to play it with him/her if they have no interest in owning it?

 

The question was, why should you concern yourself with the fact that your friend doesn't own a game you bought? How many people check with all their friends to make sure they all like a game before buying it? If that sounds reasonable to anyone, then the onus is on them to check if all their friends approve. Having failed to do that likely means they will just have to live with the fact that they bought a game their friends don't like. Most people make purchases based on their own interests, not someone else's.

 

And if your friend wants to belong to your group, wouldn't it make more sense to leave it up to him to meet the groups requirements, instead of expecting the group to conform to the single player? If you are the only one in the group that owns the assets pack, then the first question is why did you buy it, and the second question is why complain endlessly about it on a forum? You bought it, if you don't like it then chalk it up to experience and move on because no one is forcing you to use it to make mission you know your friends wont/can't/refuse to play. The whole argument sounds like nothing more than TROLL bait.


Edited by Callsign112
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been somewhat following this discussion.  I'm just going to say acutely:

 

a) We need more assets in DCS, period.

 

b) There should be a way for folks to get the assets for the missions.  Every mission I write will have a readme w/ links to the assets.

 

c) If the player is not up to downloading the assets pack and/or add-ons for the mission, then no mission.  The assets packs and add-ons exist for a reason, to tell a more dynamic story.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You are probably right, I mean what are you supposed to think when someone's point of view is that you don't value something if you purchased it on sale? Where I come from, the value of something increases when on sale. It makes me wonder though if the community sees someone making a purchase during a sale as not supporting/valuing DCS World, how does the same community see a friend who refuses to purchase regardless of a sale?

 

And what should you think if after offering to support someone in recognition of their work, they not only return the favor with insults by suggesting your offered support wasn't good enough, but they accuse you of trolling as well? I mean aside from trying to sincerely help increase the size of someones MP squadron by providing free access to the WWII Assets pack, which is apparently a pretty big issue for some, you would think it would be obvious that any financial gain from a proposition like that would come from sales, not the amount of support given to incentivize the work. But that misunderstanding might also help explain how someone could believe that an open Beta patch update could somehow only affect missions sold on a website.  

 

 And if that isn't rich enough, apparently it is because I am constantly quoting him that has caused him to continue contributing to this discussion. Apparently he has asked and pleaded, but forgets that he was the one doing the following after my response to sirrah and Aarnoman last Thursday at 11:37. 

 

And while I am also being accused for side stepping/not reading questions, the question I asked which was never answered but simply sidestepped with another question was whether consideration was ever given to the price difference between the Mustang and the Hornet. The cost of campaign requirements is a mute point because campaigns can be made with, or without requirements. Everyone has access to the mission editor, and specific assets/maps are not a requirement.  But regardless of the campaign and or its requirements, it cannot be used unless you own the plane module needed to complete it.

 

 


He is 100% right, you need to stop talking to me. We cant agree on anything and thats never going to change.

You insultingly offered me 2 assets packs, to me- in offer i build a campaign for the people WITH the asset pack.
Firstly, what about the 30+ other people in my discord i fly with that dont buy the pack, because of the awful reviews? Am i to pick who can and cant fly on my new campaign?
Secondly, 2 Asset packs are £80- Thats just over one hours work in my profession.

Everyone has access to the ME, I dare you to make one decent mission in the ME. A good mission can take upwards of 2 weeks to get right and test and most times i build them with someone else.
Would you do two weeks work for £80 when a campaign has 6-12 missions?
Near all the campaign designers do it part time, as it doesnt cover living expenses.

The cost of requirement is a mute point to you, are you to suggest, I buy a campaign and then swap the required map/asset/module just so i can use it on caucasus? Do you know how much work that would entail? No, because you havent built your own campaign yet.
The cost of requirement is not amute point to the majority, which is why we have such a huge devide over this subject.

Now lets just say were friends, move on, and never quote each other ever again..
 

 

8 hours ago, Pikey said:

Easy. Your friends dont have it, you cannot play it with them. This is the absolute principle of DLC division.


On the Money..

 

5 hours ago, AvgeekJoe said:

Been somewhat following this discussion.  I'm just going to say acutely:

 

a) We need more assets in DCS, period.

 

b) There should be a way for folks to get the assets for the missions.  Every mission I write will have a readme w/ links to the assets.

 

c) If the player is not up to downloading the assets pack and/or add-ons for the mission, then no mission.  The assets packs and add-ons exist for a reason, to tell a more dynamic story.


Really great points.. Number 1 is a given... I cant help but wish we'd get some civilian assets. Or feedback towards the assets we can expect to recieve.

 


Edited by StevanJ
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

 

 


Really great points.. Number 1 is a given... I cant help but wish we'd get some civilian assets. Or feedback towards the assets we can expect to recieve.

 

 

 

Thanks.  Insurgent assets are key to me for now.  There is some work on what I have in mind by some good humans:

 

 

We also need some drones - at least US, Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Turkish in that order!  Ditto shore-based anti-ship missiles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AvgeekJoe said:

 

Thanks.  Insurgent assets are key to me for now.  There is some work on what I have in mind by some good humans:

 

 

We also need some drones - at least US, Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Turkish in that order!  Ditto shore-based anti-ship missiles.


Insurgent would be great for both the Hind and the new Apache.
Turkish is definitely a welcome for Syria too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AvgeekJoe said:

Been somewhat following this discussion.  I'm just going to say acutely:

 

a) We need more assets in DCS, period.

 

b) There should be a way for folks to get the assets for the missions.  Every mission I write will have a readme w/ links to the assets.

 

c) If the player is not up to downloading the assets pack and/or add-ons for the mission, then no mission.  The assets packs and add-ons exist for a reason, to tell a more dynamic story.

 

Personally I wouldn't want my own missions (or DCS in general) to rely on user created mods and with that, also rely on its creators to keep those mods working at all times.

 

Mods tend to be awesome and great, until they break..

 

I'd rather see ED add assets to their core game (perhaps, as far as possible, implement user made mods in the game)

 

Also, what hasn't been discussed here yet, is the amount of complexity and realism these "asset packs" should have.

I mean, I'd be really happy to see some technicals added to the game, but for me they don't necessarily need to be drivable in CA. This would probably considerably reduce the amount of time and resources required to make such a model. As it wouldn't require interior modeling and could perhaps do without too many details..

(Just trying to open a new direction in this discussion)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

System specs:

 

i7-8700K @stock speed - GTX 1080TI @ stock speed - AsRock Extreme4 Z370 - 32GB DDR4 @3GHz- 500GB SSD - 2TB nvme

HP Reverb G1 v2 - Saitek Pro pedals - TM Warthog HOTAS - TM F/A-18 Grip - TM Cougar HOTAS (NN-Dan mod) & (throttle standalone mod) - VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus with ALPHA-L grip - Pointctrl & aux banks <-- must have for VR users!! - Andre's SimShaker Jetpad - Fully adjustable DIY playseat - VA+VAICOM

 

~ No war today... the enemy just called in sick ~ GUMMBAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, sirrah said:

 

Personally I wouldn't want my own missions (or DCS in general) to rely on user created mods and with that, also rely on its creators to keep those mods working at all times.

 

Mods tend to be awesome and great, until they break..

 

I'd rather see ED add assets to their core game (perhaps, as far as possible, implement user made mods in the game)

 

Also, what hasn't been discussed here yet, is the amount of complexity and realism these "asset packs" should have.

I mean, I'd be really happy to see some technicals added to the game, but for me they don't necessarily need to be drivable in CA. This would probably considerably reduce the amount of time and resources required to make such a model. As it wouldn't require interior modeling and could perhaps do without too many details..

(Just trying to open a new direction in this discussion)


I mean I cant agree with this enough. Even having Assets for Nevada that werent controllable would be a great start.
Ambulances, Tv trucks, Police, News Choppers (Kiowa without the radar and a normal skin) would add a significant boost to the orientation of mission in Nevada alone, and then with an extra skin for them, they could be used in Syria too.

Id like to see 3d Models placed higher in the priority list, and then added to the core game.

What models would you like to see added sooner rather than later?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StevanJ said:

 


He is 100% right, you need to stop talking to me. We cant agree on anything and thats never going to change.

You insultingly offered me 2 assets packs, to me- in offer i build a campaign for the people WITH the asset pack.
Firstly, what about the 30+ other people in my discord i fly with that dont buy the pack, because of the awful reviews? Am i to pick who can and cant fly on my new campaign?
Secondly, 2 Asset packs are £80- Thats just over one hours work in my profession.

Everyone has access to the ME, I dare you to make one decent mission in the ME. A good mission can take upwards of 2 weeks to get right and test and most times i build them with someone else.
Would you do two weeks work for £80 when a campaign has 6-12 missions?
Near all the campaign designers do it part time, as it doesnt cover living expenses.

The cost of requirement is a mute point to you, are you to suggest, I buy a campaign and then swap the required map/asset/module just so i can use it on caucasus? Do you know how much work that would entail? No, because you havent built your own campaign yet.
The cost of requirement is not amute point to the majority, which is why we have such a huge devide over this subject.

Now lets just say were friends, move on, and never quote each other ever again..
 

 


On the Money..

 


Really great points.. Number 1 is a given... I cant help but wish we'd get some civilian assets. Or feedback towards the assets we can expect to recieve.

 

 

You are answering to a post I sent someone else, and yet just like last Thursday here we are again! That is called a double standard StevanJ. You want to control the public discussion so that it fits your narrative, and if you can't do that, you PM the person in an attempt to remove the part of the story that doesn't fit your narrative from the public eye. And if that doesn't work, you claim your being followed and that someone else is responsible for the discussion that doesn't fit your narrative because they quoted you.

 

Do you realize you just asked me 4 questions while quoting a post that was directed at someone else? This is a public forum StevanJ, and while we have a difference of opinion regarding assets, I am not doing anything different then you are. I am simply stating my opinion. If you don't want to receive comments that oppose your point of view, then you have the option to stop posting them. Others have told you that everyone knows how you feel, I think flogging a dead horse was the way it was put the last time. But you are just as free to continue posting your comments as everyone else is. 

 

Its unfortunate that you feel my offer was meant as an insult, because it really wasn't. I said I would help your group by providing 2 people with access to the assets pack, I didn't say I was going to pay your monthly salary.

 

So here is the logic I used StevanJ; I thought making missions was something you are doing anyway. So I didn't see the time it would take you to make a campaign as anything different from what you are doing now. At the end of your efforts, you might have something with commercial value, so I saw that as potentially being time well spent on your side. I in turn was going to provide 2 people in your group with the assets pack so they could at least try out your new campaign in support of your efforts. I thought that part would help address the issue you keep complaining about here. I mean isn't that the claimed problem? The people in your group can't enjoy all of your hard work because they refuse to purchase the assets pack? 

 

But if the value of 2 copies is only worth an hour of your time, and you don't consider that as being generous enough, then you could as an alternative strategy just donate the 2 copies yourself. Heck you could even wait for a sale and donate the assets pack to 4 people in your group. Its up to you, but I just thought that since this is such a big problem for you, instead of having to repeat it every second day on a forum, you would be happy to find even just a partial solution.... Hence my offer.

 

And my offer was not asking you to pick who can and can't fly the campaign you made. I don't think anyone is asking you to do that. Each individual in your group will decide that for themselves. But this might be the biggest part of your problem. Why do you feel responsible for what the rest of your group does? I mean your the one that bought the assets pack, so if you want to make missions for your group, then you have two obvious options. But the reason you might want to consider making a campaign with the intention of commercializing it on ED's website is not to reach out to just the 30 people in your group, it is to reach out to the thousands of DCS World users.

 

And no I would not do two weeks work for £80, and no one is asking you to do that either. After doing all the hard work, I was offering to help you by making your new campaign available to at least 2 people in your group, 4 if we do it during a sale. And as I have already mentioned, regardless of what the people in your group do, you wouldn't be working two weeks for £80, because you would be creating the commercial possibility of selling it to more than just the people in your group.

 

Regarding a comparison between WWII and modern era modules, the question I asked you was have you ever considered the cost difference between a war bird and a modern jet module? You noted that there are more free assets for modern scenarios. I was just pointing out that in general, the modern jet modules cost more, and there is also a lot bigger selection of jets, so more sales.

 

You can't compare requirements for the different campaigns that are available for the purpose we were discussing. If the intention is to make a fair apples for apples comparison, then you should compare the average cost of one war bird with the average cost of one jet. Anything you add to one side, you have to add to the other to make the comparison fair. Your comparison fails by simply including a campaign with different requirements.

 

And more than that, by bringing one developers campaign requirements into the type of discussion we are having, you are entering into territory that could be seen as impinging on someone else's right to decide what requirements they give their own campaigns. You drawing this into the discussion does little more than call into question another developers design in the guise of a comparison.

 

My offer to help your group in the way that I have suggested still stands. You are welcome to PM me if you would like to discuss it further. Other than that StevanJ, I am just posting my opinion on a public forum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You are answering to a post I sent someone else, and yet just like last Thursday here we are again! That is called a double standard StevanJ. You want to control the public discussion so that it fits your narrative, and if you can't do that, you PM the person in an attempt to remove the part of the story that doesn't fit your narrative from the public eye. And if that doesn't work, you claim your being followed and that someone else is responsible for the discussion that doesn't fit your narrative because they quoted you.

 

Do you realize you just asked me 4 questions while quoting a post that was directed at someone else? This is a public forum StevanJ, and while we have a difference of opinion regarding assets, I am not doing anything different then you are. I am simply stating my opinion. If you don't want to receive comments that oppose your point of view, then you have the option to stop posting them. Others have told you that everyone knows how you feel, I think flogging a dead horse was the way it was put the last time. But you are just as free to continue posting your comments as everyone else is. 

 

Its unfortunate that you feel my offer was meant as an insult, because it really wasn't. I said I would help your group by providing 2 people with access to the assets pack, I didn't say I was going to pay your monthly salary.

 

So here is the logic I used StevanJ; I thought making missions was something you are doing anyway. So I didn't see the time it would take you to make a campaign as anything different from what you are doing now. At the end of your efforts, you might have something with commercial value, so I saw that as potentially being time well spent on your side. I in turn was going to provide 2 people in your group with the assets pack so they could at least try out your new campaign in support of your efforts. I thought that part would help address the issue you keep complaining about here. I mean isn't that the claimed problem? The people in your group can't enjoy all of your hard work because they refuse to purchase the assets pack? 

 

But if the value of 2 copies is only worth an hour of your time, and you don't consider that as being generous enough, then you could as an alternative strategy just donate the 2 copies yourself. Heck you could even wait for a sale and donate the assets pack to 4 people in your group. Its up to you, but I just thought that since this is such a big problem for you, instead of having to repeat it every second day on a forum, you would be happy to find even just a partial solution.... Hence my offer.

 

And my offer was not asking you to pick who can and can't fly the campaign you made. I don't think anyone is asking you to do that. Each individual in your group will decide that for themselves. But this might be the biggest part of your problem. Why do you feel responsible for what the rest of your group does? I mean your the one that bought the assets pack, so if you want to make missions for your group, then you have two obvious options. But the reason you might want to consider making a campaign with the intention of commercializing it on ED's website is not to reach out to just the 30 people in your group, it is to reach out to the thousands of DCS World users.

 

And no I would not do two weeks work for £80, and no one is asking you to do that either. After doing all the hard work, I was offering to help you by making your new campaign available to at least 2 people in your group, 4 if we do it during a sale. And as I have already mentioned, regardless of what the people in your group do, you wouldn't be working two weeks for £80, because you would be creating the commercial possibility of selling it to more than just the people in your group.

 

Regarding a comparison between WWII and modern era modules, the question I asked you was have you ever considered the cost difference between a war bird and a modern jet module? You noted that there are more free assets for modern scenarios. I was just pointing out that in general, the modern jet modules cost more, and there is also a lot bigger selection of jets, so more sales.

 

You can't compare requirements for the different campaigns that are available for the purpose we were discussing. If the intention is to make a fair apples for apples comparison, then you should compare the average cost of one war bird with the average cost of one jet. Anything you add to one side, you have to add to the other to make the comparison fair. Your comparison fails by simply including a campaign with different requirements.

 

And more than that, by bringing one developers campaign requirements into the type of discussion we are having, you are entering into territory that could be seen as impinging on someone else's right to decide what requirements they give their own campaigns. You drawing this into the discussion does little more than call into question another developers design in the guise of a comparison.

 

My offer to help your group in the way that I have suggested still stands. You are welcome to PM me if you would like to discuss it further. Other than that StevanJ, I am just posting my opinion on a public forum.

 

Yeah, I don't care 

 

Thanks though 👍

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2021 at 3:13 AM, Callsign112 said:

But that is like saying you can only play on-line games that you have in common with your friends. Isn't that common sense?

 

If you have an on-line game that your friend doesn't own, how do you expect to play it with him/her if they have no interest in owning it?

 

The question was, why should you concern yourself with the fact that your friend doesn't own a game you bought? How many people check with all their friends to make sure they all like a game before buying it? If that sounds reasonable to anyone, then the onus is on them to check if all their friends approve. Having failed to do that likely means they will just have to live with the fact that they bought a game their friends don't like. Most people make purchases based on their own interests, not someone else's.

 

And if your friend wants to belong to your group, wouldn't it make more sense to leave it up to him to meet the groups requirements, instead of expecting the group to conform to the single player? If you are the only one in the group that owns the assets pack, then the first question is why did you buy it, and the second question is why complain endlessly about it on a forum? You bought it, if you don't like it then chalk it up to experience and move on because no one is forcing you to use it to make mission you know your friends wont/can't/refuse to play. The whole argument sounds like nothing more than TROLL bait.

 

Didn't want to beat the horse any longer since it was dead some time back, but I don't understand why you cannot predict the outcome of only some players having some content on a mission that is available and visible to all.

<List of people who play DCS WW2>                                                         <List of people who have the asset pack DLC>

                                                         <List of people who play WW2 DCS>
                                               <MULTIPLAYER SERVERS running with the asset pack>

The subset of the people that have it and play with is is smaller than the subset of available players in WW2 servers.

@Callsign112 you propose that it doesn't matter, that you shouldnt worry because people that don't buy it don't want to play with it or otherwise don't care enough to be factored in. I get your point and you miss so much.

This viewpoint assumes people aren't looking for anyone outside of a group of people they can name who are prepared to play that specific content - i.e. anonymous/public play. Not neccessarly friends, but all players, to a server, to build up the player counts. More players usually means you have a more interesting game with less downtime, more action. Players make content. The alternative is the DCS AI and if you should know why that is inferior as a fellow DCS enthusiast.

I challenge your opinion is lacking depth. I believe not considering multiplayer population is the single player mindset, "you don't care because it doesn't affect you". I believe you would if you regularly looked through servers without the asset pack and looked for high player counts and tried to find the servers with high player counts and the DLC. You should look at it with someone else's eyes. Me and you might have it. Head for a server and its almost dead because the players that do have the DLC went to a server without the requirement to play with people that didn't have the DLC. This should be pretty obvious, but perhaps only obvious to people who have actually tried multiplayer and looked for games online at random.

Every MP server admin cares about who is coming to play on their server, they all have to consider how open and usable this is for mainstream players bimbling around looking for something to do on an evening. Does it lock people out of playing? The answer is yes, people without, cannot join the server and then you have the fractured community because not only does this affect people who knowingly avoid DLC and don't care, or knowingly chose not to buy it, but it affects people who are browsing for a game.  Amsuingly it also affects admins who accidentally picked an asset pack unit and killed their squadron night too by accident (which is less, but we've all done it sadly)

What is missed is that DLC penalised people that HAVE it, just as much as the people who do NOT. I happen to be one that is is complaining who has it and write missions and people can't play on those servers.

(Attached example reddit complaint which is the nightmare every admin has felt just for the laugh)

So, whilst I'm not aiming to be disagreeable, as an asset pack owner and champion, your opinion doesn't account for the actual real world out there on the server list, the real issues DCS faces low server to player ratios, WW2 players looking for a server and being denied an impulsive night because they didnt consider planning their evening and knowing what the 1500 servers each run and who is on them playing.

image.png


Edited by Pikey
wasn't finished!
  • Like 3

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pikey said:

Didn't want to beat the horse any longer since it was dead some time back, but I don't understand why you cannot predict the outcome of only some players having some content on a mission that is available and visible to all.

<List of people who play DCS WW2>                                                         <List of people who have the asset pack DLC>

                                                         <List of people who play WW2 DCS>
                                               <MULTIPLAYER SERVERS running with the asset pack>

The subset of the people that have it and play with is is smaller than the subset of available players in WW2 servers.

@Callsign112 you propose that it doesn't matter, that you shouldnt worry because people that don't buy it don't want to play with it or otherwise don't care enough to be factored in. I get your point and you miss so much.

This viewpoint assumes people aren't looking for anyone outside of a group of people they can name who are prepared to play that specific content - i.e. anonymous/public play. Not neccessarly friends, but all players, to a server, to build up the player counts. More players usually means you have a more interesting game with less downtime, more action. Players make content. The alternative is the DCS AI and if you should know why that is inferior as a fellow DCS enthusiast.

I challenge your opinion is lacking depth. I believe not considering multiplayer population is the single player mindset, "you don't care because it doesn't affect you". I believe you would if you regularly looked through servers without the asset pack and looked for high player counts and tried to find the servers with high player counts and the DLC. You should look at it with someone else's eyes. Me and you might have it. Head for a server and its almost dead because the players that do have the DLC went to a server without the requirement to play with people that didn't have the DLC. This should be pretty obvious, but perhaps only obvious to people who have actually tried multiplayer and looked for games online at random.

Every MP server admin cares about who is coming to play on their server, they all have to consider how open and usable this is for mainstream players bimbling around looking for something to do on an evening. Does it lock people out of playing? The answer is yes, people without, cannot join the server and then you have the fractured community because not only does this affect people who knowingly avoid DLC and don't care, or knowingly chose not to buy it, but it affects people who are browsing for a game.  Amsuingly it also affects admins who accidentally picked an asset pack unit and killed their squadron night too by accident (which is less, but we've all done it sadly)

What is missed is that DLC penalised people that HAVE it, just as much as the people who do NOT. I happen to be one that is is complaining who has it and write missions and people can't play on those servers.

(Attached example reddit complaint which is the nightmare every admin has felt just for the laugh)

So, whilst I'm not aiming to be disagreeable, as an asset pack owner and champion, your opinion doesn't account for the actual real world out there on the server list, the real issues DCS faces low server to player ratios, WW2 players looking for a server and being denied an impulsive night because they didnt consider planning their evening and knowing what the 1500 servers each run and who is on them playing.

image.png

 


100%


Edited by gamerbwoi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all of this I have a simple solution...  

 

How about $50-70 for an assets pack for mission planners to use and everybody can use those 3D assets to either target or escort?  You can't have them as wingmen/wingwomen and certainly not control them but at least more stuff for mission planners to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pikey said:

I challenge your opinion is lacking depth. I believe not considering multiplayer population is the single player mindset, "you don't care because it doesn't affect you"...

The problem with your challenge is that it wouldn't be against my opinion, it would be against your misconception of what my opinion is.

 

I get that there is a problem with the fact that not everyone has the assets pack. I fully understand the problem that results from that, and I also understand how important it is to grow the multi-player community.

 

But the people causing the division are not the people that purchased the assets pack, or the people that created it.

 

What I said is why should anyone concern themselves with people that choose to be divided?

 

Someone said on an internet forum somewhere that the assets pack wasn't worth it, which may have been the case back when the comment was made, and the current situation is the result.

 

And yet the same guy went out and spent how much on flight sticks/head trackers/video cards/VR headsets/24core CPU's/umpteen different plane modules?

 

I would be willing to bet that every single person that has voiced their opinion against the paid assets has at one time or another posted something in support of better graphics, AI logic, more planes, more jets, more assets blah, blah, blah.

 

Who exactly do you expect to deliver even one item on that list for free? I don't know what you do for a living, but I am pretty sure if someone suggested you start doing it for free, I could guess what your answer would be. 

 

The point is, there are certain people here that go on and on about how they would pay full price for this, and be happy to pay an extra $10 for that if the assets were included. Well I would also bet that those same people wouldn't be happy to actually see the change. And how do you bundle something with something else if the something else has already been bought?

 

So what, you mean all the people that bought the Normandy map, but refused to buy the Assets pack are now going to give ED $15 to have it included with their Normandy map? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? The argument being sold here by a select few is itself meant to create division. I see anyone complaining about having to pay for the very things they support the development of to be selling a disingenuous argument and nothing more. All they are doing is slowing development of the very things they complain are taking too long to get here.

 

If anyone was under the impression that they would buy the most detailed digital simulation of an F/18 Hornet, and that would also include highly detailed maps of every military combat zone it ever flew in, along with any aircraft carriers it might have taken off from, not to mention an accurate representation of every navy/army ship/vehicle/weapon system ever conceived which should include every surface-to-air missile defense system ever made and... oh yeah almost forgot, I want 120 FPS as I'm flying through city skylines even though I only have 2MG of ram in my 1998 apple laptop.

 

I'm with ya brother, and here's a screen shot outside your canopy as you pull up to do a loop. Nice... is there a setting for color?

 

 

horizon.jpg


Edited by Callsign112
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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