Jump to content

RIO/WISO/Crew Packages in Store


CsfDeathDemon
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, CsfDeathDemon said:

We could as a community just say "hey if you don't want to fly a plane you're not welcome in our game."  but that feels kinda shitty.  We could get more people interested by experiencing the game fully and they might decide later that they want to try flying. 

 

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that. Assume there is someone who says "I'd love to experience the outdoors and fishing of Far Cry 5, but don't want to shoot" - they'll still have to get the full license just to be able to do that. It's not the community that is stifling that someone's call of nature until they develop a taste for shooting. FC is a shooter. People come to shoot. DCS is a flight sim. People come to fly. Both games also offer other experiences, but they tend to be side shows. Sure, there will be people who are fascinated by those experiences, but neither the community not the vendors are behaving unkind when they tell someone that they have to pay the full admission even if they are only interested in the side show. People are always welcome. And they all have to pay the entrance fee. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that. Assume there is someone who says "I'd love to experience the outdoors and fishing of Far Cry 5, but don't want to shoot" - they'll still have to get the full license just to be able to do that. It's not the community that is stifling that someone's call of nature until they develop a taste for shooting. FC is a shooter. People come to shoot. DCS is a flight sim. People come to fly. Both games also offer other experiences, but they tend to be side shows. Sure, there will be people who are fascinated by those experiences, but neither the community not the vendors are behaving unkind when they tell someone that they have to pay the full admission even if they are only interested in the side show. People are always welcome. And they all have to pay the entrance fee. 

 

I agree with that point but we are looking at different pricing models.  The only way to buy far cry is to pay for the game.  DCS is more modular where you can pick your poison so to speak.  People can already play DCS in just ground vehicles, without ever touching an aircraft.  The guy who wants to RIO will probably end up just driving tanks most of the time when the RTS elements are implemented because he doesn't care to fly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you consider that only about 10% of DCS players do multiplayer and the limited appeal of a non-piloting MP-only aircraft module, I can’t imagine this suggestion would be feasible. If somebody wants to buy in cheap to the F-14 then the easy option that’s already available is to wait for a sale. 


Edited by SharpeXB

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, cfrag said:

This pre-assumes a couple of points that need substantiation:

It’s an easy thing to confirm. Go online and look. There are only about half a dozen populated servers (excluding training or aerobatics) where you could actually fly the F-14. All of those will only be running the latest version so when the OB cycle comes along, you’ll need to run that in order to play online. If not then there won’t be any other option. 


Edited by SharpeXB

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats how IL2 does it. as long as you have one if their battlepack you can be a tank gunner if you don't have the Tamk Crew Module. and you can be a gunner in of the WW1 plane if you dont have flying circus module.

 

I do believe being able to join non flying seat with reduce or even no charge would be benificial

 

ps. I know that stating other games is against the rules. but with the recent interview where ED said they like BMS dynamic campaign, we could probably give the rule a bit more lenient🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

All of those will only be running the latest version so when the OB cycle comes along, you’ll need to run that in order to play online. If not then there won’t be any other option.

Yes there will be. In fact, there already is, and always have been, a number of other options.

Again, this is just some assumption you're making based on what can only be a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how DCS multiplayer works. Either that, or you wilfully skipped out on the other presuppositions that invalidate your “problem”.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you imagined problem is just that: imaginary. The game has already solved it. The problem doesn't exist.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ustio said:

Thats how IL2 does it. as long as you have one if their battlepack you can be a tank gunner if you don't have the Tamk Crew Module. and you can be a gunner in of the WW1 plane if you dont have flying circus module.

 

I do believe being able to join non flying seat with reduce or even no charge would be benificial

 

ps. I know that stating other games is against the rules. but with the recent interview where ED said they like BMS dynamic campaign, we could probably give the rule a bit more lenient🙂

Kinda a strange rule.  However, without mentioning the name again, did you find that system made the game more accessible to more players?   Did it make the game better? 

5 hours ago, Furiz said:

ED said that in an interview not on the forums. The rule you are talking about is a forum rule.

 

And so what that other game has that? does DCS has to have it?

Looking at other games is important.  No need to reinvent the wheel, no need to suffer the same mistakes or miss out on successes because you only focus on what you're doing. 

 

Really appreciate everyone commenting and having this discussion.   I'm out of town and trying to post from my phone which is hit or miss.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s an easy thing to confirm. Go online and look. There are only about half a dozen populated servers (excluding training or aerobatics) where you could actually fly the F-14. All of those will only be running the latest version so when the OB cycle comes along, you’ll need to run that in order to play online. If not then there won’t be any other option. 

 

 

Hmm. No contest on the OB overhang in dedicated servers.

 

But: How large is the percentage of people playing on privately hosted ad-hoc servers (using the convenient Multiplayer self-hosting option) versus public stand-alone servers? I have no idea, but it would not surprise me to learn that the vast majority of on-line players are not playing dedicated, but player-hosted servers. And (I assume, as I have no data) that could be the most important factor in deciding viability of such a feature. 

 

Then again, the entire point is mostly moot from my perspective, as I agree with your opinion that the MP slice of DCS players seems lamentably thin - too thin for a MP-only, RIO-only license to make financial sense (do you have any source for the 10% number? I heard is was even lower, but never could get any hard facts - I'm hoping it is higher) 


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CsfDeathDemon said:

Kinda a strange rule.  However, without mentioning the name again, did you find that system made the game more accessible to more players?   Did it make the game better? 

 

Oh absolutely. Me and some friends manage to fully crew a tank on a public server. And only 1 of us have the tank crew module.

 

The same goes for Ju-88 only some of us have the required module to fly the Ju-88, but we manage to fully crewed the gun position. We did ended up dying together, but it was a blast and we had some laugh


Edited by ustio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cfrag said:

Then again, the entire point is mostly moot from my perspective, as I agree with your opinion that the MP slice of DCS players seems lamentably thin - too thin for a MP-only, RIO-only license to make financial sense (do you have any source for the 10% number? I heard is was even lower, but never could get any hard facts - I'm hoping it is higher)

Lol @ asking him for sources for his headcanon. 🤣 Anyway…

 

When it comes to the financial sense, though, what costs are you envisioning that would make it not worth-while? All it really is is a slot restriction — something that is already in place in the code — for something that also already exists. It's a lower price for a lesser capability, with the point being that this is low enough a threshold to create sales that otherwise wouldn't happen. Even if they're few in numbers, that's still more than the zero that would be the alternative, hence the question of what the cost would be to create that added revenue?

 

I could conceivably see some support costs, but any issues would already have to be handled by the regular licensees since they'd see the same problems.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

When it comes to the financial sense, though, what costs are you envisioning that would make it not worth-while? All it really is is a slot restriction — something that is already in place in the code — for something that also already exists. It's a lower price for a lesser capability, with the point being that this is low enough a threshold to create sales that otherwise wouldn't happen. Even if they're few in numbers, that's still more than the zero that would be the alternative, hence the question of what the cost would be to create that added revenue?

 

I could conceivably see some support costs, but any issues would already have to be handled by the regular licensees since they'd see the same problems.

 

Not knowing anything about the processes at ED I would just guess (back of an envelope) that there are some effort attached to the following steps, split between ED and Heatblur

  • negotiate profit split with Heatblur, amend contract
  • set up a separate product with marketing material, make sure people (potential customers) understand the difference and restrictions (reputation risk) as well upgrade path, set up and test sales channel(s), and have the new, more restricted license checked for possible compliance issues (notoriously: GDPR)
  • create a separate license (SKU) for RIO-only
  • make sure RIO-only licenses can be upgraded automatically, create upgrade process, test, deploy
  • implement restriction code for RIO-only in the model 
  • regression test the two licenses in same model, including upgrading a license
  • change the manual accordingly

I'd say we are looking at combined 10-20 days of effort, probably more. With an arbitrary price tag of 500 USD per day, you'll have to make some 15000 USD to break even, not counting support nor actual marketing of the product. So we are looking at 15k to produce a product without actually launching it. If we can sell the RIO license at 25 USD, some 15 USD would remain with ED/Heatblur for their profit split. So the question is: will ED sell 1'000 units of the restricted license just to cover creation cost? And remember that later selling an upgrade does not count as win, but loss against the restricted license. I have no idea what the all-important sales projection for such a restricted license would be. My gut feeling is that they won't be able to move enough units to recap their investment (at least not in the first year)

 

Please remember - those numbers are purely made out of thin air and some (poorly) educated guesses on my side.

 

[Edit: Note that silly me is bad at calculating numbers in my head. The 15k initial effort figure feels ok, but numerically it's less. Let's still run with 15k because it makes the rest easier. The point is: launching a product, even if it's a derivative, is anything but free]

 


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cfrag said:

(do you have any source for the 10% number? I heard is was even lower, but never could get any hard facts - I'm hoping it is higher) 

It’s the first item in this interview with Simon from ED. Also discussed are the crewed modules and the observation that hardly anyone uses the back seat  So a multiplayer-only crew-only module in DCS seems like a tough sell  

 

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s the first item in this interview with Simon from ED. Also discussed are the crewed modules and the observation that hardly anyone uses the back seat  So a multiplayer-only crew-only module in DCS seems like a tough sell

Could it be that it's so rarely used because, if you buy the full module, it's because you want to fly the plane and you spend the most of the time in the front seat for the reasons Simon suggests, leaving people less familiar with the back seat and also less able to find someone who's willing to spend time there. You're assuming cause where there might be effect. It's also kind of funny how they keep discussing the design multicrew in a way that is actually completely contrary to how the game factually already works. I guess that's just GR videos for you. 😆

 

And given what he actually says in the segment you didn't really link to, it shouldn't be a hard sell if they're actually going to give MP the level of attention he's saying they will. Quite the opposite: this would be exactly the kind of change that would help achieve that goal.

 

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

Not knowing anything about the processes at ED I would just guess (back of an envelope) that there are some effort attached to the following steps, split between ED and Heatblur

Ok. That's a decent list. Some of them seem a bit overdramatic to state as added costs since they are already in place and inherent in the business they're already running. The two main points I can see left outstanding are the upgrade path (which we sort of already have with other upgradeable modules), and the update to the manual.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Ok. That's a decent list. Some of them seem a bit overdramatic to state as added costs since they are already in place and inherent in the business they're already running. The two main points I can see left outstanding are the upgrade path (which we sort of already have with other upgradeable modules), and the update to the manual.

 

That's fair 🙂 - I have no knowledge of ED's inner workings. I was simply extrapolating from similar activities of mine with other companies I work for. To me it's always amazing to see how much additional effort needs to be exerted before and after the software itself is done. Points being: it's never free, and 15k is really next to nothing for such activities.


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s the first item in this interview with Simon from ED. Also discussed are the crewed modules and the observation that hardly anyone uses the back seat  So a multiplayer-only crew-only module in DCS seems like a tough sell  

 

That is a great point and thank you for the reference material.  Do you think people don't use the crew seats because they are like you and I where we would rather be flying and since we own the module why not fly?  Or, because a lack of interest in the second seat.   I feel like because we are so specific with our market the backseaters might not have a license to sit there which makes a confirmation bias.   What are your thoughts? 

24 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

That's fair 🙂 - I have no knowledge of ED's inner workings. I was simply extrapolating from similar activities of mine with other companies I work for. To me it's always amazing to see how much additional effort needs to be exerted before and after the software itself is done. Points being: it's never free, and 15k is really next to nothing for such activities.

 

I think that is a pretty good stab at it.   I have no idea either how it would shake out and the costs.  I personally know 3 people that would buy Rio seats for at least 1 aircraft.  That purchase in turn would encourage me to buy a full license for 2 more aircraft so I can fly them.  Remember it's not just the sales of the rio seat that are factored but how many full licenses are sold because you can now 2 seat a plane you didn't want to buy because ai.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ustio said:

Oh absolutely. Me and some friends manage to fully crew a tank on a public server. And only 1 of us have the tank crew module.

 

The same goes for Ju-88 only some of us have the required module to fly the Ju-88, but we manage to fully crewed the gun position. We did ended up dying together, but it was a blast and we had some laugh

 

Awesome!  Thanks for the personal anecdote to substantiate the post.   I think fully crewed aircraft adds a level of immersion and fun to missions.  Also I think it would bring more people into the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, CsfDeathDemon said:

That is a great point and thank you for the reference material.  Do you think people don't use the crew seats because they are like you and I where we would rather be flying and since we own the module why not fly?  Or, because a lack of interest in the second seat.   I feel like because we are so specific with our market the backseaters might not have a license to sit there which makes a confirmation bias.   What are your thoughts? 

 

I believe there was a very important additional point that ED Simon (thanks @SharpeXB for the link) made that perhaps gives some insight info the make up of "Joe Multiplayer": their session averages 25 minutes. Meaning: Joe is most likely not a Hard Core player (those routinely require 15 minutes for briefing and start-up alone, then wait patiently for their flight's slot time, finding themselves behind a tanker at minute 65 before they start their ingress), but rather casual. I'm not entirely sure what that means for viability of RIO-only licenses, but finding a casual pilot with whom you can effectively train the rather difficult RIO task will not be easy, if not depressing. So you must pre-arrange a flight for any effective training. Anyone who is flying in a virtual squadron knows how much fun that can be. Now imagine you must go through that process every single time you want to fly (shudder).

 

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm definitely not opposed to the idea. I'd love to see a more flexible approach to models and other aspects of the game (the new trials are a great step; multi-crew slots are a logical next step; making them free on some planes could be something to discuss). In this particular instance (selling a very limited experience) I simply see great challenges for making this a successful product. Stranger things have happened (don't ask), but the current picture seems rather stacked against a good experience for RIO-only licenses. 


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

I believe there was a very important additional point that ED Simon (thanks @SharpeXB for the link) made that perhaps gives some insight info the make up of "Joe Multiplayer": their session averages 25 minutes. Meaning: Joe is most likely not a Hard Core player (those routinely require 15 minutes for briefing and start-up alone, then wait patiently for their flight's slot time, finding themselves behind a tanker at minute 65 before they start their ingress), but rather casual. I'm not entirely sure what that means for viability of RIO-only licenses, but finding a casual pilot with whom you can effectively train the rather difficult RIO task will not be easy, if not depressing. So you must pre-arrange a flight for any effective training. Anyone who is flying in a virtual squadron knows how much fun that can be. Now imagine you must go through that process every single time you want to fly (shudder).

 

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm definitely not opposed to the idea. I'd love to see a more flexible approach to models and other aspects of the game (the new trials are a great step; multi-crew slots are a logical next step; making them free on some planes could be something to discuss). In this particular instance (selling a very limited experience) I simply see great challenges for making this a successful product. Stranger things have happened (don't ask), but the current picture seems rather stacked against a good experience for RIO-only licenses. 

 

That's actually some really interesting information, as I have never played in a hard-core server.  

 

My friends and I host a private server with through the inferno maps loaded.  You are usually over target within 5-10 min of takeoff.   Then again do new pilots who are learning their aircraft join on those missions or do only experienced pilots come in? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CsfDeathDemon said:

Do you think people don't use the crew seats because they are like you and I where we would rather be flying and since we own the module why not fly?  Or, because a lack of interest in the second seat.

Well consider this. As far as I know (I don’t own the F-14) there’s no SP way to play as the RIO, is there? So since 90% of players are SP-only that means hardly anyone gets the chance to try this role. I wonder if upcoming modules like the Apache will give you an AI pilot so you can fly as the gunner. I would think it will have to. 

48 minutes ago, cfrag said:

info the make up of "Joe Multiplayer": their session averages 25 minutes. Meaning: Joe is most likely not a Hard Core player

Joe Player in any game will not be “hardcore” and the 25 minute session seems typical for any game. That’s a reason MP is so less popular in flight sims, simply because you need to be connected for such a long session. Sure it would be possible I suppose to make quick action dogfight servers in DCS but I don’t see those. 

Velocity Micro PC | Asus Z97-A | i7-4790K 4.7GHz | Corsair Liquid CPU Cooler | 32GB DDR3-1600MHz Memory | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC | 240gb Intel 520 Series MLC SSD | 850 W Corsair PSU | Windows 10 Home | LG 32UD99-W UHD Monitor | Bose Companion 5 Speakers | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I believe there was a very important additional point that ED Simon (thanks @SharpeXB for the link) made that perhaps gives some insight info the make up of "Joe Multiplayer": their session averages 25 minutes. Meaning: Joe is most likely not a Hard Core player (those routinely require 15 minutes for briefing and start-up alone, then wait patiently for their flight's slot time, finding themselves behind a tanker at minute 65 before they start their ingress), but rather casual. I'm not entirely sure what that means for viability of RIO-only licenses, but finding a casual pilot with whom you can effectively train the rather difficult RIO task will not be easy, if not depressing. So you must pre-arrange a flight for any effective training. Anyone who is flying in a virtual squadron knows how much fun that can be. Now imagine you must go through that process every single time you want to fly (shudder).

This is true enough, but I wonder how much of a limitation that would be for the intended audience. Or perhaps rather, what would the audience actually be to begin with?

 

The whole idea sounds a whole lot more like something you'd see promoted (or even gifted) within existing communities. Of course, that goes right back to the question of price point — if it's a low threshold, they'd be sprinkled over any newbie even daring to mention the number 14, even partially, and irrespective of context. If it's a higher one, it would still probably rank pretty highly on all kinds of “get these modules first” lists.

 

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Well consider this. As far as I know (I don’t own the F-14) there’s no SP way to play as the RIO, is there?

Of course there is. It's like in every other multi-crewed module.

 

It was actually hilarious to listen to that segment of the video, when they made the comparison with how you could flip between stations in other games and then said “that's not the DCS way”. So presumably, they are saying that half the modules — in particular the more thoroughly simulated ones — should be removed from the DCS store page since that's exactly how they do it.  😄 

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CsfDeathDemon said:

That's actually some really interesting information, as I have never played in a hard-core server.  

 

My friends and I host a private server with through the inferno maps loaded.  You are usually over target within 5-10 min of takeoff.   Then again do new pilots who are learning their aircraft join on those missions or do only experienced pilots come in? 

 

I don't think session time is a matter of experience. Some pilots I unjustly called 'Hard Core' before. Other monikers may be better fitting - these pilots enjoy playing a more realistic mission profile: briefing, cold-start, package assembly, coordinated flights and time on target etc. It's not seldom for these pilots to be shot down after more than an hour's flight without ever coming in sight of their destination or deliver a single ordnance on target. These pilots enjoy the entire experience itself; it's a different play style that says nothing about experience, ability nor anything else. And there are (from the stats probably a majority since the session time average is so low) pilots who emphasize and enjoy a vertical aspect (usually combat) of the game more than other parts. They often hot-start or air-start their models, and are in the thick of fight within minutes, and apparently leave equally fast. Again, no better or worse players, just a different taste in play styles. And there are of course players in-between those two ends of the spectrum (still, I wonder how many: 25 minute average (not median, average ) session time is awfully short). 

 

IMHO (and I'm greatly simplifying and unjustly generalizing here, people!) if you get a "full experience" pilot, you can potentially have a much more complete learning experience as RIO, because these players tend to have read all the manuals (really. Not just the ones supplied by ED), have the patience of gods, know about all their airframe's systems, and willingly impart their knowledge to you. They also tend to be sticklers for protocol (pretty much a prerequisite for this kind of flying, as following protocol is what enables most of it), and this can cause friction if you yourself are of the "vertical aspect" persuasion. The more action-oriented "vertical" players on the other hand tend to be more forgiving of horse play, are more likely to allow a Rando into their RIO slot, and on average have less detailed knowledge about their avionics except those that they require for their vertical slot. Training sessions will obviously also be shorter.

 

Now, many public servers run a mix of mission profiles like the excellent "Through the Inferno" that cater more to the vertical players, and the "full experience" pilots tend to participate in arranged flights (often with pre-mission briefs via teleconferencing) on private dedicated servers, or pre-announced long-missions. Again, there is no good nor bad, just different play styles. Personally, I was thankful and intensely happy to find the "Rescue" servers, as they allow me to fly short helo rescue missions when I only have an hour or so to fly. Longer missions (120-180 minutes) I usually only fly in a closed group of friends on a private server; I've never flown a mission that was designed to last longer than three hours. As you can see, everyone is different 🙂 

 

 


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cfrag said:

[ good stuff ]

There's also the standard caution on average values, especially time periods.

Given how even a hot start will have some inherent downtime before you get to the action (to say nothing of getting back, if that's your jam) it quickly starts sounding awfully low, unless the number of airquake/right-into-the-dogfight-action servers has been massively underestimated.

 

There's a better than average (ha!) chance that those session times don't follow a standard distribution., but rather more of a bath tub curve: on the one hand, lots of sessions where the player just logs in, checks his settings, tries that single thing he needed to look up, checks the map state, checks the user list for who else is flying and logs off after all of 5 minutes; on the other hand, the “full package” player who, when he logs in, stays for the full 1–2 hours of a mission (or two).

 

As always, averages are rather anaemic without at least an accompanying median value to at least give a hint of the overall skew of the statistics.

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Well consider this. As far as I know (I don’t own the F-14) there’s no SP way to play as the RIO, is there? So since 90% of players are SP-only that means hardly anyone gets the chance to try this role. I wonder if upcoming modules like the Apache will give you an AI pilot so you can fly as the gunner. I would think it will have to. 

Joe Player in any game will not be “hardcore” and the 25 minute session seems typical for any game. That’s a reason MP is so less popular in flight sims, simply because you need to be connected for such a long session. Sure it would be possible I suppose to make quick action dogfight servers in DCS but I don’t see those. 

I believe there is an iceman ai that will fly in SP.  I don't really know anything about that AI, or how it works.   My two weeks of renting the 14, my buddy Rio'd for me the entire time... I don't even know how jester works. 

 

We only use quick action because we have guys who only have 30 min to play after putting the kids down and we don't want to exclude them.  I think with the rts updates we will see more quick action servers, because they can be made better. 

 

4 hours ago, Tippis said:

This is true enough, but I wonder how much of a limitation that would be for the intended audience. Or perhaps rather, what would the audience actually be to begin with?

 

The whole idea sounds a whole lot more like something you'd see promoted (or even gifted) within existing communities. Of course, that goes right back to the question of price point — if it's a low threshold, they'd be sprinkled over any newbie even daring to mention the number 14, even partially, and irrespective of context. If it's a higher one, it would still probably rank pretty highly on all kinds of “get these modules first” lists.

 

Of course there is. It's like in every other multi-crewed module.

 

It was actually hilarious to listen to that segment of the video, when they made the comparison with how you could flip between stations in other games and then said “that's not the DCS way”. So presumably, they are saying that half the modules — in particular the more thoroughly simulated ones — should be removed from the DCS store page since that's exactly how they do it.  😄 

 

If there was a $20 rio package I would have already gifted a couple of them,  to try and get my buddies interested.  I can't gift them a plane because they don't want to fly and don't want to learn right now.   They do want to pew pew though 😆

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

I don't think session time is a matter of experience. Some pilots I unjustly called 'Hard Core' before. Other monikers may be better fitting - these pilots enjoy playing a more realistic mission profile: briefing, cold-start, package assembly, coordinated flights and time on target etc. It's not seldom for these pilots to be shot down after more than an hour's flight without ever coming in sight of their destination or deliver a single ordnance on target. These pilots enjoy the entire experience itself; it's a different play style that says nothing about experience, ability nor anything else. And there are (from the stats probably a majority since the session time average is so low) pilots who emphasize and enjoy a vertical aspect (usually combat) of the game more than other parts. They often hot-start or air-start their models, and are in the thick of fight within minutes, and apparently leave equally fast. Again, no better or worse players, just a different taste in play styles. And there are of course players in-between those two ends of the spectrum (still, I wonder how many: 25 minute average (not median, average ) session time is awfully short). 

 

IMHO (and I'm greatly simplifying and unjustly generalizing here, people!) if you get a "full experience" pilot, you can potentially have a much more complete learning experience as RIO, because these players tend to have read all the manuals (really. Not just the ones supplied by ED), have the patience of gods, know about all their airframe's systems, and willingly impart their knowledge to you. They also tend to be sticklers for protocol (pretty much a prerequisite for this kind of flying, as following protocol is what enables most of it), and this can cause friction if you yourself are of the "vertical aspect" persuasion. The more action-oriented "vertical" players on the other hand tend to be more forgiving of horse play, are more likely to allow a Rando into their RIO slot, and on average have less detailed knowledge about their avionics except those that they require for their vertical slot. Training sessions will obviously also be shorter.

 

Now, many public servers run a mix of mission profiles like the excellent "Through the Inferno" that cater more to the vertical players, and the "full experience" pilots tend to participate in arranged flights (often with pre-mission briefs via teleconferencing) on private dedicated servers, or pre-announced long-missions. Again, there is no good nor bad, just different play styles. Personally, I was thankful and intensely happy to find the "Rescue" servers, as they allow me to fly short helo rescue missions when I only have an hour or so to fly. Longer missions (120-180 minutes) I usually only fly in a closed group of friends on a private server; I've never flown a mission that was designed to last longer than three hours. As you can see, everyone is different 🙂 

 

 

 

 

I would say we go for that middle we cold start on a through the inferno, which is a great way to train.   I also love the rescue missions, ready for that blackhawk mod lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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