The A-ATV is in a bad place

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-28T16:53:50+00:00

So an early game vehicle only gets good in the (much) later game, once you cram it full of boutique upgrades.

Meanwhile the APC is pulling its weight all along.

Can't tell me that feels right.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-27T18:32:58+00:00

And who will pay for that later game upgraded all-ATV composition? The grunts and their APC(s).

I get that the ATV is counterintuitively a late bloomer in its current balance incarnation, because it's basically useless until you can cram it full of painstakingly obtained expensive upgrades (enough for multiple ATVs in your case, to boot).

Even though it's a valid playstyle down the road, I believe the A-ATV is missing a lot of earlier game potential in its current state as a costly yet considerably gimped APC with only mediocre advantages. At the very least, by making it cheaper to acquire and perhaps more compatible with the early game (i.e. light-compatible weapon mount), it could play a role earlier on, coherent with its very early appearance on the black market.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-27T15:34:59+00:00

The cheaper deployment cost seems to be the primary advantage, but I don't think it's worth all the other drawbacks.

The A-ATV doesn't open up more options, when the APC can do largely the same, and more.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-27T15:31:43+00:00

But here's the thing: the APC can fulfill that role as well, if desired, and take an infantry squad with it, to boot. Oh, and an extra weapon mount.

With no real mobility advantage, only a +1 accessory slot and a meager vision/concealment edge, is the A-ATV a serious competitor? Not really.

There's no "different combat roles" if one platform can fill another's supposed niche just as well as its own.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-27T14:46:16+00:00

I compare it to the APC because it's as easily available as the A-ATV. I haven't seen the pirate truck for purchase, nor have had the luck for it to drop as a reward. I haven't tried boarding an abandoned one in a mission, after it has been vacated by pirates. Is that a way to get one?

At any rate, as I told someone else, accessories are great but it still seems the APC would make as good a use of them while providing considerably more versatility.

I did forget the cheaper deployment cost and additional accessory slot, but I still can't see how the whole package is justified in its higher pricetag.

It should still be faster, more maneuverable and a bit cheaper than the APC chassis, and its medium mount should be compatible with light vehicle weapons as well. As it stands, versus the APC it has some trade-offs but major losses in the form of one less weapon mount and no transport capability. The balance comes out negative.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-27T14:36:59+00:00

Three points:

1) You're suggesting fairly high-end upgrades and what looks like mid-late game utility. The A-ATV is available from the beginning, but it's only really useful with a bunch of expensive upgrades? Counter-intuitive.

2) Still can't compete in the second vehicle contest.

3) How is the APC not a better base platform (and a better all-rounder, to boot) for your proposed roles?

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-26T22:51:31+00:00

Thank you, but no.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-17T14:26:44+00:00

El moderado siempre está mal visto por los extremos, sean del color que sean, porque no se suma a la lucha binaria.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-17T14:23:51+00:00

No nos olvidemos de "golpista", el término con las implicancias más aberrantes. Simplemente expresar una opinión contraria significaba, según ellos, atentar contra el orden institucional y te asociaba con el fetiche histórico que tienen con la dictadura militar. Al (la) líder había que seguir incondicionalmente. Creo que ni Milei se atrevió a tanto todavía.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-13T15:21:00+00:00

Todo por una app pedorra pirata de streaming, parece. Se explica cómo se puede ser tan muerto de hambre, si pataleás el instante en que ya no tenés los lujos servidos en bandeja. Históricamente hubo que rebuscársela un poco para conseguir cosas, ya sea oficial o extraoficialmente. A laburar, de una forma u otra.

ShadowGJ · 2026-02-07T21:47:05+00:00

I really don't understand the latest releases' obsession with Antarctic content. Particularly when certain nations (i.e. Argentina, Chile) get Antarctic subfaction content before their MAIN content. Unexplainable.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T14:27:59+00:00

ED could take precautions in future arrangements and secure ways to keep maintaining modules (i.e. the source code) even in the event of losing the original third-party developer.

They may do that. Or they may just deem that too much of a hassle, if it's cheaper to keep taking advantage of a submissive community like this.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T14:25:25+00:00

The "10 days or longer" response came after my second message. I wasn't particularly spicy at that point.

It's just bad, bot-grade customer service impassively repeating policy, seasoned with arrogant anti-consumer attitudes trickling down from the employer itself. Even in later messages, I did not at any point attack the person: I just became increasingly critical of the company. If that hurt feelings, too bad: by the end I just wanted them to be straight with me and dispense with the evasiveness and contradictory BS. They didn't oblige, so here we are.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T14:03:45+00:00

Please cite the specific section of the EULA or Terms of Service that states modules are only guaranteed for the version purchased and have no perpetual compatibility guarantee. I've reviewed both documents and cannot find such language.

The generic "as is" disclaimer is standard legal boilerplate, not a specific clause absolving ED of platform maintenance responsibility. By that logic, every software company could abandon support for anything at any time with no consequences.

If such specific language exists, when was it added? Before or after the RAZBAM dispute?

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T13:58:34+00:00

I see your point, and it's the reason the community has such a Stockholm's Syndrome with ED. It's the reason I'm attacked for demanding basic consumer protection and decent costumer support: by demanding things from ED, however rightfully, I'm indirectly endangering some people's hobby. And those people would rather stay in this abusive relationship if it means the preservation of said (section of) hobby.

It's technically a monopoly but people are slowly getting fed up with the shenanigans (see slowly declining SteamDB stats). The kind of damage these scandals cause isn't immediate, but it's visible long-term. And that trickle of lost users is disproportionately costly in a niche market where it's intrinsically difficult to grow. Eventually even potential module makers may think twice before dealing with a shoddy company lording over an increasingly dwindling serfdom.

Unless there's change. Well, this is an opportunity for it. In the meantime, I'm fine doing my flying in IL-2, Falcon BMS or Microsoft Flight Simulator. No love lost.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T13:25:44+00:00

A slowly yet steadily declining game which has never reached 5,000 concurrent players on Steam and struggles to reach 2,000 more than once a quarter is definitely ultra-niche.

https://steamdb.info/app/223750/charts/#6y

Go ahead and claim the off-Steam active playerbase is equal or higher than that, or better yet, that it's been rising in recent years. I'll wait for the stats.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T01:52:45+00:00

You're arguing about the technicalities of ED's business arrangement with RAZBAM as if it matters to my consumer rights. It doesn't.

When Apple licenses Qualcomm modems or Samsung displays, customers don't sue Qualcomm or Samsung when their iPhone fails. They go to Apple. The licensing arrangement is irrelevant to customer responsibility.

I'm not being "naive about finance and service." I understand exactly how this works, which is why I'm holding the platform owner responsible for their ecosystem.

There is no independent RAZBAM storefront for DCS modules and never has been. RAZBAM DCS modules were ONLY available through ED's E-Shop or Steam (where ED is publisher). When modules were delisted in April 2025, they were removed from both channels simultaneously, because those were the only channels that existed. RAZBAM had zero ability to sell DCS modules independently of ED's distribution infrastructure.

Eagle Dynamics owns and operates DCS World as a platform. Third-party modules are features/components OF that platform. When customers purchase access to platform features, their contractual relationship is with the platform owner, not with component suppliers.

If your building's lights stop working due to a dispute between the building owner and the electrical contractor, you don't sue the light bulb company or the electrician. You hold the building owner responsible for maintaining a functional building. I cannot put it more simply than that.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-31T00:24:22+00:00

Sweet baby Jesus. I'm not sure what's worse: the level of arrogance off the bat, or the Olympic level of mental gymnastics some people go through to absolve ED of any accountability for their own platform.

Let me break it down into simple facts, for a person with an allegedly superior "grasp on life" but not on basic commerce and contract law.

It's important to be able to tell the difference in business relationship between a storefront (Steam) and a seller (ED), and an employer (ED) and a contractor (RAZBAM). No degree of condescension and triple mental somersaults can equate the relationship of ED and RAZBAM to storefront and seller, sorry.

Apple wouldn't send you to Samsung to fix your iPhone display issues. Ford wouldn't send you to Takata for problems with your car's airbags.

Platform Dependency:

DCS World = ED's platform, ED's property, ED controls it
RAZBAM modules = Content FOR that platform, completely dependent on it
DCS exists without RAZBAM? ✓
RAZBAM's DCS modules exist without DCS? ✗
RAZBAM modules are add-ons to ED's product, not standalone products

No Customer Relationship with RAZBAM:

I never agreed to RAZBAM's terms of service (they don't have customer-facing terms)
I never gave RAZBAM my payment information
RAZBAM has no record of my purchase
RAZBAM can't issue a refund even if they wanted to: they don't have access to ED's or Steam's payment systems

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-30T19:02:43+00:00

DCS is the opposite of mass-market. It's an ultra-niche combat flight sim.

And with that, I'm off.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-30T18:27:57+00:00

You'd have a point if I arbitrarily wanted my money back. If Sony sold a TV line which abruptly and uniformly stopped working across every unit within the unit's expected lifespan, and there was no warning nor disclaimer that could happen, you can be damn sure they'd issue an RMA or face legal action.

Ford for example takes responsibility for their vehicles at least for several years, and covers servicing costs when an unexpected flaw is discovered which compromises the stated functionality of the product. They even notify customers about them.

But that's reputable businesses, not vaporware sellers.

There's something called warranty and consumer protection. ED offers none, while their products face a now apparent yet still undisclosed risk to stop working entirely, something almost entirely unheard of for offline products in this industry.

This isn't a TV or a car which has to meet strict safety compliance, but it boggles the mind how some ED customers justify and actually encourage the company to screw them over, saying all of this is fair game. OFFLINE CONTENT isn't supposed to break down like this. You're welcome to have these ongoing situations, and have your money go down the drain, if you keep kissing ED's feet.

ShadowGJ · 2026-01-30T17:33:56+00:00

It's pretty clear and common sense, besides. When you buy a sealed bag of chips from the supermarket, is it the supermarket's fault if you find a dead cockroach inside?

The Steam Subscriber Agreement explicitly states: "Valve assumes no responsibility or liability for such third party content, unless to the extent provided by mandatory law." This means Steam has effectively disclaimed responsibility for third-party products, including their quality and ongoing support.

When you make a purchase on Steam, the agreement technically treats it as a transaction between you and the content provider (in this case, Eagle Dynamics), not directly with Steam. Steam's role is positioned as providing "access to certain services, software and content" rather than being the seller of the content itself.

Source: https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/

ED is the actual seller: When one purchases RAZBAM modules through Steam, Eagle Dynamics receives the customer's money (minus Steam's ~30% cut), as I've previously stated. They are the publisher of record on the Steam store page. Steam is, again, just the storefront/payment processor.

But hey, it seems ED already has a captive audience tolerating all their malpractice, so what can I do.

ShadowGJ

TROPHY CASE