xanthus

Registered Users
  • Content count

    5,215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

xanthus last won the day on May 25 2018

xanthus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

119 Salty

About xanthus

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Rifleman
  1. - Obviously the new barracks (a huge visual improvement) have major clipping issues that prevent you from leaving certain exits sometimes. - 10+ year bug: there is a weird, warped, stretched building texture in certain ruins. It's a universal bug that you can even see in the CRS live-streams. It's really bad, immersion-breaking, and just serves to give new players a bad first impression. I'll post a pic later but you probably know what I'm talking about. - Rambo MG34 *MUST* end. Enough is enough already. Not a bug fix, I guess; looking forward to seeing this end once and for all.
  2. Have you seen the infinite number of steam reviews? Go ahead, take a look. I'm the first person to point out that graphics aren't everything; heck, I've publicly argued that CRS should NOT continue working on the UE4 version of the game, and that they should continue to work with the current graphics engine. But obviously graphics matter in a first-person WWII sim. We should stick with the current engine, yes, but improvements to textures and models would go a long way in attracting and retaining players. Graphics aren't everything; players care about gameplay ABOVE ALL, but slightly better graphics would help get them in the door in the first place....and with every year that passes, WWIIOL's graphics look relatively worse and worse. Mind you, I'm only arguing for marginal but steady improvements to graphics (like we saw in the first 10 years of the game). This eventually stopped, and the game's graphics became frozen circa 2010-ish. Time to go back to steady improvements (this is simply necessary for this game's survival). Nobody's arguing for Post Scriptum-level graphics, and I wouldn't want that anyway. One of the reasons I choose to play *this* game instead of PS on any given day is because of this game's much more realistic engagement ranges and vis distances; those aren't possible in PS (where everything happens within 100-200 m because it *has* to due to the demanding graphics).
  3. It's all appreciated bmbm. FWIW, so far this new mix of spawnlists is making for one of the most enjoyable campaigns in many, many years. Obviously the numbers imbalance is really bad right now, but it is what it is: I simply don't know any good solution. bmbm
  4. Now THIS is absolutely amazing. Very true. I've argued for years for CRS to cut it out with the absurd variety of tanks and equipment. Clearly we don't need that to be successful. Improved graphics and gameplay would do far more for attracting and retaining new players; nobody cares about the fact that there are dozens of different AFVs.
  5. I'll just put it this way; yes it sucks that you can't try out all the vehicles and other equipment with just a free account. CRS has to pay the bills somehow. But all I'm saying is that that's not the same as pay-to-win; it can't be since many of the best vets in this game are inf players, and tanks can't even cap anyway.
  6. I just don't agree. Playing armor is much, much, much more difficult than infantry. I'm willing to bet anything that n00bs who play armor have much worse K/Ds with AFVs than they do as infantry. Armor is more challenging than inf, and air-vs-air is the most challenging of all. But anyway... Your odds of getting kills, surviving, etc are much better as a rifleman than as a tank. A rifleman's problem isn't tanks; like I said, these are easily avoided or immobilized, and if your spawn is camped, I don't think you should be spawning anyway.
  7. Yes, but I said "vs inf." I don't bother with AFVs, I just ignore them or use my one HE satchel to track and immobilize them, which is perfectly easy to do unless your spawn is camped, in which case I don't think you should spawn anyway; in fact, I've argued for years that CRS should disable spawning from overrun, camped spawn points (Post Scriptum does this nicely; if a certain threshold of enemy units is within proximity of your spawn, it's compromised, spawning is temporarily disabled, and you MUST spawn elsewhere to dislodge the enemy and restore spawning from that point again). Infantry *shouldn't* generally have any chance against armored vehicles. The fact that the plain, vanilla rifleman can successfully immobilize almost every AFV in the game with his HE satchel is already too overpowered, ahistorical, and ridiculous as it is. Maybe it's necessary for balance (this is a video game, after all); fine, then. But riflemen aren't as helpless against AFVs as they historically in fact were.
  8. I just don't get what you all are talking about. I'm premium, have played since 2001 (with some breaks here and there), and I play plain, unscoped rifle 99.9% of the time. It is the overall single best, most versatile inf-vs-inf weapon in the game, by far. Since we have no suppression effects, picking any other weapon vs inf is *usually* completely pointless (though at times, LMG can be useful if you have trouble leading especially warpy inf). So I just fundamentally disagree with the premise of the thread; it is the *other* classes that are more limited than rifleman, not the other way around. Of course, I'm aware that the perception (especially among n00b free-players) is the opposite of what I'm saying, but after nearly 20 years of experience, I'm 100% convinced that that's an issue of perception, not battlefield reality. If we had suppression effects (like in Post Scriptum), this would all be a VERY, VERY different story. Or if we had a weapon like the StG 44. Automatic weapons would be useful in new ways, and the bolt-action rifle's historical inadequacies would finally be revealed. But that's simply not the game world we're playing in at the moment. BTW I'm not some delusional teenage gen Y-er who thinks that video games are reality, so that in the real world, bolt action rifles must be just as effective as modern assault rifles. As much as I love bolt action rifles, and as effective as I am in this game with them, InRangeTV had a great video showing plainly that they are utterly and hopelessly obsolete as anything other than a specialized sniper's weapon: But my whole point is that our game is not reality. Without suppression effects, our game is more like a giant airsoft match.
  9. Permanently disabled after the 15 years or so of experience with them since they were added. I think .orders *could* be useful, and waypoints could be VERY useful. .........with SECTION-based spawning rather than mission-based. "Missions" should be eliminated all together; after nearly 20 years, the data are in and unequivocal: Mission-based spawning is a failure in terms of facilitating cohesive, hierarchical, team-based gameplay. One change that would go a long way in improving gameplay would be the following: - "Missions" are renamed "Sections" ("section" so as to allow for no change to current "squad" terminology). Maybe "fireteam" is another option. - "Mission Leader" changed to "Section Leader". - Every section has a player limit (say, 9 or 10). Players see a list of active sections with their location, section leader name, and x/10 players. - Role-based spawn: When picking a section, you then select a role (limited). E.g. no more than 2x LMG per section, or something like that. No limit to the number of plain riflemen per section (to accommodate free-play accounts). - Waypoints are not just limited to map; they actually appear in your in-game UI without having to look at the map. In fact, we already have this implemented in the game (currently it's only to show ML and objective). - Section leader can kick a player out of a section if he chooses (in case a player is ignoring orders or otherwise actin' a fool). This helps improve section teamwork (giving the section leader even more control), and doesn't do anything bad to the kicked player. He's kicked from the section, not the game world. When he dies or respawns, he can merely pick another section or make his own. - The one and only change to current text channels would be to rename "Mission" channel to "Section"- everything else stays the same. Of course, the above is inspired by Squad and Post Scriptum....but the reason a game like Squad works so well is that the name says it all; it's about squads, about teamwok. The squad-based spawning system of those games is an absolute success. It allows total strangers who've never played together and aren't part of clans or any other game-related org to play together as a cohesive team, following orders, etc just by clicking on the UI and picking a squad to spawn in with. THIS is what CRS should be trying to accomplish: Get total strangers who've never played together to instantly cooperate as a team and follow orders. It's the GAME and the UI that has to do that, NOT any bizarre expectation that the players should spontaneously figure out teamwork themselves. I've been here since the beginning. That expectation is ludicrous, it is a complete and unambiguous failure. The idea that teamwork in WWIIOL should be completely up to the players is a fantasy. Games like Squad prove that UI alone is enough to facilitate cohesive teamwork (whether it's *effective* teamwork or not is of course entirely up to the players).
  10. Yes, I play at 4k and the difference is profound. Ironically, higher resolutions benefit *this* game more than most modern titles because we're rendering other players and objects at such far distances (even the biggest budget 2018 titles simply don't do this). I would say to make sure you have a powerful video card for 4k. Even though this game's graphics are not bleeding edge, it still takes a lot of horsepower to go from 1080p to 4k. You can see my 4k gameplay videos on my youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy9fhdEW9FeiAtPgOZmAlEw Here's an example (from June, so normal maps weren't working then). Make *sure* you select 2160p (4k) in the quality options. I'm planning to upload vids of more recent gameplay soon. Just to be clear: It does NOT matter if you watch this on a 1080p monitor. You will *still* be watching a higher quality image by selecting 4k, and you will *still* notice a difference. On a 1080p monitor, 4k content is downscaled to your monitor resolution but your video card is still rendering the actual 4k video, so you will most definitely see a better image.
  11. Disagree. There is zero incentive to use them, and close to zero value in most situations (since there is no group-based play anyway). I have orders permanently disabled in my UI.
  12. 5 stars from me so far after two days; this is the kind of action I've dreamed of for so many years. Thank you bmbm