Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


xanthus last won the day on May 25

xanthus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Vet

About xanthus

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Well, just for the record....whenever I'm negative, or [censored]ing and whining or otherwise abusive, it's out of love.
  2. FWIW, in Post Scriptum, only the squad leader can mark stuff... ....and it completely, utterly sucks. IMO. I don't know if that contributes to the drop-off in players PS is experiencing, but not being able to mark stuff is insanely frustrating in that game. In a game like this (or PS for that matter), players need some way to be organically funneled toward action on the (vast and potentially boring) battle field; in our game, marks do that VERY well. If you don't want to be marked, try not to be seen.
  3. Makes no sense. I don't follow the rationale for this at all.
  4. CRS should tread very carefully before committing to UE4; they could learn a lot by carefully observing what's going wrong with Post Scriptum (the very game the OP mentions). UE4 is the most well-marketed engine of all time, but it has fundamental flaws that make it a poor choice for a game like this one. PS (which is built on UE4) has visual and performance issues that are slowly but surely sending its potential playerbase away in droves; it's not just the endless complaints about poor framerate (even on upper tier hardware), it's the fact that objects and players rendered at more than 200 m away appear as blurry pixels. The game's supersampling option stopped working in beta and still doesn't work properly. The problem isn't alleviated by playing at higher resolutions (e.g. 4K). In this regard, it's the exact OPPOSITE of WWIIOL; in *this* game, the stone age version of Unity actually renders objects in crystal clear detail even hundreds of meters away (at least on my machine, with anti-aliasing and 4K). That makes sense since CRS 1.0 essentially built this as a Warbirds-inspired aircraft-focused game first and foremost where rendering at distance is everything. UE4 doesn't lend itself to rendering a game world in which you want to see objects and other players at far distances. The devs of PS have tried to work around this by cleverly filling up the landscape with big objects that limit your line of sight to about 200-300 m (which is exactly the distance beyond which things look like an non-discernible smear of garbage). Nevertheless, try playing with all settings maxed, gamma maxed, supersampling maxed, and at 4K resolution, set up overlooking a field with an MG42, and you'll see the enemy at 300-400 m away looking like ugly pixelated blotches of color as if they were background characters rendered in an old Sierra point-and-click adventure game from the 80's or 90's. Please don't misunderstand me: PS is a gorgeous game, and the visual effects work is truly inspired (from tank ammo cooking off and arty rounds exploding around you to the magnificent stuka bomb impact)...but things fall apart badly past 200-300 m. If you doubt what I say, just look at the PS reddit forum (where players who were extremely excited about the game are now writing huge mega-posts about how the issues with graphics and performance are forcing them to stop playing). Many of these people abandoning PS say that the game should have stayed "early access," but it's clear to me that they fail to appreciate the obvious: No amount of patches will magically "optimize" the game the way they imagine. If PS is any guide, UE4 is not the way to go for this game.
  5. ...huh?
  6. That's not what I'm saying. The gameplay experience here includes: - The massive (functionally endless) map size. - Realistic visual and engagement distances (i.e. up to a kilometer and beyond; hundreds of meters for infantry) - A variety of battlefield landscapes; what I mean is that because there are so many towns, you're (mostly) never on the same battlefield twice (though they obviously become familiar after a decade and a half of playing). As a dedicated inf player (don't care at all about air), Post Scriptum certainly has the map size down, however it still *doesn't* have realistic visual distances (it pretends to, but e.g. it is impossible to see enemy infantry @ 500+ m in PS); it's also fundamentally limited by having a small number of maps to play on (despite their individual sizes). Even though the maps are big enough that they are functionally massive (and might as well be endless) for me, an infantryman, they are still the *same* battlefields over and over again. Once you've fought there, every battle becomes a rerun; that doesn't happen in WWIIOL. One of the benefits of the stone age version of Unity this game uses is that it renders objects CRYSTAL CLEAR even at far distances (at least at 4K with max anti-aliasing on my machine). PS uses the UE4 engine, which is overhyped garbage (perhaps the most well-marketed engine of all time), that uses bugged TAA (the UE4 devs refused to fix it) making it impossible to clearly render distant players. This is a deep flaw of PS. NOTE: Beware of the future of this game if CRS insists on using UE4; it's not an exaggeration to say that the flaws of UE4 (from distant blurriness to terrible performance despite endless patches for optimization) are literally killing Post Scriptum's chances for success, its potential playerbase leaving in droves as I type this. UE4 is NOT a good engine for a game like this. Anyway... If RA had had larger map sizes (its maps were TINY compared to PS), it would have been the same tired battle reruns on the same maps over and over. Again, that's what makes WWIIOL different. It's NOT the campaign; this is really a fundamental mistake even bringing it up. Nobody but HC and forum-goers care about the campaign. It is meaningless to the average person who spawns in (that is, they don't zoom out of the map before they jump into a mission and say "awesome, we pushed them back several towns in this one spot"). It's NOT the campaign. But it IS the giant loading-screen-free zoneless map, it IS the essentially endless amount of towns, the endless and varied landscape and terrain, the *feel* that you are in a real virtual world rather than a pre-packaged shoebox where you're familiar with the location of every bush and tree; it's the ability to see an armor column on the horizon over a kilometer away, the ability to engage enemy units with your rifle at ranges over 500-600 m because (as in real life) you can *actually SEE* them clearly at that distance. BTW: And just to be clear on the topic at hand, no spawn delay is ridiculous.
  7. BS. Tthe insanely popular PUBG and RB6: Siege (and Fortnite?) that all the kiddies play these days have NO respawn, NONE!! When you die, that's it, and you're forced to sit on your hands NOT interacting with the game in any way whatsoever. And these are among the most popular (*the* most popular?) online PC FPS games right now. Clearly, no-respawn would not work in this game. OTOH, we should obviously have a spawn delay timer (at least as a death penalty if nothing else). Again, Post Scriptum (which does much of what this game does) has a respawn timer of as much as 60 seconds when you die (and unlike WWIIOL, there is NO spawning *at* the objective, it's always a good distance away); you DON'T want to die. To my knowledge, EVERY online PvP FPS has a mandatory spawn delay timer when you die. Every such game, without exception.
  8. This. The Axis players aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Personally, I don't give two craps about who "wins" the map, and I'm willing to bet most on both sides feel the same. But what players DO care about is the actual gameplay experience on the battlefield. CRS doesn't seem to get it; this is ALL THAT EVER MATTERS, PERIOD. Right now, I see Axis zerg rushes that end up camping the four or so players online that comprise the entire Allied side at any given moment. Of course people like having no death timer for respawn, of course they like camping Allied spawns, of course they like no side penalty for overpop (CP timers are meaningless; again, players do NOT care about who owns what on the map). This is not good gameplay.
  9. You are definitely NOT alone. I couldn't care less about ownership of terrain or what happens at the map level. I NEVER have. I'm positive the vast majority of players (i.e. not simply the minority who post here) are exactly the same way.
  10. First this Now, no SD (something present in EVERY and I mean EVERY single online PvP shooter). Now we have impossible cap timers and are always able to insta-respawn immediately after death (something that even the most unrealistic online games don't have). Slowly but surely moving further away from sim/realism type gameplay and more firmly toward twitch-style *aim-at-the-door-like-a-zombie-and-wait* gameplay. Oh, and BTW, the old bunkers are coming back (*cementing* the core of the game, which is and always has been gamey spawn camping)....man.... I'd hoped that near 20 years later we'd have gameplay mechanics that attempt to simulate *something* approaching real world battlefield tactics on the ground in realistic, dynamic battles where death actually means something. Meanwhile, Axis players want a game where they can respawn and rush the same cp and kill and die over and over within a span of seconds (because despite the fact that they're playing WWIIOL of all games, they apparently don't have the patience to wait 30 seconds to respawn after they die), and Allied players want a game where bombs insta-kill tanks because the notion of anything less doesn't match their ill-informed ideas about what actually happened during WWII. Ugh...man, this hurts...
  11. I don't understand what the problem is with SD. *ALL* modern PvP shooters have them (in Post Scriptum, timer when you die, it can be as much as 60 secs waiting at either a black screen or map). There should be a penalty for dying (above and beyond simply having to quickly click through a menu screen or two to just jump back in). Death should mean something. In all the other online FPS games I've played, the penalty for dying is that you now have to wait before you can spawn back in. This is one case where CRS simply should not listen to all the Axis players demanding no SD. Heck, a permanent death penalty timer (like every other game in existence) would be a step in the right direction. As it is, things are gamier and more cartoony than the old Unreal Tournament and Quake games, where at least you had a 10 sec timer every time you died (if I remember right). In our game, with no SD, you can kill a guy in a cp, and then face the same guy all over again a few seconds later; it's far more gamey and unrealistic than ANYTHING in a Battlefield or COD game. Besides, as others have said, the cap timers are horrendous; it's a fool's bargain- you trade 30 secs at the menu (again, totally in line with other similar games like Post Scriptum) in exchange for 5 minutes staring at a wall inside a CP; that's bad gameplay. The anti-SDers are not thinking right.
  12. https://www.wwiionline.com/game-news/development-notes/16497-2018-roadmap-for-wwii-online scroll down
  13. Looks like the best patch in a very long time. Some longstanding bugs fixed. My great thanks! S!
  14. Still exactly the same in that regard.
  15. Please. For the love of this game. Please. Please end this boneheaded, gameplay-killing, frustration and yawn-inducing garbage. This the one last piece of advice I have for whoever cares about this game enough to invest time and energy into further development. Having the capture objective and spawn point be one in the same means that the game boils down to spawncamping....over and over and over and over. This is the way it's been ever since spawning at depots was put into the game. I'd argue that in the 15 years or so since, the game has degenerated into nothing but spawncamping punctuated by what is occasionally truly awesome, inspired gameplay. Nevertheless, spawncamping is the core of this game. Even before depot spawning, it was ABs. There are alternative WWII titles available now in which this is not the case. This is no longer hypothetical. It can be done. I strongly advise that you consider doing it; consider removing spawncamping as a core gameplay mechanic once and for all. Please. For the love of this game.