nc0gnet0

Registered Users
  • Content count

    270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

nc0gnet0 last won the day on April 4 2019

nc0gnet0 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

91 Vet

About nc0gnet0

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Just as the title says, I am on the month to month plan, usually use paypal. Can't visit my account page to make a payment. Please help.
  2. Ok, so your not actually transporting actual players. Hmm.......... Don't like it. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. At least when you drive in a fms, your assured that the players that spawn in from the adjacent towns supply are being used. In your scenario, you could overstock a town from a backline town, the supply never gets used (or the backline town now has 0 auto, no sappers or engineers, etc). And then you loose the town anyways, and the part of that supply that never got used is lost, leaving the backline town more vulnerable.
  3. It would hardly ever get used. Not sure what the average travel times between towns is (10 minutes maybe?) in game, but the chance of getting 15 players to leave a town under siege to be transported in such a way they are doing nothing for that amount of time, when numbers are already low, I just don't see it happening. Chances are by the time you got to the town, it would have been captured.
  4. why not just set a fms? Seems like a lot of unnecessary coding.
  5. No, a larger city would be easier to defend than a small city, I disagree completely. Remember, the attacking side is under a time constraint, all the defenders need to do is to keep it contested for 2 hours until the timer runs out. This would make taking a huge city during low pop almost impossible, and I don't think that is a bad thing.
  6. Yes, often it is. We have a two layer EWS system. EWS goes off, and one, maybe two people go to investigate. Not multitudes of players. They then report via side channel the imminent (or lack thereof) threat. It is the response (or lack thereof) to their requests for help that is the fault of the defending side. We have both seen numerous times a city under siege in the initial stages of attack, begging for help, with their plees largely going ignored. People cannot or will not get out of the pattern of leaving their current mission regardless of it's importance or lack-there-of. It's the get killed, hit enter, get killed again, hit enter again, lemming effect. This really isn't a failing of game play mechanics, rather the total lack of situational awareness of the player base (or the fact they don't actually care about anything other than personal stats). I have seen you argue on multiple occasions for changes that would make for more realistic game play. Well scouting and guarding was a huge part of WW2. EWS has gone a long way towards eliminating the necessity of 24/7 guards on every front-line city, it just needs to be used properly. the only thing I think that might need to be looked at is the common practice of moling a city.
  7. The scenario you paint above is largely a part of low pop. The larger the population, the less likely that is to happen. And even when the town falls in that matter, it is the defending force that is laregly to blame, as they were too apathetic to come in to defend, so they largely deserve the outcome they get. As far as low pop goes, I think only allowing 1 AO for both sides combined is more effective. What I mean by this is if the population is below x amount of people, then of both allies and axis, only one of them is allowed to be on the attack, the other on the defense. This would last until either the AO town is taken, or a time period expires (like one-two hours). And then the other side gets to place the AO. This would slow the low pop rolls, without eliminating them entirely. This would help to concentrate the battles as well. And a whole lot less coding.
  8. Again, I never said any one player would be fighting simultaneously on both sides.....FFS. If your a player who has multiple accounts, you can only use more than one account when your side is Under-pop or the Pop is even. If your OP, you can't use your second-third, etc accounts. F2P players have to spawn in on the Under-pop side. Does it fix imbalance? No. But it would help. Not a fan of your "solution" at all. Your just advocating for a war of attrition. One in which supply management will play a much bigger role. Problem with that is it makes for a terrible game play experience. Keep having battles were your forced to constantly defend towns with mortarmen and grenadiers and players will leave by the droves. Players that log on will be forced to constantly be even more limited by the decisions of those that were playing before them. And that is the part of your scenario that your not considering. This is not a board game were the two sides, and the decisions that are made are static.
  9. I didn't mean that you would have multiple accounts playing on each side, c'mon man! if your side is Op you can't play 2nd or third accounts unless you move all of them to the Underpop side (including main account).
  10. Only allow FTP players and second-third-4th accounts to play on the Under-pop side.
  11. How can you be so sure? It is completely possible in the scenario we are talking about that the laggy player isn't even aware of what is happening, because he is only conscience of what he sees on his machine.
  12. Fair enough, I apologize and let us start over. However, I think now that a few more have chimed in claiming the same thing, and it's rate of occurrence, your starting to get a picture that this is a real thing, and that it is happening enough to be concerned about. And in my opinion, it is one of those things that should shoot straight up the priority list, as, it effects capture mechanics. I am not sure why you cannot duplicate it, and I don't know what you have tried. How do you attempt to duplicate game play (on your local machine) between two players (serious question) that reside on different continents? The simplest of explanations is this is a lag issue because the Kill registers are done on each players local machine, and then sent to the server. My guess is no time stamp is applied, so the game server has no idea which actually happened first (in real time). I will actually go as far as to say that even though on my machine, I clearly shot first, what the opposing player saw on his machine was quite different, and he has no idea what I in fact saw. if this is in fact the case, then the only way to correct the issue is a tighter restriction on connection requirements. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Do you now not allow these players to play the game? Hard question. But, acknowledging the problem exists brings into question the way that spawn delay and capture timers are implemented as well. "Feet sticking through buildings.... Yea it's not a good thing that we desperately want to have fixed and have had several folks attempt. Vehicles, buildings, terrain all use the same type model. Their colliders are created with the model, to put it in a very basic way you simply select the pollys of the wall or vehicle to be the collider (that's from my layman's view of what I've been shown while watching art work). Vehicles are more involved as each collider has a armor value." I'm not letting CRS off the hook for this one so easy, sorry. I get the issues with trying to fix the fact that feet do render through buildings, and one would think that the opposing player being able to get a fix on his position was advantage enough, but the fact the opposing player can stand outside a building (impervious to fire from the poor soul inside with his foot sticking through brick) and shoot him in the foot AND GET A KILL SHOT is complete and utter ............. Why would a shot to the foot kill you is my first question?
  13. Sorry, but when you say you have not been able to replicate it, it came across to me as being dismissive. I am not speaking to the invisible player appearing out of nowhere issue here (that does seem to be occurring less). I can clearly see the player in question, clearly see I shot first, clearly see I hit him (multiple times) and yet he still manages to fire on me (after getting shot) and we both die. Not speaking about LOS matters either (although the body parts sticking through walls continues to be a huge pet peeve of mine, you should not die because someone shot you in the foot/leg that was magically sticking through a brick wall)
  14. First, lets dispel with the myth that this is only a fringe issue, something that happens rarely only to a few players. That.......is....not.....the...case.......at....all. It happens so often, to so many, it is almost unfathomable that it cannot be replicated. But, you need to understand this problem is magnified 100 fold in close combat situations. Your not going to notice it if your hiding in the bushes sniping ei 200 yds out. There are three different points that this could be happening: 1) My side 2) server side 3) opponent side But, FWIW, it seems to happen most often to the same players (indicating to me a poor connection issue on their side). If it was on my side, or for that matter the server end, I would see this happening to a more varied player group. But then again, it could also be that only a small portion of the opposing sides player base is Cap/defend cap focused ( I know we have many that rarely engage). The point that Tater brings up cannot be underestimated. This problem is paramount in importance because it effects game mechanics in the most critical of areas......Capture mechanics. Capture mechanics are such that close combat has to work correctly (they don't currently, far too often). Capture mechanics are the basis for which the whole game depends on. Any thing that effects capture mechanics should, MUST, be given top priority. When close combat doesn't work, the game doesn't work. People like Tater get so sick of this happening over and over, they just stop capping. For instance, scenario one. I am playing Allied, we are currently Op. I am capping an important depot (could be on a AO or DO, does not matter). I have cap at 85%, axis player rushes in, I get the drop on him and unload a full clip of smg fire into him. I did not miss, there is blood all over the walls. Yet for 1/2 a second, he is immune to the fire, and shoots me (after being hit several times). I die. And then, and only then, does he die as a result of the damage that he took from my fire. So we effectively "traded". Even though I clearly should have been awarded the kill, and he should have never been able to shoot in the first place. But now, because I am on the OP side, I am incurred a SD penalty, and most likely a distance penalty as well. This allows him to spawn in quicker, get the the cap in question quicker and defend. Hell, I am probably also hit with an "enter" bug as well if I am spawning from a nearby depot (another serious issue that continues to be ignored that effects capture mechanics). In other words, his defense was successful because of poor game play mechanics and quick "fixes" such as SD that impact game play in ways that CRS never considers. Scenario two, Three players defending a bunker. Opposing player rushes is, all three defenders open fire, but the because of the kill lag, the bunker rusher manages to take out 2-3 of the defenders. "With all that's been said though we are still investigating connection issues and still working to refine the netcode so as to get smoother gameplay with the least amount of lag possible without cutting off a huge chunk of our player base " Interpretation: We are allowing this to happen to accommodate players with poor connections. I get that, but a poor connection should not be rewarded. Maybe players that don't meet a strict connection minimum are not allowed into areas in which close combat occurs? Or change capture points so that close combat working correctly is not so critical (as Tater suggests)
  15. Oh come on, this happens ALL THE TIME. I can post video clips if you like. Either case would, best as I can guess, cause a no stat record of that instance. But best as I know lost packets would be the only likelihood. Err, sorry, but no. Most often the case results in both players dieing, when in fact only one player should have died. If often seems to happen most (for me) with players residing out of the country (aka lag). Honestly, this is one of the few games were sometimes it seems, lag/packet loss is an advantage.