Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

90 Vet

About chaoswzkd

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    Anti Air Gun
  1. Post-processing and shaders are a lot of what makes games look so good. Scenes in UnrealEd without those effects look like bland crap, even with great textures, but they look absolutely stunning with shaders and some post-processing effects. I'm not talking basic filters or "increase the glow x500" stuff. There are just some different effects that can be applied to make trash look like a work of art. That said, WWIIOL may run on a version of OpenGL (if it uses OpenGL, I forget if it does) that predates these injection utilities, and that may be why WWIIOL stops working.
  2. I agree with you in concept, but what exactly are the alternatives? If we move depots to be way from spawn cps, that makes defending very hard, and doesn't exactly prevent spawn camping. If we do away with depots completely, that doesn't solve the issue of AB spawn camping. If we move the infantry spawn bunkers away from the AB, that makes defending the AB harder and still won't prevent spawn camping. If we put walls around the barracks, then we save players from immediate spawn camping, but we kick the can further down the road because the walls introduce choke points that can be camped instead. Most other games deal with spawn camping by: 1) Giving brief invisibility or invulnerability to new spawns 2) Using map design to make the area inaccessible to enemies 3) Forcibly despawn enemies that get too close to or remain too close to the spawn area for too long 4) Shield the entrance to the spawn area so everyone inside is invulnerable but they can shoot out WWIIOL uses 2 and 3 in very small amounts. Spawn buildings for infantry, save mobile spawns and FBs, have spawn points upstairs that no one from a lower level can get up to. Additionally, enemies are prevented from firing while inside your spawn area in those buildings. It may be possible to create new buildings that allow for sufficient cover while spawning in to reduce the ability for enemies to camp, and moving the capture buildings further away may also help. Removing the ability to spawn at depots would seriously harm both a defender's ability to defend and an attacker's ability to spawn in town. I'm coming up with a number of ideas, but none seem to really fix the problem, just shift the severity around. As an alternative, maybe it would be better to properly introduce "lockdown" mechanics. Some kind of area capture that disables a spawn point. It would fix FMS issues as well. The reason why that may be preferable is because any time actual spawn camping happens, the enemy has surrounded the spawn, or has cleverly covered the choke points for movement. The people spawning in had every opportunity beforehand to prevent that from happening, but they didn't. In this, the attackers gained something and the defenders lost something. The attackers should therefore be rewarded. However, that reward shouldn't be reaping the defenders' supply lists, and the penalty shouldn't be getting your spawn camped. It should be preventing spawns, and no longer being able to spawn, respectively. Maybe the ideal go-forward solution is implement a lockdown mechanic for depots and FMSes, and change the way army bases are set up so the AB bunker is outside the AB walls or something, and the enemy can't access the inside of the AB.
  3. It can be done manually, with extreme pain, by modifying the URL to go back further than the GUI allows. Take a screenshot, add an hour or 30 mins or whatever your interval is to the url, take a screenshot etc.
  4. It was being handled by the GM team. It's just now no longer possible, which means GMs are no longer burdened by those reports, and there's no longer any ambiguity as to whether or not a suicide bombing occurred. It wasn't too hard, but it couldn't possibly get everyone at every hour of the day. Now it's fixed, and it has the added benefit of making bombing gameplay more realistic by using a mechanism that was used in WWII for bombing. First, just in case it needs to be said given your use of "your game", I'm not a member of CRS. I'm an uncompensated volunteer for development. Everything I've been saying is my own opinion on the topic, though I'm unambiguously supportive of the move CRS made with the bomb arming timers for how it has changed the game. Second, which step needs to come first is mostly a matter of opinion, and not an entirely relevant one because CRS has a need to show its players that changes are being made and that it is responding to the community. The community reported many times about suicide bombing ruining gameplay experience. CRS has responded. Known gripe, can't comment on whether or not it will change, but the topic of accurate historical introduction of equipment is something scotsman has mentioned with the TOES audit. This was also something inherited from the old CRS team. The UK received M1 Garands as lend lease inventory. I don't know enough about the topic to fully comment, though I believe there were previous forum discussions justifying their use in the game by their actual use by British soldiers in WWII. Agreed, which is why all that crap is getting fixed.
  5. I'm pretty sure players from all aspects of the game didn't like suicide bombing. Pilots may have reveled in being able to fly and bomb like an arcade game, but there are plenty of pilots that have commented that they were not fans of the way bombing was handled. It wasn't a side bias issue either, for plenty of players from both sides reported the problems. It wasn't a "favor one side or one area over the other", it was "prevent this issue negatively affecting the game by using something based in historical accuracy". Yes, people are upset that their arcade bombs are no longer arcade. They can't Hollywood/CoD Stuka from 200m off the ground anymore, and they can't satisfy their urges to kamikaze Tigers, Churchills, and Matildas. They are understandably upset. You might have a point here if the new CRS team wasn't making every effort possible toward historical accuracy and realism. You make this argument for bomb arming timers, but what about if damage model audits were first? The TOES revision @scotsman has mentioned? If that introduced imbalance, you could just as easily decry it by saying "Realism?? They can't play that card! What about bombers dropping from 200m or suiciding!?!?" Change starts somewhere. New equipment, HE/KE audits, turret traverse speed audits, gunsight audits, infantry DM audits, equipment DM audits, TOES revision, etc. It's coming. Complaining about one step of the process because the other steps aren't here yet isn't the best argument to make. WWIIOL bills itself as a historical combined arms warfare simulator, favoring realism, like bullet velocity and bullet drop rather than hitscan, component and crew damage in vehicles rather than hitpoints, armor models with thickness true to life, explosions that actually send out frags rather than just deal AoE damage, etc. It's not all the way there. No one says it is. But there's a very clear effort that's the direction the new team is taking it, or at least wants to take it. Some concessions must be made for gameplay, and for what's reasonably practical for the new team. But the equipment, loadouts, ammunition performance, all of that stuff is meant to be realistic and true to life rather than gamey. If you don't like that, that's unfortunate, but I'm not sure you're going to convince enough people to change their minds about it.
  6. As someone who is actually working directly with the code surrounding supply... what? Or maybe you just have a very different definition of "easily". Dynamic supply lists are something the db just isn't set up for. Well, correction: they're super doable, if we want 0 way to tell anything is wrong and no easy way to fix anything that does go wrong. A lot of effort would need to be put into changing how supply works, and additional effort would need to be put into making game management tools that could be used to... well, manage the game. You mentioned you played the game from the beginning and was a beta tester. In that case, you might be referring to old supply, which was ripped out to fit TOES in. So what you might have been familiar with no longer truly applies. Alternatively, if you have more familiarity with the current game engine and supply... maybe send a volunteer application in to CRS?
  7. Possible thing regarding 3.1: I know there are a lot of bogus reports, and that's just as a player reading side and target chat. "Omg this person is doing x thing I can't believe it report!!!1!1" It's the kind of thing where an infantryman will report to an armored car where they hear a truck, and the armored car turns its turret, finds, and kills. Then those same players drive trucks that get wiped out by armored cars and go "HOW DID HE SEE ME HE TURNED AND LOOKED RIGHT AT ME HAXXXX" etc. Like they're not capable of thinking about it from the enemies' perspective and realizing that there are very simple explanations and that they do the same thing all the time. So what's better for people responding to reports to do, in terms of alleviating cries of bias and crap like that? Ignore it, or be honest and tell them their report is bad and that they're wrong? I feel like the latter may not go over well, given how for example pilots have been recently reacting with "BIAS!!1!1!" to "actually, here's how bombs operated irl and here are all the facts and documents backing this up".
  8. Also affecting numbers is a LOT of players on both sides said they're done with the campaign and will play next map. Axis said it after they got pushed to factories. Allies said it after Axis broke through and encircled 9.5 divisions. Now Allies are making a comeback and players on both sides still refuse to come back despite the map being almost back to a map start. So that, plus summer, plus Summer sales from digital distributors, etc. all contribute to lower player counts.
  9. As someone who has played a LOT of AAA sorties, before and after the patch, I have to say that I can definitely identify differences. DB7s and Havocs die much more easily than they used to. Used to be, you hit them 4+ times and they could still fly off. Now, depending on where you hit, you can kill them with only 1 or 2. However, I have definitely seen them get hit with 4 and smoke but otherwise have no discernable damage. Props seems to get destroyed much more easily, which is nice since that means only 1 hit to the nose is needed. Hurricanes, Spitfires, etc. can easily die in a single well-placed hit, and even some that aren't that well-placed. First AAA kill I had after the patch was one-shotting a Hurricane with the 37mm SPAA. All of that said, I've also seen some silly situations more reminiscent of pre-patch. I've also emptied 60+ cannon rounds and MGs on the back of a single DB7 with an E-4 and cause no discernable damage, as if the hit box from the rear was an invulnerable shield. So there are still some problems that need to be fixed regarding the damage models I believe. The issues with it not affecting EI like it should are known and being fixed. So, in short: My skirt was definitely blown up.
  10. No, you're certainly not the only one, but that also wasn't my point. I even said "Competitors for your time, perhaps". If you're considering any game as competitors, then for me as an example, I'm currently playing probably eight different games in a given week, five of which I play regularly. Of those, three are WWII themed. None of them other than WWIIOL is an MMOFPS, and I will continue to play WWIIOL to play with my squad and to play a combined-arms MMOFPS. If I want to play an MMOFPS, my choices are WWIIOL or Planetside 2. That's it. That's all that exists. Saying that WWIIOL competes with those other games for my time is accurate, but it's not really accurate to say those other games are competitors. A new Fallout game won't be a competitor. A new Elder Scrolls, a new Mass Effect, a new Dragon Age, a new CoD, a new MoH, the World of Warcraft expansion coming up, etc. are not competitors. They don't compete in the same market. You and many others will play other games. Anyone that gets frustrated will move to other games. You'll all play that for a while, maybe a month or two, and in that time you might feel the itch to play a historic WWII simulator with combined arms in a completely open world. Maybe that itch isn't that strong. Maybe it is, but you feel burned. In any case, the only thing that can actually scratch that itch without making you feel "just a little to the left" on the market now and in the foreseeable future is WWIIOL.
  11. None of the games you've mentioned are competitors to WWIIOL. Competitors for your time, perhaps, but none of them are combined arms MMOFPS. They're realistic, populous match-style arcade shooters. Like significantly more realistic 40 V 40 CoD-style games, with a lot of the BS trimmed away. They're enjoyable, don't get me wrong, but WWIIOL has yet to see an actual competitor other than Planetside 2, which is much more arcade in style and has a futuristic theme, so it's not really a direct competitor.
  12. Still waiting on that one.
  13. Again, that wouldn't satisfy either of the core objectives of 1.36: eliminate the over-reliance on HC players, and eliminate uncontested gameplay.
  14. Having the movable flags have more supply means that we don't eliminate the over-reliance on HC players, because they will still be required to move supply around. The over-reliance is reduced, but it's still over-reliance. Since those are just supply numbers, they can be tweaked in the future. The actual hard programming work being done is everything to do with facilitating static flags into the game. CRS may find in the future that larger movable flags and smaller garrisons is the way to go, but initially it's larger garrisons and smaller flags.
  15. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being counter-intuitive? You want bombs to be realistic but also not realistic? You seem to be under the impression that bombs have ever been particularly effective against armor. They're not. Historically, realistically, bombs are not effective on armor unless you score direct hits. So I'd imagine making the bombs behave closer to reality is productive development for a historical war simulator. We have basic tools at hand to show that a player intentionally committed suicide? And we don't know, for example, that they weren't just being shot down and dropped when they were close because they were dead anyway, or made a mistake, or etc. etc.? I'd love to know what tools those are, because I can't think of any other than trying to divine like 20 separate things from just the death timers in CS&R. It's like trying to find a motive and a murder weapon from just the time of death. Bombs could destroy armor without direct hits. Now they pretty much can't. That's a positive change for realism. Once some additional things are in, like better concussion for the bombs, we'll probably see bombs require less than a direct hit again. It'll probably never go back to the silliness that it was before, though. Other games don't typically require multiple minutes to move from spawn to the action. They are instant action, typically with near-infinite or at least non-restrictive supply. A suicide bomb in those games are going to set back their opponent seconds, not minutes of travel time and hours of resupply time. "It's historical" 100% applies here. The alternative is we make it slightly more historical but still ahistorical, move on to something else and make that slightly more historical, etc., then come back and do it all over again. Slightly pushing it forward. That's pretty ridiculous to seriously request a developer to do when they can just do it right the first time and move on to the next thing. /shrug I don't know all of the fliers, but I'd bet serious money most of them have done it at least once, whether out of frustration or revenge or just because they thought it would be fun. Hell, I've done it before, but that was more a matter of incompetence bombing too low to the ground and not being able to pull up than actually wanting to suicide bomb the enemy. Drawbacks of a dive bomber being piloted by a noob.