Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About ottomatic1

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday
  1. I only played for a short period in 2017, so I'm not qualified to discuss historical matters. What I would like to do, however, is add a data point by explaining why I didn't join a squad, and probably wouldn't join a squad. 1) Virtually every squad expects/demands voice comms of some sort. My house isn't particularly large. Due to timezones and server activity levels, the only time I could play with even a half-decent amount of friendlies online was after midnight. I simply can't talk during those times because it will wake the little lady. Her sleep is more important than my entertainment. 2) I didn't see the point. HC sets the objectives. I could see them on my screen. Squads would seem ideally placed to do things like "strike behind enemy lines" — but that is actually prevented by the game mechanics. Globally visible (and extremely limited numbers of) AOs eliminate any ability for small groups of players (e.g. squads) to pursue covert objectives. Squad objectives == public HC objectives >> squads are irrelevant. 3) Strategy seemed one-dimensional (from the trenches). Whether HC is active or not, and whether HC is effective or not, there only seems to be one strategy — capture facilities so that you can capture towns. So every match ends up being a close quarters firefight where running around with an SMG is the only playstyle/unit that is viable. That's fine if you live in the US and have a 20ms ping to the servers, but is virtually impossible if you live in a different country with 150ms+ pings. Didn't make a difference if you were covering a staircase from the top floor and dumped half a mag into the head of an enemy player the instant he appeared... he'd still run up, turn around, shoot and kill you ... before keeling over himself. I couldn't see how being in a squad would actually change any of that and allow me to enjoyably participate in 90%+ of the 'action' dictated by one-dimensional strategic objectives. 4) Whilst a good number of those in HC seemed competent, only a small number actively encouraged/fostered alternate playstyles (and by that I mean anything apart from players getting trucks and setting up FBs to move the spawn up, and CQB over facilities). When HC was inactive, the ratio of self-appointed 'leaders' that pursued one-dimensional strategies/playstyles tended to explode, and the amount they cared about you actually enjoying the game tended to fall through the floor. At least if you're a un-squadded 'lone wolf', you have a chance of avoiding the attention, pressure and abuse from players who think that there is only one way to play the game. If you're in a small squad, then your ability to 'do your own thing and just enjoy the game' drops to zero. 5) Scheduling. Life gets 'messy' when you get older. You no longer have 16 hours a day to spend indulging yourself in hobbies. You grab what time you can, when you can. Much/most of this is unpredictable from one day to the next. The mere idea of rigidly-scheduled "squad nights" is virtually unimaginable. If you can't regularly play with your squad, and thus you miss out on most/all of the 'organised events', then, really, what's the point? 6) Suspension of disbelief. I play Axis. Even if it was possible to join a squad that didn't force you to speak using voice comms, and even if your squad leader was happy for you to just listen in (using headphones) and acknowledge orders via chat, merely hearing English-speaking players would totally ruin any suspension of disbelief and thus any immersion that may have been possible. Every single time anyone spoke, it would be a jarring jolt back into reality and a reminder that you are playing a game. My experience in other games has been that voice comms in groups/raids/squads always ends up being a never-ending stream of micromanaging and/or off-topic inane chatter. That just ruins it completely for me. If I could join a German squad and just listen in on the other players, that would be fine. I'd have no idea what was going on, and would be useless as a result, but at least the voices would be authentic and would serve to suck me further into the game instead of ripping me out of it every couple of seconds. I think that covers the main points/issues I wanted to raise. The above accurately reflects my experience and views. Whilst I don't expect anyone to relate to all of the above, I'm sure that most people can relate to some of it. All I'm trying to do is highlight some factors that don't seem to have been discussed (much) so far. For me to even entertain the idea of joining a squad: I'd need to move to a different timezone/country I'd need a bigger house with a dedicated (acoustically-insulated) games room I'd need to dump Axis and play Allies (Limited) AOs would need to be removed from the game or seriously reworked There would need to be more viable playstyles/units than CQB/SMG Squads would need to be able to tackle meaningful covert objectives (that didn't involve capping facilities) Squad leaders would need to realise that player enjoyment is more important than strategic/tactical objectives — if players aren't having fun, winning is pointless; winning and having fun are two different things I'd have to quit my job, retire, divorce my wife, disown my family, or otherwise find some way to free up large slabs of the future so they can be allocated to scheduled squad events Realistically, I don't see much chance of even a fraction of that happening... Thanks for listening.
  2. Hmmm... on Windows 8.1: The problem is visible in Chrome 59.0.3071.115 The problem is not visible in Chrome 60.0.3112.90 The problem is not visible in Firefox 54.0.1
  3. On (for example) the 10:44, 11:00 and 11:12 versions seem to have the right size, but are blurry -- like they have been scaled. The 11:40 version has clear text, but a white background, like the canvas of the image (not the image itself) has been enlarged. Have you checked the software that you use to upload the images for any settings that could be doing this? I notice that on it documents the following: Extension features[edit] Below are the special extension features that you can set in your LocalSettings.php: ... $wgMSU_imgParams = '400px'; // The default size for images inserted on the edit page Maybe MsUpload is changing your images as you upload them?
  4. I saved the image to my desktop, opened it in Paint, selected the bottom-right handle, resized the frame to match the screenshot, then saved and closed it. Seemed to fix the problem. You can fix it in HTML/CSS by doing fancy stuff with relative positioning, no-overflow and/or clipping... but that's just dealing with symptoms... the problem is with the actual image files, so they just need to be re-edited to fix the problem at the source. I would have posted the fixed images here, but I can't work out how to attach an image without creating a third-party hosting account somewhere, and I don't have priviliges to edit the wiki.
  5. Ok, so the game ends when one side caps all of the other side's factories. Got it. I did check WebMap a couple of times, but it never seemed to change much. The date at the bottom was 'the right one' but the front line didn't seem to be moving. I played with it just now and you need to click on one of the '-1 day' type buttons to get it to refresh. Not sure if there's something odd going on with my setup, or whether it's working as intended, but one would assume that the map would be up to date every time you load it -- without having to click on any buttons. So no stats are recorded during this time, and I can play with some Allied units, not have logs appear in my CSR, and avoid being branded a traitor?
  6. Thanks for the pointers. I've now got BGEM installed and set to generate a fresh map every 10 minutes and set it as my desktop wallpaper. Should make it easier to keep tabs on what is going on. I also downloaded and installed the 'hi res' map package, but the map I get seems identical to disi's screenshot above. Is that as 'hi res' as it gets? (I've got resolution set to 100% and have zoomed it in a bit.)
  7. Ok, so I know what an intermission is, and realise that we're in one now, but can someone explain: When did the war end, and who won? I would have thought that a HUUUUGE in-game announcement about Victory!!! would have been made, but the login process was absolutely nondescript. How are we supposed to monitor the progress of the war anyway? How do we tell who is winning? Looking at the map doesn't seem to make this very clear, as there are a large amount of towns still under the control of both sides. I can't find a 'War Progress' screen anywhere. There's no mention of victory in the Headquarters News Feed. All of the CSR stats seem to have disappeared. Is this normal? Will they be coming back? What is functionally different about the intermission period? Is there some sort of 'event' going on? Do all the OICs take a break and leave it to the regular players to skirmish in the frontline towns as they see fit? Do we have access to different units? Are stats not being collected/updated during this period? Yesterday we were raging and today we're just fizzzzzzz........
  8. Agreed, last night I spawned in our FB and within -- literally -- seconds a laffly was there putting down an EFMS. Randomising the location sounds good, but as long as the enemy can just click on your town and have the FB show up on the map, that won't make a difference. The situation will not improve unless the location of enemy FBs are removed from the map.
  9. Thanks Merlin. You might want to check the images. Three of the screenshots seem to have large white regions around them and probably should be cropped.
  10. That ends up being ~7pm Saturday night where I live so... about the worst possible time. Nonetheless shutdowns seem to be quite short (in the 15-30 minute range, apparently) so it just ends up being a quick break -- no dramas, happy llamas. What would be good would be to have the amount of minutes the downtime is expected to last actually appear in the shutdown message itself. I realise that things don't always go according to plan, but an estimate would be appreciated.
  11. Yes, I know that we're dealing with model of the world that is flat, and that it's a game limitation issue. I also know that the 'real world' limitations on visibility due to curvature of the Earth are in excess of not only the current in-game limits, but also the proposed new limits. All I was implying is that even if CRS could wave a magic wand and make all of the technical issues go away, that the in-game limits should never exceed the real-world limits -- regardless of how easy it could be to do so, or how desirable some players would have it be.
  12. When a mission is over, and the order is withdrawn, players are instructed to Return To Base (RTB). If you are close to a spawn point, or have a fast-moving unit, this is not a problem. If, however, you are a long way from your spawn point (e.g. your firebase was blown taking your fortified mobile spawn with it), and/or you have a slow-moving unit (e.g. anti-tank gun or anti-airgraft gun), and/or you are damaged/injured, then you might be looking at a very, very long trip home. Could someone please explain the mechanics behind being REScued instead? Do I simply have to get x,000m+ away from enemy territory (i.e. the 'target' of the mission) before it is offered? Do I have to head in any particular direction? Is a 10% penalty in (experience) points the only penalty? Does the unit go back into supply straight away as it does when you RTB, or is there some sort of delay? Cheers!
  13. Because of curvature of the Earth, the distance to the horizon for eyeballs 1.6m from the ground is 4.5km. If those eyeballs were 5m above ground or above sea level on the deck of a boat, the visible horizon would be 8.0km away. If the eyes were 10m up the horizon would be 11.3km away. Beyond the horizon everything starts to dip from view as it gets occluded by the planet itself. This is not to weigh in on either side of the argument, just to add some numbers that reflect reality. Whilst changing a variable to increase view distace might be a straight-forward programming task, the end result should not be beyond 'realistic'. PS: A prone soldier with binoculars/scope/sights 0.3m above the ground sees the horizon at 2.0km.
  14. One possible way to 'value survival' would be to decrease a variable in the background by, say, 5 points every time a player gets killed. Every minute that the player is active (not AFK) within the game, on a mission, add 1 point to this variable. A person that manages to survive an average of 5 minutes per spawn would thus have a variable that fluctuates around 0. A character that dies a lot because they run in with guns blazing will have their variable drop deep into the negatives very quickly. Take the amount of the variable and divide it by, say, -10, and apply the result as a despawn delay -- so a variable with a value of -62 would incur a 6.2s despawn penalty. The delay message should clearly state something along the lines of "Your corpse is being returned to your widow. You promised her you'd come home safe..." Make the variable persistent across all characters (i.e. store it server-side with other account details) so that it can't be bypassed by just force-quitting the game and restarting with a different persona. Good players, that survive longer than 5 minutes on average, will have the variable increase over time. Apply a hard cap of, say, +20. That way a good character could still suffer a string of bad luck (I'm thinking specifically of being spawn camped) without seeing a spawn delay. Of course I've pulled all of the numbers out of the hat. In reality the 5 minutes would more logically be "the average sortie time for the last 6 months for that particular type of unit across the entire player base". The -10 divisor and +20 hard cap are purely arbitrary and should be well-considered by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Because they are stored server-side, they can be initially set a bit high and slowly constrained to promote survival behaviour without having to patch the clients (or even advise the player base).
  15. I can only think of a single segment of the player base that would benefit from precise alignment ... botters. The 'fuzziness' of the aiming makes development of an aimbot much harder.