• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      New Forum Lead!   11/17/2019

      It's with great pleasure to announce B2K as the new Forum Lead.   I am very confident he will be good for the forums, he has great ideas and direction for the future of the forums.
      Good luck sir and GOD speed.
BMBM

Starting Monday: The Hardest Campaign Yet

324 posts in this topic

The number of officers logged in game is a good indicator population level for their specific side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardest campaign - yes for different reason but the hardiest one is too achieve 1 AO limit during US prime time. Not seen it last campaign at all. Raging campaign after 24 hours is childish. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, matamor said:

Hardest campaign - yes for different reason but the hardiest one is too achieve 1 AO limit during US prime time. Not seen it last campaign at all. Raging campaign after 24 hours is childish. 

Allies about an hour ago didn't have enough players to form an attack. About 15 or so people, most in one mission with half greentags, the rest lone wolfs. Couldn't break an Axis line.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say that I appreciate all the work BMBM puts into this game. We are lucky we have him and should be thankful of the work he does for essentially nothing in return and most important with the best intentions for the ENTIRE playerbase in mind.

S!

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, aismov said:

I just want to say that I appreciate all the work BMBM puts into this game. We are lucky we have him and should be thankful of the work he does for essentially nothing in return and most important with the best intentions for the ENTIRE playerbase in mind.

S!

 

Absolutely, keep it up BMBM. It is pretty thankless work I see. In regards to population, that's on all of us. No endless tweaking of the rules will fix that issue. Also, this fight just started ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Capco said:

What it shows more than anything is:

 

1) how low overall population is right now

2) how few vets the Allies have at their disposal over the past year and change

 

WHIPs are an excellent bunch of guys with a really good skill set, but I'm pretty sure they would be the first ones to tell us that they aren't some unbeatable powerhouse, at least in their own eyes.  It's absolutely not their problem to "fix" just for being arguably the best squad in the game right now.  

 

But if the Allies can no longer win campaigns without support from side switchers with supply lists as lopsided as this, that's potentially an extremely serious problem for the health of the game, and it's also something that 1.36 on its own will not fix.  Divisions getting cut off means nothing if there aren't enough players playing before those morale cascading events start to snowball in the first place.  

 

Just from conversations with several former squaddies, the Tiger mania of the past ~2 years was enough to get them to stop playing altogether, and somewhat including myself.  Before the additional Tigers though, the Axis were almost in as bad of shape as the Allies are now (but not for nearly as long as it has been for the Allies atm).  

A lot of truth here. It is more a statement about the game population if a squad of 30 something guys can make this much difference. Remember ... not all of them side switched last time either. Anyways .... great bunch of guys, but wish we could stop talking about them in this sense lol. Hopefully some of the weapons balancing in later tiers brings some more Allies back into the fold.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, choad said:

A lot of truth here. It is more a statement about the game population if a squad of 30 something guys can make this much difference. Remember ... not all of them side switched last time either. Anyways .... great bunch of guys, but wish we could stop talking about them in this sense lol. Hopefully some of the weapons balancing in later tiers brings some more Allies back into the fold.

 

rate this campaign is going we won't get to later teirs.  anyway as pointed out the allied armour this tier has the edge of that of the axis and that isn't helping  us Allied one bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bmbm said:

The Axis have the unparalleled Flak36

This is the funniest thing I have heard since I have started playing this game.  Unparalleled, thats just ridiculous talk right there.  The 88 is the worst gun in the game by far.  Shells disappear at just over 2300, shoots no where near the target, if you hit you cant tell cause no proof of a hit or sign, so many trees and shrubs you have to be within walking distance of a cp or ab.  You can barely get it out of vehicle spawn since it drags on the top.  I wont even mention how many shells it takes at close ranges to kill Allied armor.  Unparalleled, you might want to grab one and play the equipment your boasting up so greatly.  All hail the Pak40 also know as the baby 88.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had any trouble getting it out of the garage, but I'll take a look at the collider to see if there's a problem there. I've never attempted hitting anything at 2000+ meters because IMO it's generally a waste of ammo and needlessly reveals your position. Even so the allies doesn't have anything in the inventory except aircraft that will cause problems for an 88 over 1500 or so, the BEF in particular.  I've mostly shot the french 47 mm - never farther than 1200 m for the same reasons.

I certainly don't agree that the 88 is such a POS as you make it out to be. Plenty dead allied tankers will likely disagree as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aismov said:

I just want to say that I appreciate all the work BMBM puts into this game. We are lucky we have him and should be thankful of the work he does for essentially nothing in return and most important with the best intentions for the ENTIRE playerbase in mind.

S!

 

Thanks

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bmbm said:

It's not hard, except that the list was undergoing edits into the final hours before campaign start and is still being corrected for weird errors (it's a 1000 lines document, times 4, plus budget review). I woke up 6 hrs later, went to 10 hr IRL work, and have had no time at all for my regular tasks apart from desperate tweaks and fixes. We are >that< understaffed. I hope you have it in you to understand and give us some leeway if we don't always match your expectations.

S!

 

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.

 

S! bmbm 

Edited by xanthus
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we are going more toward this historical end of the game. Is it possible in the future for the British grenadier to get their HEAT grenades back? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my own personal pov I feel that CRS is still designing the game and spawnlists with the assumption of high population on both sides. 

This is clearly not happening for the vast majority of the campaigns, for various reasons. 

The only way I personally  see a way out is to reduce the subscription costs and provide  a more inviting f2p experience. We all understand the need for a steady income via subs to run the game,  don't get me wrong.

The game is crying for more players..they are NOT  subscribing in sufficient numbers to make the game shine. The question is WHY? 

TOES are fluff compared to this..icing on the cake, albeit a stale carrot cake left in the cupboard a week too long.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Nor wishing for a nerf on the brits , however. The whole setup of Brit divisions is wrong No Brit units have HVY Arm intrinsic to basically an INF Division .  They may be called infantry Tanks but they're not permanently assigned to Infantry Divisions.  BEF only had Inf Tanks As part of the GHQ Corps  Troops.

I realise we have what we have but most of this TOE is fantasy for all sides. 

They also had independent brigades that habitually worked with or were tied to infantry divisions. How would you suggest representing the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 7th armored brigades...never mind those that followed? Everyone got their respective slices on both sides. What about the 88mm for the Germans?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dropbear said:

From my own personal pov I feel that CRS is still designing the game and spawnlists with the assumption of high population on both sides. 

This is clearly not happening for the vast majority of the campaigns, for various reasons. 

The only way I personally  see a way out is to reduce the subscription costs and provide  a more inviting f2p experience. We all understand the need for a steady income via subs to run the game,  don't get me wrong.

The game is crying for more players..they are NOT  subscribing in sufficient numbers to make the game shine. The question is WHY? 

TOES are fluff compared to this..icing on the cake, albeit a stale carrot cake left in the cupboard a week too long.

Honestly the real issue with the game is its huge barrier to entry: graphics. We've been saying it since 2001. Many players take a look at it and walk away because of the graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is simply that the sandbox game engines trade battle space size for enhanced graphics. None of the sandbox engines can handle large maps or good air play. Using any of them would require extensive buffering and middle ware on top of the basic graphics engine. If all you play is sandbox games, you will not view BGE graphics favorably....or pay attention to why it's so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, aismov said:

Honestly the real issue with the game is its huge barrier to entry: graphics. We've been saying it since 2001. Many players take a look at it and walk away because of the graphics.

Not exactly. A game's style is more important than it's graphics, for example minecraft, fortnite and other games. This game is about as dated as morrowind in terms of graphics, but with some mods you can make morrowind look better than default skyrim so

The bigger barrier to entry is controls, infantry combat feels like you're constantly moving through mud, sliding around and whatnot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scotsman said:

The trouble is simply that the sandbox game engines trade battle space size for enhanced graphics. None of the sandbox engines can handle large maps or good air play. Using any of them would require extensive buffering and middle ware on top of the basic graphics engine. If all you play is sandbox games, you will not view BGE graphics favorably....or pay attention to why it's so.

My understanding was that texture quality affected VRAM usage far more than FPS. As long as you have enough space to load the texture into your frame buffer the effects on performance are pretty minimal. A lot of FPS hogging things are the post-processing effects that are done to the textures. Here is a link from nvidia where they ran several tests: https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-graphics-and-performance-guide

Quote

Performance: In the majority of games raising the Texture Quality setting has a negligible impact on performance. The difference here comes from Low dialing down the geometric detail of objects, giving a big boost to performance. Excluding Low, the delta between detail levels is just a few frames per second.

tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-texture-qu

 

Examples of Low vs. Very High Quality:

https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-texture-quality-002-low.png

https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-texture-quality-002-very-high.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, scotsman said:

The trouble is simply that the sandbox game engines trade battle space size for enhanced graphics. None of the sandbox engines can handle large maps or good air play. Using any of them would require extensive buffering and middle ware on top of the basic graphics engine. If all you play is sandbox games, you will not view BGE graphics favorably....or pay attention to why it's so.

This is a 2001 era engine.  Sure there have been a few graphical band aids added since launch but nothing that is earth shattering. Your assumption there is  predicated on the fact that computers are not much more powerful than they were when the game was launched if you believe what you just wrote. Moore’s law would disagree. By now a WWIIOL with enhanced graphics could be done. No one wants to. Why spend the money when you can make a pile of it with small quick hitter titles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more a matter of this
And keep in mind, our engine is not limited to the presented gameworld, just simply no one had plunked down land farther
I could put the entire planet in there, though the TT ride to New York harbor would suck

FfaqNJg.png

There are things that we can do, are doing, and are investigating, to improve appearance.
A lot of it is a matter of very old textures.
But approaching a level of COD/BF1 etc type graphics in a game where you can not control and limit the environment to achieve them
probably is not possible with out doing things that limit game play.

At any given time, our client keeps 3,200 km X 3,200 km or 25 super cells of terrain loaded and ready to go
including all the possible object 3D models and textures one might find in it.
You do not have to contend with that in a shoebox game, If i am not in paris, i dont need to have paris loaded nor do i need models of the arc, the eiffel tower, the louvre or the palace of versailles loaded or their artwork cause i can do it while loading that map, if i am in Tobruk, i dont need to worry about loading a bunch of windmills and marshgrass etc in Holland, nor bother having Cairo loaded in memory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but with average video cards having 4 GB of frame buffer, and system with 8 GB of RAM (and many with 16 GB) I'm pretty sure that we have a lot of headroom to work with here. At the end of the day its not really the size of the map per se (at least unless its so big that your coordinate number in the game world exceeds you bit size), but the number of unique textures and models that are inside of it.

For example I have a Win10 system with 16 GB RAM and a GTX 1070ti with 8 GB of memory. Admittedly this is on the higher end of the spectrum but nothing outrageous. At idle with a Firefox window open I use 2.8 GB of RAM and my GPU uses 1.1 GB. At the map screen is use 4.2 GB RAM and on GPU 2.2 GB and ingame 4.4 GB RAM and 2.2 GB on GPU. So WWIIOL really is only using 1 GB of GPU memory and 1.5 GB of system memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aismov said:

Honestly the real issue with the game is its huge barrier to entry: graphics. We've been saying it since 2001. Many players take a look at it and walk away because of the graphics.

pfft, everyone's forgiving when it comes to graphics.

the biggest reason people don't log or sub is boredom. if there's nothing fun to do people won't play.

 

it's that simple, no fun = no pop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, major0noob said:

pfft, everyone's forgiving when it comes to graphics.

 

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).

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, minky said:

This is a 2001 era engine.  Sure there have been a few graphical band aids added since launch but nothing that is earth shattering. Your assumption there is  predicated on the fact that computers are not much more powerful than they were when the game was launched if you believe what you just wrote. Moore’s law would disagree. By now a WWIIOL with enhanced graphics could be done. No one wants to. Why spend the money when you can make a pile of it with small quick hitter titles?

 

2 hours ago, xanthus said:

 

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).

There are many things in play that can be done and the team Is looking at them. Both in terms of better textures and models, not to mention the battle space itself. This team has done more in one year than the old bunch accomplished in 5 or more years - not bad for a bunch of volunteers. We went years without new kit and this year saw quite a bit added with more in the works. 

many of the tank and aircraft models I baseline are much higher resolution and have to be polyreduced to be compatible with the current game engine. To be honest I'm not sure that matters much. As the battlefield gets dirty your unable to see fine details. It may be cool when you are laying next to a tank as a rifleman but that's not a very common scene on the battlefield. 

No one is resting on the status quo...the title can and will get better. I have to agree with what some of you have said though...where the game really shines is in a high pop scenario. The question is how can we get the people in the door and remain viable financially. 

There is a LOT of competition out there for the gaming dollar. Many titles are far deeper resource baskets than the current rats have. I'm not sure what the answer is...but no game has ever made my heart pound or curse like this one... and I have something to go by as an ex infantryman. I think that says a lot for the concept. 

The question remains how to win vs the likes of fortnight and so many others. Just like real combat there can be periods of inactivity followed by the moments of terror in BGE. The instant gratification games are better tailored to some part of the player audience that demand that, or those with limited play time

Could we do microgames that allow you to contribute to the larger game offline thus reducing sunk time? Yeah and I have some ideas there. It's  all a matter of time and resources. I'm all ears...I just don't see a holy grail  or a magic wand solution here. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.