• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Crs Wants You!   01/18/2019

      CRS is looking for some volunteer live support chat staff.  Are you up for the assignment?  If so,  please send an email with your interest to,  Jobs@corneredrats.com
montyuno

Jumping the gun..... TOEs, armour, shields n such..

181 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, madrebel said:

 

 

The TrueSky video spends its time showing us what the sky looks like from the ground, or from a distance. Fine, but that's not the hard part. The difficult part of cloud modeling is getting them right close-up and in the transition zone, as you fly in and out. Clouds are complicated and much more dynamic in the short distance that defines their "surface", and the several hundred yards outside that "surface" when you have a close-up view.

Simul Water would not be useful as currently shown. CRS isn't modeling the Cote de Azur on a calm morning, or making a marketing video for the Bahamas. The Channel and North Sea are not like that. From actual data, a calm day will be one meter waves superimposed on 0.3 meter swells with a ten second period, with a 10 to 12 knot breeze. A less calm day will be three meter multidirectional waves superimposed on a 2.5 meter swell with a six second period, and a 35 knot wind with gusts to 50 knots.

A key element of sea modeling, given those parameters, will be ship/boat dynamics. The water package has to have hooks to tie to the ship/boat code for that movement. There's no mention of that, and no demonstration.

Plus, the existing product apparently doesn't do the surf zone. That's a key element of sea modeling if WWIIOL is ever to have seaborne assaults, commando raids and just a realistic looking world at the water-land interface.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently you've not flown in warthunder. 'inside' the clouds with perhaps the exception of unknown gusts/winds within the clouds, is as you'd expect ... you're blind. you can't see anything/out from inside the cloud nor can you see in the cloud from the outside. its a cloud.

the only hard part is making sure the clouds are in the same location for all clients - as i'm sure you recall from the game's launch 'bushes' weren't always in the same spot for all clients.

 

as for the water - are you suggesting they lack the ability to do better waves? based on what? a short pre-sales video? even if they couldn't what that video shows is a million times better than what we have.

 

ffs ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@madrebel, I was only arguing that having some weather effects are better than none. Of course I want more realistic weather that is in line with modern flight simulations, as we have seen posted here. Our weather isn’t perfect by any means but at least it changes things up from constant clear skies. I hesitate to blame it for pushing all those players of yesteryear away, has to be a lot more than that. 

Share this post


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

you consider the 'weather' that we have "well done realism"?

 

Do you read all of anyone's posts ever? 

I've said in previous post that it's far from perfect but its part of the game in its current FORM. Truesky or something similar would make me slightly moist with excitement. But till then, we got what we got which is a bit of random noisy rain effects. Am I complaining about it as much as you, hell no, I play in it. Rats have said more than once it needs improving so it is/will be on their ever growing todo list. The continuing moaning about it helps nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, having 'something' that drives away paying customers and is NOT realistic - is NOT better than paying customers.

Watch that video series. you're telling me that isn't a 'realistic' feeling battle to you? watch how many planes and all the AA fire going on throughout. that doesn't 'feel' right to you? note the amount of total players - in ONE f'n battle.

 

you'd rather have a terrible ugly hack than the above battle? do note, i don't claim weather in and of itself chased off 'ALL' the numbers. however, do you see 'weather' in that video? have we had any battles even close to the size/scope of that video since weather? its a part of the issue, TOEs/softcaps being a larger part as it pertains directly to ground numbers. air numbers though, weather was the major killer.

 

2 minutes ago, aleca said:

Do you read all of anyone's posts ever? 

I've said in previous post that it's far from perfect but its part of the game in its current FORM. Truesky or something similar would make me slightly moist with excitement. But till then, we got what we got which is a bit of random noisy rain effects. Am I complaining about it as much as you, hell no, I play in it. Rats have said more than once it needs improving so it is/will be on their ever growing todo list. The continuing moaning about it helps nothing. 

its NOT realistic. its not close. it drove off HUNDREDS of paying players - payments we could use to buy and integrate trueSKY.

 

you'd rather keep the crap we have? good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

'inside' the clouds with perhaps the exception of unknown gusts/winds within the clouds, is as you'd expect ... you're blind. you can't see anything/out from inside the cloud nor can you see in the cloud from the outside.

The difficult part of visual cloud modeling is boundaries, not internals.

Quote

the only hard part is making sure the clouds are in the same location for all clients

One of the reasons for 64 bit is to be able to describe world-object locations more straightforwardly across the whole map.

Quote

as i'm sure you recall from the game's launch 'bushes' weren't always in the same spot for all clients.

That was a bug, that got tracked down.

Quote

as for the water - are you suggesting they lack the ability to do better waves? based on what? a short pre-sales video?

Usually marketing videos show off your best capabilities. The first video you linked is irrelevant, as noted. It doesn't show any condition that would occur in the Channel or North Sea, or most of Europe's rivers for that matter. The second video you linked shows they're working on realism, but -- based on what they show -- not there yet.

Quote

even if they couldn't what that video shows is a million times better than what we have.

What we have is nothing. There's a naval game, but no naval simulation. Unlike with the air <--> ground interaction, I don't know of any conflicting motivations for naval game development choices, except for resource allocation. I hope if/when CRS eventually tackles the naval game, they'll do a good job with realism. Certainly the market for unrealistic shooters is already filled.

***

Regarding the existing cloud deck:

You keep slamming it as if CRS had wanted to model cumulus or stratocumulus clouds and didn't have the skillz to get beyond a simple deck. That's historically wrong. CRS said at the time that they consciously chose to model a continuous cloud layer...a realistic physical phenomenon...because the game wasn't 64 bit yet, and didn't have zones, and therefore didn't have the ability to model realistic looking dynamic boundaries. CRS needed a cloud deck as part of management of the air <--> ground relationship, and a simple continuous deck is what the game's development status allowed.

It seems as if you want "clouds" to mean some cumulus here, some over there, and clear air from the ground to the stratosphere in between. My perception is that your viewpoint is air-centric. Nothing wrong with that. CRS of course has to consider the overall game's needs, which may or may not be best met by what you or I or any other individual recommends. My understanding in the past has been that old-CRS felt that they needed to go in particular development directions that weren't what some air players wanted, because decreasing the air <--> ground interaction kept more ground players than the number of air players it lost. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no - 64bit had nothing to do with it. they couldn't do it, not because they weren't smart enough - but because they had nobody to accomplish the work. they did have the ability to use what was already in game, and hack together something quickly. that is what they did.

 

at that time NOTHING was mentioned about 64bit anything. at that time, the only thing mentioned around 64bit was "we'll wait until the drivers are in better shape" at that time, they were right. 64bit graphics drivers specifically and 64bit drivers in general were still a work in progress. a literal decade of technical water has passed under that bridge though. i personally remember posting multiple threads charting 64bit's adoption using steam hardware/software stats as a guide. even when 64bit OSes spilled over the median, they did nothing because at that point, they had nobody to do the work and or anyone who could do it, was doing rapid assault or something else that didn't move the bar.

Xoom has had multiple posts in the last two years mentioning technical debt. This is part of that debt. and for the record, the CRS i'm slamming is the old CRS aka sins of the past. This new CRS is correct many of those past sins and is unfortunately tasked with paying off that technical debt.

keeping something in game that is NOT realistic, at all, and also drove off hundreds of paying players is something that should be strongly considered. more subs = more resources to pay down technical debt.

as for trueSKY's water - its not even released yet. those are pre-release teasers.

Go ahead - tell me how our system measures up to that. do note - i'll riot if circles show through clouds, that's a warthunder arcade thing. simulation mode you don't see those through clouds that i recall - you also don't have third person external views. i know it may be difficult for you, but do try to imagine those clouds in a ww2ol setting.

you've got great things coming with all the munitions audits, the damage model audits, the increased number of plane variants, and the presumed pending releases of more planes. you've got good press with discovering the fishbowl and knowing the difference between it and the cylinder of old. you've got good press with hybrid supply promising to bring back BARCAP.

all that positive news will still fail to bring back vets as long as this terrible and god awfully ugly "realistic weather" hack is left in game.

RIP IT OUT!

p.s. the water aspect of trueSKY again, not fully released yet but

We are working on our latest product which is due for release over the next few months. Simul Volumetric Water will be an addition to the real-time weather renderer, Truesky,

for no extra cost. The water renderer will offer a new approach to in game water and offers fully customisable water and a new approach to water rendering.

its free - worst case you don't use it and it costs you nothing. best case the two boats we have, and any boats in the future may benefit greatly. given the features of the clouds and weather, its safe to pressume tides as well as swell size, regional patterns, etc are all on the list for inclusion. this is speedtree for the sky and presumably for water too. how well has speedtree payed off for the game? i'd say highly - speedtree and the more recent buildings keep us looking like the 6 you'd go home with at last call versus her uglier friend (terrain, tank commnders, and the other remaining hideous art we have).

bring back paying customers and things like trueSKY become more of a reality (after 1.36/64bit). you might even be able to pay them to integrate it for us. who knows. can't do any of that with zero budget. can't get a budget without more subs. pilots HAVE to have subs, there are no F2P pilots.

@scotsman - plugging in your METAR data sounds scriptable

Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer, uses trueSKY for Airline Pilot simulation training. One of the main reasons they choose trueSKY, amongst others,

is because weather scenarios can be changed with immediate effect. This is used to simulate different real-world weather conditions that are encountered during commercial flights around the globe.

again - what we have is NOT 'weather' its a 'cloud layer' that looks like dog crap, that sits at X altitude, doesn't move, and doesn't 'actually' have wind or other 'realistic weather phenomena' associated with it. its just a visual impairment. a visual impairment that protects CAS aka airquake - the one thing it was supposed to help alleviate. it also drove away hundreds of paying players that half you dolts don't even care about, nay, actively argue 'weren't the right type of players for this game' anyway. if i were running the ship, anyone who i saw openly choose an ugly unrealistic mechanic over paying players i'd instantly discount their feedback. so please, all of you, continue to give your opinion so the current team knows who cares about their hard work paying off and who doesn't.

 

thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, madrebel said:

even with broken 109s and broken DMs, the luft still managed to clear airspace until TOEs/Flags came in. don't you recall the JG2/JG26 sun blotters? JG53 at times had the numbers as well to just over run airspace. further, 109s have always been able to 100% dictate the fight against spits - its just incredibly difficult to learn and when you're out numbered 2:1 doesnt make it any easier. Once TOEs/Flags crippled BARCAP, since there now was no rear line airfields, the reduced ability to stop the flow of planes via BARCAP along with weather making BARCAP completely impossible while simultaneously giving CAS  the equivalent to "bush tunnels in the sky" luft numbers went from bad to catastrophic. add in the DMs/cannons being impotent and you arrive at where we are now - jg51 having what, 10 on a good night and essentially 95%+ of the total active pilots.

thats the funniest thing, weather was billed as being a relief valve for airquake and ended up protecting CAS. such a terrible design/idea.

you weren't around when the air game was many times larger than the combined population we have now. how would you know? what then 'killed the airwar' in your opinion? JG1, JG52, JG54, JG26, JG2, JG53, KGBB, and others im forgetting all lost HUGE numbers or completely died off shortly after weather was added. allied numbers i'm not as familiar with but they fell quickly too.

I have highlighted what you mentioned above many times. I just don’t think we will ever go back to having a realistic attrition in the air war. Ultimately I think it’s just bad for business and CRS will balk at having real attrition in the air. Barring that the only way to even things up is to make it so both sides can compete over the air space right above towns. I screamed about the situation until CRS banned my primary account permanently from the forums and the game.  Recently, I finally bought some air DLC and I take to the air in game once in a blue moon. I’ll never sub again as long as my other account is banned so that’s probably the last $18 CRS will ever see from me. At this point I’m just hoping they can make that $18 worth it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jwilly- here you go - from 2011

note the rhetoric. pilots complaining they can't play, ground players saying 'suck it up and adapt'. note the names no longer in game - they adapted alright. in this thread i linked truesky, i also commented on the one and only official statement the rats made which related to clouds across cells, nothing about 64bit.

 

another with KFS1 'forwarding' the thread - precisely zero about 64bits. much of the discussion ehre includes what we now know to be the fishbowl. at the time, we didn't know for certain wtf was causing a lot of the wash out and horizon issues. still and given that - same discussion back then - essentially its not realistic, looks horrible, and penalizes pilots. most of the names in that thread are long gone - premium subs - gone. and of course - you're in that thread posting BS crap in defense of a terrible mechanic - at least you're consistent.

also as usual, you're just wrong -

DOC in that thread

We can't give you volumetric clouds in this game engine yet, whether we can in the future, remains to be seen.

since nothing has changed, we still can't do volumetric clouds in this engine. we would need a trueSKY or developer time to write in that ability. meaning - there is no hope in the forseeable future to 'figure something out'. all you're doing then is penalizing pilots since there is no option for something better IE actually realistically simulated weather.

/caserested #yourewrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, minky said:

I have highlighted what you mentioned above many times. I just don’t think we will ever go back to having a realistic attrition in the air war. Ultimately I think it’s just bad for business and CRS will balk at having real attrition in the air. Barring that the only way to even things up is to make it so both sides can compete over the air space right above towns. I screamed about the situation until CRS banned my primary account permanently from the forums and the game.  Recently, I finally bought some air DLC and I take to the air in game once in a blue moon. I’ll never sub again as long as my other account is banned so that’s probably the last $18 CRS will ever see from me. At this point I’m just hoping they can make that $18 worth it. 

Italian planes give 'axis' the ability to TnB - just [censored] poor gun packages till a presumed tier 2.5 or t3.

Share this post


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

To be fair the all time peak on steam for WWIIOL was 448. The best averages were in the 140s at the beginning of the Steam launch and we all thought it was magical. RO2 after all this time still averages in the 440s. If WWIIOL had that “niche” population average from Steam none of us would be complaining about player numbers. 

Lets also remember that Steam population is not the entire game population. The majority of our population is still organic.

 

As far as suppression, I think this is represented in game when done correctly. Running a squad with 2 LMGs with a CS vehicle helping supress a CP. When you spawn in to that CP you can hear the fire, you can hear members of your team dying to the fire. You pop your smoke and either move via cover. That is suprression. The real issue is we as a community (CRS and Playerbase) need to help the new players learn this games mechanics. For example you dont run straight at a fortefied position. You need patience and cover to flank. I see it too many times this is not a straight FPS it is a MMOFPS which means more realism. Some of these FPS allow you to regain full health, it takes many hits to be killed, well not hear. 

Now we use to have concussive effects where the screen gets blurred and what not, similar to a tank getting hit by an AA gun. 

One game that I played called the Division had suppression built in where you lose multipliers for aim etc. however this is a twitch based system, and actually takes skill  to fire the weapon.  

Share this post


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

Italian planes give 'axis' the ability to TnB - just [censored] poor gun packages till a presumed tier 2.5 or t3.

I actually spoke directly with XOOM about the issue and followed up with an email suggesting the Italian rides for that purpose. I would actually be ok with the poor guns packages to get some TnB parody beyond tier 0. 

I can BnZ with the best of them but ultimately it’s fruitless without any attrition. What’s maddening is that CRS doesn’t seem to recognize there is a problem let alone search for a solution. The numbers of air sorties are consistently higher for one side over the other, as is the K/D for the bombers. If it were an AFV issue there would be an absolute melt down.  Ultimately I wonder if there are so few pilots actually left that they just don’t see any of the issues as a real priority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BLKHWK8 said:

Lets also remember that Steam population is not the entire game population. The majority of our population is still organic.

 

As far as suppression, I think this is represented in game when done correctly. Running a squad with 2 LMGs with a CS vehicle helping supress a CP. When you spawn in to that CP you can hear the fire, you can hear members of your team dying to the fire. You pop your smoke and either move via cover. That is suprression. The real issue is we as a community (CRS and Playerbase) need to help the new players learn this games mechanics. For example you dont run straight at a fortefied position. You need patience and cover to flank. I see it too many times this is not a straight FPS it is a MMOFPS which means more realism. Some of these FPS allow you to regain full health, it takes many hits to be killed, well not hear. 

Now we use to have concussive effects where the screen gets blurred and what not, similar to a tank getting hit by an AA gun. 

One game that I played called the Division had suppression built in where you lose multipliers for aim etc. however this is a twitch based system, and actually takes skill  to fire the weapon.  

I take CRS’ statements on player numbers or relative health with a grain of salt. In 2012 XOOM posted a news article saying player retention was on the rise. Everything was just peachy for the game. Fast forward a couple months and RAFTER was putting out a news article that CRS was down to 6 total staff and the sky was falling. I haven’t really trusted the company line on that matter since. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

/caserested #yourewrong

The development moves you think were incomprehensible, in fact made economic sense then...and if the factors that led to them haven't changed, still do.

But I'm done trying to explain to you. You don't want to hear it.

In any case, you don't have to convince me. I'm not part of CRS.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, minky said:

I take CRS’ statements on player numbers or relative health with a grain of salt. In 2012 XOOM posted a news article saying player retention was on the rise. Everything was just peachy for the game. Fast forward a couple months and RAFTER was putting out a news article that CRS was down to 6 total staff and the sky was falling. I haven’t really trusted the company line on that matter since. 

Hey, I am not stating that everything is peachy. We were just speaking last night at our meeting about Retention and churn. We recognize the need to not only grow new players, but retain existing players. To compare this company to 7 years ago is not the best representation of the game state as well. 

The clear fact is CRS is beginning to develop completely new equipment (and yes Italians are on the drawing board).  Im glad you offered suggestion, and if we we lived in a perfect world, resources and population would be high and we could implement a fully paid team to develop these suggestions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank god for that. I for one am damn sure glad someone who thinks chasing away paying players makes “economic sense” isn’t steering the ship.

1 minute ago, BLKHWK8 said:

Hey, I am not stating that everything is peachy. We were just speaking last night at our meeting about Retention and churn. We recognize the need to not only grow new players, but retain existing players. To compare this company to 7 years ago is not the best representation of the game state as well. 

The clear fact is CRS is beginning to develop completely new equipment (and yes Italians are on the drawing board).  Im glad you offered suggestion, and if we we lived in a perfect world, resources and population would be high and we could implement a fully paid team to develop these suggestions. 

Did the subject of possibly gaining old players by rolling back terrible decisions come up? If not, perhaps have that talk at next meeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, madrebel said:

since it can't be fixed 'soon' - why cant it be disabled until such time that it is something that adds to the game instead of detract can be delivered?

It pretty much is - it's sunny and clear like 98% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battle of Stalingrad's view distance during "very rainy" weather is about as far as the regular days in this game. CRS was irrationally proud of their weather feature as after the 1.31 launch it was cloudy and rainy during prime time almost every day, like they really wanted to show it off. Probably noteworthy that BoS is a niche flight simulation title with a high price, a fragmented playerbase and it still averages about 200 concurrent Steam players.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phf3OPkFDRA 

Really it's astounding that this game was first to market with multiple nations of tanks, aircraft, infantry, even a few ships in a multiplayer setting. Somehow it sat around for a decade or so until World of Tanks, then War Thunder, and now even World of Warships came in and made a fun experience based off of some of the same things modeled here.  There has always been a weird focus on things that don't make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Thank god for that. I for one am damn sure glad someone who thinks chasing away paying players makes “economic sense” isn’t steering the ship.

Did the subject of possibly gaining old players by rolling back terrible decisions come up? If not, perhaps have that talk at next meeting?

Yes we discussed a lot of things in that direction.  Just remember that rolling back is not as easy as changing a 0 to a 1 in the code. I think some of these issues is the audit had expectations set in the wrong way, I think this also exposed issues that the current team was not working correctly at all. However it was not a complete failure and we are learning from it. We have seen several annomalies in the code etc, and at least created a baseline. Its not as much about rolling back to prior thing but bringin everything to the new baseline.

 

So in this example:

We did an audit of the balistics data in the code (HE and KE) which was incorrect on several levels. This uncovered several things, one of which was infantry hardness which was then adjusted and continues to be looked at. We now see issues when HE round does not penetrate armor not exploding, no concussion effects as well as other damage models. This brings on phase 2, is this happening as quickly as we like no, however we are seeing progress. 

 

The other tool is some introduction of some new ways to access content, *cough* subscription models* which Xoom will be talking about soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, B2K said:

It pretty much is - it's sunny and clear like 98% of the time.

then that last 2% won't matter. it matters to would be subscribers still.

again, you've got a great press release brewing for an email blast to all old players but specifically pilots.

improved plane damage models

improved plane armament

hybrid supply bringing back BARCAP

removing fishbowl and bringing back cylinder

stress modeling (presuming hatch's idea has legs)

if that same email says "removed weather 1.0" and has a follow on "if we get X number of hero builders we'll commit to trueSKY and weather 2.0" thats an email blast that will net you premium subscriptions and possibly hero builders. if you leave weather 1.0 in, its a big reason to not subscribe for all those pilots we've lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jwilly said:

You keep slamming it as if CRS had wanted to model cumulus or stratocumulus clouds and didn't have the skillz to get beyond a simple deck. That's historically wrong. CRS said at the time that they consciously chose to model a continuous cloud layer...a realistic physical phenomenon...because the game wasn't 64 bit yet, and didn't have zones, and therefore didn't have the ability to model realistic looking dynamic boundaries. CRS needed a cloud deck as part of management of the air <--> ground relationship, and a simple continuous deck is what the game's development status allowed.

It seems as if you want "clouds" to mean some cumulus here, some over there, and clear air from the ground to the stratosphere in between. My perception is that your viewpoint is air-centric. Nothing wrong with that. CRS of course has to consider the overall game's needs, which may or may not be best met by what you or I or any other individual recommends. My understanding in the past has been that old-CRS felt that they needed to go in particular development directions that weren't what some air players wanted, because decreasing the air <--> ground interaction kept more ground players than the number of air players it lost. 

In regards to the air <--> ground relationship, the change to bombs (both in lethality and release point) has really tilted the relationship away from the air.  

 

With weather being as infrequent as it is right now, I really don't think that removing it entirely would cost any subscriptions, but it could very well generate some new subs from returning air players.  

 

If anyone is going to unsub because of a lack of weather, speak now or forever hold your peace.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

In regards to the air <--> ground relationship, the change to bombs (both in lethality and release point) has really tilted the relationship away from the air. 

Bombs are less lethal (at present) against medium/heavy armor, and more lethal against infantry and soft skins. I don't think that aggregates to less lethality overall, but I don't have any hard data to prove that one way or the other.

Certainly if CRS thinks old-CRS's determination was wrong that they faced a choice of losing x air players or losing >>x ground players, or CRS thinks that determination is no longer applicable, they could reverse it. 

My "infantry AA LMG" thread was specifically intended to make the latter easier.

Share this post


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

Bombs are less lethal (at present) against medium/heavy armor, and more lethal against infantry and soft skins. I don't think that aggregates to less lethality overall, but I don't have any hard data to prove that one way or the other.

Certainly if CRS thinks old-CRS's determination was wrong that they faced a choice of losing x air players or losing >>x ground players, or CRS thinks that determination is no longer applicable, they could reverse it. 

My "infantry AA LMG" thread was specifically intended to make the latter easier.

I'm just going off my memory here, but from what I recall, the most vocal group of complainers about the air <--> ground relationship were tankers, not squishies.  If that holds true, I don't think removing the weather until a suitable replacement can developed will drive off any players.  

 

As you said though, CRS presumably has the data to make this determination either way.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they could do one of their in-game polls on the weather subject?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, madrebel said:

no, having 'something' that drives away paying customers and is NOT realistic - is NOT better than paying customers.

Watch that video series. you're telling me that isn't a 'realistic' feeling battle to you? watch how many planes and all the AA fire going on throughout. that doesn't 'feel' right to you? note the amount of total players - in ONE f'n battle.

 

you'd rather have a terrible ugly hack than the above battle? do note, i don't claim weather in and of itself chased off 'ALL' the numbers. however, do you see 'weather' in that video? have we had any battles even close to the size/scope of that video since weather? its a part of the issue, TOEs/softcaps being a larger part as it pertains directly to ground numbers. air numbers though, weather was the major killer.

 

its NOT realistic. its not close. it drove off HUNDREDS of paying players - payments we could use to buy and integrate trueSKY.

 

you'd rather keep the crap we have? good to know.

Out of curiousity, do you subscribe madrebel? 

Yet again you ignore what I've said repeatedly and go off on your own tangent and make your own assumptions. Swearing in forums isn't big, hard or clever by the way, so let me help you some. 

Not once have I said the current weather is realistic. In fact, I've agreed with you that it needs improving, so being passive aggressive about it isn't helping. In fact, from your attitude and reactions to Rats, players and the game, I'd say you've probably had a helping hand in driving people away as much as 2% rain with an unprecedented level of negetivity to all of the above. 

I have agreed with you more than once weather needs improving. Whether it is liked or not it does effect gameplay in its current form. If that is in a good or bad way is completely down to individual preference. You dislike it because you hate flying in it. I see it as its part of the game, I play regardless and deal with it. It makes me slightly harder to be seen or heard, it makes enemy harder to see and hear. It's what rain does, whether that be in the air or on the ground. 

Rats know it's far from perfect. It'll be on their ever growing todo list and will get round to it. I highly doubt gabbering on about it is going to push it up their list. 

Seeing as turning the weather off completely will make the atmosphere boring after a while, and the fact it's harder than just changing a 1 to a 0. I personally, would prefer the Rats to use their valuable limited to complete something close to completion, rather than changing yet another aspect of the game right now. 

Capco and pothead did the right thing with the poll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.