Author Topic: WWIIOL sux rocks... (Read 1205 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #45 on:** May 22, 2002, 01:27:44 PM »

I'd like to jump on the CRS-bashing bandwagon (they earned it) but it would be like kicking a one-legged hobo sleeping in a puddle of his own vomit.

KG45 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 22, 2002, 01:29:03 PM »

Tac

they are trying to make WWIIOL an infantry based game. that's why put drastic limits on tank spawns. that's also why they have such a crappy flight model.

hence my renaming it Quake 1940

hardcase · « **Reply #47 on:** May 22, 2002, 02:13:51 PM »

THe only people I was gald to see leave the the total griefers, aka Blair(why they let his bellybutton back in I'll never know). Ppl still voice problems with ww2ol, but if you remember the vitriol that floated around during last summer, that isnt missed even today. I wasnt asking anyone to come back. Keirien, if we were glad to see you leave, musta been one of those total flamers the went beyond "pointing out valide problems". If not, there will prolly be another 2 week freebie. As for being a brown shirt:-) of the three sims I enjoy ww2ol. I lived thru the warbirds growth, when no one gave it any respect..remember when AW 3.0 got a CGW cover? and warbirds was a mention? Same is going on with ww2ol. Still the best 9.95 month I spend.

Lots of bad feelings were rampant last year.

Like I can't see the things that need fixing, but all I seem to hear on this site is how bad it was for ppl last June. To bad you are a tad behind the curve. I get 70 to 25fps in all combats. Then again I did work at it. Saving that Brownshirt quote for my sig:-)

hardcase

K West · « **Reply #48 on:** May 22, 2002, 02:45:13 PM »

"all I seem to hear on this site is how bad it was for ppl last June."

You're conveniently brushing off and ignoring (as usual) the folks who posted about the SAME old problems still existing as recently as the two week Gigex trial and the last patch.

Westy

K West · « **Reply #49 on:** May 22, 2002, 02:52:10 PM »

"I get 70 to 25fps in all combats. Then again I did work at it. Saving that Brownshirt quote for my sig:-)"

p.s. I imagine I would too if CRS/Playnet rewarded me with, er,
I mean, if I'd won a new PC with more than three hundred percent more horsepower than the recommended specs on the box.

Westy

Kieran · « **Reply #50 on:** May 22, 2002, 03:13:49 PM »

Hardcase-

Please, post the appropriate set of rules for voicing complaints on a Playnet BBS. Really.

Know how mine went?

Avondell was going off on some new guy for saying something to the effect, "Why is my frame rate so low?" The guy wasn't being disrespectful, he was asking for help. Avondell basically ran the guy into the ground as an idiot that should buy a GameCube, or something to that effect. I stepped in (foolishly) and pointed out the guy wasn't being disrespectful, and probably had a legitimate complaint. Result? Avondell took off on me. Turns out Avondell is a hero of the WWIIOL community, and though more acidic than any flameboy could ever be, was thoroughly worshipped. So, since I defended someone that had criticized the game, I was labeled by Avondell and his ilk (and people like you) as a flameboy. Didn't matter how reasonable I was, or how unreasonable fanboys could be, the labels stuck.

What really irks me about that whole thing is not how fools such as the one mentioned handled the situation; it was the fact CRS allowed it to continue. You can pretend fanboys were not abusive, but they were, and far worse than any critic could ever be. The mantras were:

1. Buy more RAM
2. Learn how to run a computer
3. Shut up and leave

I defy anyone who was there at the time to prove me wrong.

Nifty · « **Reply #51 on:** May 22, 2002, 03:32:51 PM »

Apparently you (Hardcase) only choose to see the complaints you want to see so you can easily dismiss them.

My complaints.

FM is not finished. This is a fact. Fuel and ordnance weight is NOT modelled.

The bias on the 64 visible unit limit is... awful, for lack of a better word. If I'm flying a Hurricane, and I'm on the 6 of a 110 and there is not a single other plane in visual range, there should be absolutely no reason that 110 should be excluded from the 64 visible units on my screen. From a plane why would the game draw infantry before enemy planes??? Sometimes even the icon winks out of existance. However, when it stayed, yet the plane itself wasn't drawn, wow, that was some fun dogfighting! Chasing around the letters 110C and a range circle! The funny thing was I think I actually damaged a 110C in that manner...

This game has been live for nearly a year. Two issues I've had since day 1 have not been resolved, nor even attempted to resolve. I could be wrong, but I think one quote from the dev team on the 64 limit bias was along the lines of "deal with it."

I only want to fly. I'm not interested in infantry, and only partially interested in tanks. Aces High works for me, WWIIOL doesn't for me (FM sucks and hell, if you're over a battle, you can't see the enemy planes to fight anyways). FWIW, my FPS was fine in the game most of the time (should be better on my new system too), it rarely if ever crashed on my old machine, and I didn't care about the long load times. Wasn't that much worse than the initial load on Jedi Knight II or even my PS2.

Tac · « **Reply #52 on:** May 22, 2002, 04:04:55 PM »

"they are trying to make WWIIOL an infantry based game. that's why put drastic limits on tank spawns. that's also why they have such a crappy flight model. "

Ermm.. no.

They put the drastic limits on the tank spawns because the game had become 100% tanks, and worse than that, they were all heavy tanks all around.

In short, they put the limits to limit the TYPE of tanks avaliable. If you havent noticed, now you cant just spawn a char and quake the attackers of a base.. or roll over Pz4's in droves and run over any and all defenders. However, light tanks are still avaliable for free as long as the base isnt contested BUT you can spawn them if you take a mission (which translates into joining mission, spawning tank and quaking on, but in a light tank).

If they were really making it an infantry based game they wouldve added ranged anti-tank weapons FOR the infantry (AT guns are artillery, not infantry). ATR rifles, while not capable of KILLING a tank, would be able to blow its tracks and immobilize it. But CRS doesnt want to lose the tank quake crowd so this isnt even considered, and so the infantry is for all purposes, flag cappers and thats it. The sappers are a complete and total joke to kill tanks, all its done is given the tanks even more infantry to kill as the inf. has to run to them..and guess what, the satchel wont place if the tank is moving..whooohoo. And of course they dont even model dispersion for the tank MG's.. you can place an entire MG clip through a building window from extreme long range, having to compensate only for gravity drop. This was tested AND shown to CRS... and absolutely ignored.

To top it off, their infantry models are so mediocrely done that its a real pain in the bellybutton to use them. Running for a few seconds then slowing down to a halt? WTF? My arthritic grandma can beat that. The stamina bar should go below 20% before that happens..but no, infantry must stop in the middle of nowhere so tanks can shoot them. crouch/stand/prone? UGH, i've seen it better modelled in games that were done in 1989. Rifles not killing with a point blank shot? or 8 shots? weeeird I tell ya, but its been tested, proven and shown to CRS.. and as usual, totally ignored.

And I wont even go into the "bump a wall while running and you get a G-force death". Try it.. run into something that bounces you back and your inf. guy experiences something like a 20G force and dies. Its freaking hilarious.

Tac · « **Reply #53 on:** May 22, 2002, 04:04:56 PM »

"they are trying to make WWIIOL an infantry based game. that's why put drastic limits on tank spawns. that's also why they have such a crappy flight model. "

Ermm.. no.

They put the drastic limits on the tank spawns because the game had become 100% tanks, and worse than that, they were all heavy tanks all around.

In short, they put the limits to limit the TYPE of tanks avaliable. If you havent noticed, now you cant just spawn a char and quake the attackers of a base.. or roll over Pz4's in droves and run over any and all defenders. However, light tanks are still avaliable for free as long as the base isnt contested BUT you can spawn them if you take a mission (which translates into joining mission, spawning tank and quaking on, but in a light tank).

If they were really making it an infantry based game they wouldve added ranged anti-tank weapons FOR the infantry (AT guns are artillery, not infantry). ATR rifles, while not capable of KILLING a tank, would be able to blow its tracks and immobilize it. But CRS doesnt want to lose the tank quake crowd so this isnt even considered, and so the infantry is for all purposes, flag cappers and thats it. The sappers are a complete and total joke to kill tanks, all its done is given the tanks even more infantry to kill as the inf. has to run to them..and guess what, the satchel wont place if the tank is moving..whooohoo. And of course they dont even model dispersion for the tank MG's.. you can place an entire MG clip through a building window from extreme long range, having to compensate only for gravity drop. This was tested AND shown to CRS... and absolutely ignored.

To top it off, their infantry models are so mediocrely done that its a real pain in the bellybutton to use them. Running for a few seconds then slowing down to a halt? WTF? My arthritic grandma can beat that. The stamina bar should go below 20% before that happens..but no, infantry must stop in the middle of nowhere so tanks can shoot them. crouch/stand/prone? UGH, i've seen it better modelled in games that were done in 1989. Rifles not killing with a point blank shot? or 8 shots? weeeird I tell ya, but its been tested, proven and shown to CRS.. and as usual, totally ignored.

And I wont even go into the "bump a wall while running and you get a G-force death". Try it.. run into something that bounces you back and your inf. guy experiences something like a 20G force and dies. Its freaking hilarious.

hardcase · « **Reply #54 on:** May 22, 2002, 04:33:35 PM »

1.60 infantry has had some major work. WW2 really does need for the infantry to have a biger impact on armor, but I dont know exactly how much the french and english had in May 1940. Rats will model stuff as they can. Part of the problem with crewed stuff is the same problem with reloads in the field. It requires more than just a coding but must be handled by many of the share servers that is used in this technology.

They found that the rifles were hitting with so much energy that the bullet was flying thru with little loss of energy and therefore not doing much damage. That has absolutely been fixed in 1.60..jeez rifles kill with a vengeance now.

The ram footprint has been reduced and the hope is that is runs as well at 256 as 1.55 runs with 512. We will see when the log files are turned off.

I never said WW2 had no warts. I had the same problems you guys had at the lauanch and as a beta tester tried desparately to keep it from being launched, but it was out of my hands as it was the rats. It went gold on May 20thh with a launch date of june 6th( some marketing weenie thought that would be cool) and for the next 16 days we ran patch after pathc trying to get it into something playable, hence the big patch. 3 days before the launch, the co location facilty went chapter 9 and so the scramble began. New facility had bad Fiber Optics but would not acknowledge the possiblity so Killer and company had 2 200k a year Cysco engineers trying to find out why the 10k server barfed at around 1200 players. The rest is the worst launch in history, history. The box was printed in Feb and the rats had all intention of fulfilling the box at launch. The minimum system requirements were out of date by march. 256 megs was simply not enought to run the sim at release.. I managed to get another 256 and was able to play thru the "lag" while the rats have fix as fast as they could. Rats realize they lost soooo much at that launch but like most ppl they keep pluging away and it gets better each release.

Time will tell, it will get better, or go belly up.

The mantra is Ram Ram Ram, and i agree some ppl were not treated kindly on the forum by some ppl. I always tried to help anyone asking. Took lots of ram, clean boots to keep ram free, could not be run at high graphic settings, best drivers avaliable and lot of ppl would not that computer savvy. Anyone treated badly I apologize to. Times are changing and the forums are losing the polarization that was the earmark of the summer.

I believe when 1.60 goes public, there will be another 2 week freebie. If you can put aside the early troubles, give it a try. Wont cost you anything but a 100 meg d/l. If you dont like it you can always come back here and tell everyone that it sucks rocks

I still like the brownshirt quote:-)

hardcase

Kieran · « **Reply #55 on:** May 22, 2002, 05:09:55 PM »

I go to Florida next week, and intend upon my return to try it again freebie or not. I have a copy sitting on my desk and will have a little time to kill. I want it to work, believe me, despite everything that has happened.

hardcase · « **Reply #56 on:** May 22, 2002, 05:31:27 PM »

kieren, dont use the patch system. go to the download page and get setup155.exe and if you still have an account grab the 1.60 beta and come join the killling:-)

Setup155.exe is a full install of the public game.

hard

K West · « **Reply #57 on:** May 22, 2002, 07:06:20 PM »

Well. A toast then to 1.06 and let's see if it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

Hardcase. That was one of your best posts I've read in over a year. Pretty objective and honest.

Westy

Mighty1 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 23, 2002, 08:08:49 AM »

Hardcase must have posted again cause I heard "Blah Blah Blah!".

Fishu · « **Reply #59 on:** May 23, 2002, 02:24:25 PM »

Some of you guys could look at the mirror and find same faults from yourselves that you're throwing on CRS and WWIIOL.
If you don't like the game, at least don't talk total BS which isn't even true.

Tac goes for good example of exageration and untrue BS.