Author Topic: WW2OL Revisited (Read 6307 times)

hardcase · « **Reply #90 on:** September 23, 2002, 07:17:00 PM »

I usually dont post mission so I really dont lead em.

hc

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #91 on:** September 23, 2002, 07:20:36 PM »

Low FPS online, yes V5 did do 32bit, CTDs, random lock-ups..

and then of course the obvious, the entire flying portion is very incomplete.

Yeah, if I only fly I only play 1/3rd of the game... I am quite content with that, but was extremely dissatisfied with the entire experience.

I long since deleted that fetal mistake from my hard drive. (yes, I do mean fetal)

I'll check back in a year or so, if the game still exists...
-SW

hardcase · « **Reply #92 on:** September 23, 2002, 07:24:05 PM »

Off course it is incomplete.

All you did was fly? Too bad.
I like shooting flyers down. Brits are getting a 40mm Bofors and tow truck. More death.

hardcase

Kieran · « **Reply #93 on:** September 23, 2002, 08:08:46 PM »

Quote

No...at this moment meaningless to me . I have no need to complete mission. I rarely take them. I just like shooting things.

But... if you just like shooting things, wouldn't that be better accomplished by a game that gives you faster action?

We're dancing in circles. If you claim WWIIOL has more depth of play I would agree, except... a vital piece of what makes the game different doesn't work properly. Score IS important to the workings of the game, whether it is important to you or not personally. This point can not be minimalized, because it is central to the WWIIOL premise. Mission success = rank = success in the game.

The concept of the game was not to be another shooter, it was a game that was supposed to be designed for teamwork and goal orientation. Having a score system (upon which everything stated depends) that doesn't work is not merely an inconvenience, it is a disaster. In effect, you might just as well be playing OFP on a bigger canvas, correct?

If I accept that I shouldn't worry about score, what does WWIIOL have over a game such as BF1942? Numbers? Size? You might try to suggest physics, but I think it wouldn't be too difficult to argue that there are so many problems with the physics as implemented in WWIIOL that the term "realistic" doesn't apply. So it becomes a matter of degrees. And... if you just want to shoot stuff, wouldn't you get that faster in BF1942?

So, just what makes WWIIOL the "Holy Grail"? Demonstrably BF1942 handles transitions much better, and is graphically clearer. It has all arms, Land, Sea, and Air, and it supports multiplayer. Thousands of players? In the current iteration that is a bit of a stretch for WWIIOL. Hundreds, perhaps, not thousands.

To summarize, if score doesn't matter, how is WWIIOL better than games such as BF1942?

hardcase · « **Reply #94 on:** September 23, 2002, 08:45:49 PM »

As I posted, any bug in scoring is a big deal to CRS. Just not to me. I am insulated from score problems. Your agrugments are valid and I agree that any bug in scoring effects players immediately.

hardcase

hardcase · « **Reply #95 on:** September 23, 2002, 08:52:52 PM »

ww2ol isnt the holy grail..yet. But if it fails, I dont think any company is gonna pick up the banner of a half scale war.

If it were easy to build a war wouldn;t it have been done by now?
You think Sony or EA is gonna build something risky? 300k love those dice throw muds. I suspect it is this sim or a long dry spell before something comes to try again.

hardcase

Kieran · « **Reply #96 on:** September 23, 2002, 10:17:47 PM »

Quote

My Sunday outing...

Tried spawning in brussels...stuka death x4...get tank, kill stuka, wait, no more spawns of stuka, get plane death X6 even though we have tank there (he can't see it).

Log off post in community help about stuka. Restart game after long sigh.

Goto some town south of Lille, get hurricane...vulched on takeoff
get hurricane, vulched on spawn. Get AAA gun...get 110 and 109 but 2 other 110's and 109 straff me at same time and kill me.

Give up, go get 109, get owned by awesome pilot who expends all ammo on my 109 without damaging me in the slightest. Then he just toys with me. I get on his six once, and don't bother to squeeze, he just doesn't deserve it, then he reverses and owns me again but has no ammo...Utterly frustrated with plight, I nose 109 into ground and log off and play Delta force for rest of night.

I think Scope's words ring pretty true from my viewpoint. Note in particular his feelings regarding the 109 and its relative immunity to Hurricanes. No fun to be Allied, no fun to be Axis.

straffo · « **Reply #97 on:** September 24, 2002, 01:28:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Straffo,

When was the last time?
You do know that games get patched, right?
Might be fixed since your last time.

Last version I used was 1.67
WWIIol as a HUGE appeal to me (I'm french you know

)

What upset me is all the potential in this game wich is badly used

Quote

Well, I still don't hear evidence of it being the Pak 36
Quite good hit from your friend if he killed Pak 36 with R35 at 800 meters.. hehe..

They are professional WWII ol player I'm just a casual player ... far from being L337

Quote

It's cannon sucks, needs direct hit and MG in WWIIOL doesn't effect that far.

I don't understand

Quote

I feel AH and IL2 flight model alot different from each other..

What I've heard, they're giving new sight for 25mm..
You see.. games do get updated

let pray

At each major update I give a new try ... I wait for another update and I'll try again ...

Quote

really not concerned

Fishu · « **Reply #98 on:** September 24, 2002, 08:46:40 AM »

Straffo,

In WWIIOL rifle caliber rounds dissapears around 600-700 meters, so it can't kill Pak 36 at 800 meters and not everyone can hit such tiny target at 800 meters with R35's pea shot cannon

(HE blast effect.... for some reason it sucks in WWIIOL, therefore with cannons you need pretty much direct hits, except 75mm's)

How can you have played 1.67 when it's under developtment ?-)
Have you seen the screenshot of the new texturing for 1.67?
Looks tens of times more appealing to me...

Heres one screenshot of the new textures, makes it look much different, dont you think?

straffo · « **Reply #99 on:** September 24, 2002, 09:07:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
How can you have played 1.67 when it's under developtment ?-)
Have you seen the screenshot of the new texturing for 1.67?

Oups ... looks like I diddlyed with version number

I was using last current version in fact I'll check but it should be something like 1.66 I believe ?

I'm still seriously looking at WWIIol as a replacement for AH and I strongly hope they will be able to increase FPS with the support od DX8.

I'm not anti WWIIol like some in this thread nor I'm a pro-AH,I just want to have fun after work currently AH work better than WWIIol but things can change ...
(in fact I've been supporting WWIIol from the start with a paying account ...)

It's just that some inconvenient in WWIIol are hard to overcome and I've been used to more quick reactions from the develloper (HTC support is great )

Each sims has is drawback for exemple I don't know why bomb have almost no blast effect in AH or why Hispano/12.7 can kill a panzer

lazs2 · « **Reply #100 on:** September 24, 2002, 09:55:48 AM »

guys..guys... it's quite simple really. wwIIol hired "doc" doom.. There is no way that anything in ww2ol can be accurate. Hireing doomie also proves that those responsible don't have the brains gawd gave gophers. there is no need to even try such a sim.
lazs

gatt · « **Reply #101 on:** September 24, 2002, 11:36:12 AM »

Well, what make me thinking about these WW2OL guys is that they do really think that Vulcan's report could seriosly stop us from trying WW2OL and mainly his next releases.

I believe that many AH (and WB) players try WW2OL now and then, even tho they test mainly the flight model, look at the cokpits, number of a/c types, a/c features, sky, clouds, (and online) how easy is to find dogfights, catch up with squad mates, radio communications and so on.

Many of us AH players have seen mates and whole squadrons moving there and (many) coming back. I for one opened a WW2OL account as soon as they released their first hypercrappy version. Played and beta-tested for a while then, when the air-combat part was let down, I left.

Now, I hope they will release something good, with a good graphic engine and a good flight model. No? Well, I'll stay here and enjoy the best flight sim around so far. I could enjoy a good WW2OL (in the air) even without touching a plane or a vehicle. Like I do in AcesHigh.

But so far I dont like it in the air. I dont like their cheerleders and blind fans, I dont like idiots who think that I'm not able to subscribe to another online sim just becouse an AH mate posted a (slightly) negative review. This is insulting. We cannot and dont post in their BBS, we post (in the OT section) AAR here to keep our players informed about other online sims.

So, cheerleaders, be sure that if WW2OL will roll out a decent release you'll see a lot of us there. Not becouse you are showing your ugly butt here but becouse the sim will be eventually good.

Ok, it has been a bad working day ...

Fishu · « **Reply #102 on:** September 24, 2002, 12:41:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oedipus
"Heres one screenshot of the new textures, makes it look much different, dont you think?"

While it may make a good screen shot what I actually see (trees, grass shrubbery) are impenetrable walls of titanium as a far as bullets and cannon go.

Erm.. the grass is penetrable by the bullets.
Trees aren't, but you can't either hide behind a tree from HE shells - hitting HE shell direclty on the tree kills the inf behind.

Besides, in AH ground clutter trees used to kill tanks with a slight touch

In AH you can't shoot through surfaces at all - ground clutter trees are exception, more for the looks than functionality of the ground war.
You can shoot through zeke's paper tail and the bullet will stop there, not go through and hit the next object.
In WWIIOL you can actually shoot through units.
I've killed two A13's with one 88mm that penetrated the first A13 from side to side and penetrated the side of the second one aside it

This was not to be anti this pro that.. this was an argument to show how much double stantards you had in your argument.

Gatt,

I didn't come back

It's just my opinion that I prefer myself to play WWIIOL myself than AH.
It just fits more to my way of having the fun.
I just hate to see when people are using stupid arguments to put down the WWIIOL.

AH is good, but just doesnt offer the right fun for me.
WWIIOL is good on it's own play ground and offers fun for me.
I mean, theres no other game like WWIIOL.. and I really hope it will set a new path for games, so we would see more games done to 'simulate' all aspects of the battle.
Let's remember that WB has been a pioneer in the simulation business and I think AH has been a pioneer in some things as well.
WWIIOL is trying something which no other has dared to try yet.

I greatly disagree of arguing against stupid arguments and personal opinion as cheerleading.
Hardcase is cheerleading WWIIOL though

Stupid arguments to slam down some game are worse than Hardcase's cheerleading.
It's pure form of stupidity.

hardcase · « **Reply #103 on:** September 24, 2002, 01:27:41 PM »

Cheerleading? I thought I was answering point for point.

Fanboy? Just because I can play thru the problems and enjoy myself?

Lets see ..cheerleading..I enjoy it. It has problems. I can play thru the problems. Some think it is toejam. I dont think it is toejam.
It will improve.

Sums it up.

hardcase

Kieran · « **Reply #104 on:** September 24, 2002, 01:36:40 PM »

The only thing I have against the way you are doing it, Fishu, is that you have a straight-across-the-board rebuttal for anything that is wrong with WWIIOL- that is, somehow AH is flawed, too.

Of course it is. But I think it is safe to assume those that play AH already know that, and the problems are pretty much recognized. OTOH, problems in WWIIOL exist too, and discussing them should not require the prerequisite comparison to AH... in fact, I patently avoid comparing the two. You may think this as a double-standard, I look at it like AH shouldn't be the measuring stick by which WWIIOL is rated, given they are two different game concepts altogether. This is the reason I feel your constant redirection to AH upon any discussion of WWIIOL problems is completely invalid. I don't feel I am the only one purposely avoiding WWIIOL/AH comparisons- they just don't apply.

But here's a bit of common sense- assuming people who post about WWIIOL have played both AH and WWIIOL (and I think that is a fair assumption) don't you think people have chosen the set of problems they'd rather deal with?

Here's more common sense- just because you can point to a similar problem in AH (compared to anything discussed about WWIIOL), does it mean the problems exist in corresponding degrees? Take graphical anomolies... It is fair to say both games have them. It is also fair to say that WWIIOL's were far worse, and in fact were used as exploits to cheat (clipping into walls? Tanks?). So, saying AH has graphic problems really doesn't negate in any way the negative impact graphic problems have had in WWIIOL, does it?

All computer games are the playground of exploiters, make no mistake of it. Often (but not always) the successful are successful because they learn the system, sometimes the successful are successful because they learn what is broken and how to abuse it. This occurs in varying degrees, but I've always had the feeling in WWIIOL that this type of behavior is not only rampant, it is to a large extent fostered and nurtured. How many times have we seen posted here and elsewhere someone relating how a squaddie showed them how to clip or otherwise cheat? If you must compare to AH, how many times have you seen such a post?

In the end I feel like people are telling you why they don't like WWIIOL and you ultimately are telling people they are wrong in what they are seeing, or that actually things are worse in AH. Yet... if people have fun in AH but not in WWIIOL, who is right, and who is wrong?