Grenny Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 6 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Isn't there something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Yeah, silly me thinking that anti tank teams in close terrain clould be as useful as they are in real life. Guess the 2 minutes "up-and down" bobbing with out shooting is the norm,--- Edited June 21 by Grenny 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 5 hours ago, Grenny said: Yeah, silly me thinking that anti tank teams in close terrain clould be as useful as they are in real life. Guess the 2 minutes "up-and down" bobbing with out shooting is the norm,--- I agree its not "normal" and as far as I know eSim have committed to fix it. So until the next patch/version comes out, it seems like it wont change. Edited June 21 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 hours ago, Gibsonm said: I agree its not "normal"and as far as I know eSim have committed to fix it. So until the next patch/version comes out, it seems like it wont change. Yeah well, the best fix IMHO would be some form of player control over this weapon..."shoot RPG here" or better sights and triggers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parachuteprone Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 I know you don't generally like to discuss unreleased features, but can you give us some sort of rough idea of what level of terrain improvements are coming in V5 ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 22 Members Share Posted June 22 Variable resolution, mostly. This can help where a lot of features are in close proximity, like a tight road turn in a mountain village where all buildings are very close to the street. Or railroad tracks running parallel to a road, and a river. The main issue aren't "moar terrain features" but a better way to organize things, so we can concentrate more on other feature developments rather than grinding through a lot of code maintenance work. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parachuteprone Posted June 22 Share Posted June 22 Thanks for the info ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 So today we had another case of a player who dropped because of internet connection and needed his units back when he rejoined. Everytime that happens it takes us a few minutes to figure out who owns his units, simply because not everyone is on the same channel and newer players sometimes don't know how to check. So a simply list, showing what player owns what unit, viewable during the game would neat. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 1 hour ago, Higgs said: So today we had another case of a player who dropped because of internet connection and needed his units back when he rejoined. Everytime that happens it takes us a few minutes to figure out who owns his units, simply because not everyone is on the same channel and newer players sometimes don't know how to check. So a simply list, showing what player owns what unit, viewable during the game would neat. Perhaps take a screenshot before you start? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 18 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Perhaps take a screenshot before you start? I think you missunderstood me. It's not about who gets what in the start. It's when technical issues happen and we lose a player. The callsigns under that players control get assinged to other players. Sometimes they don't notice that. In some extreme cases they don't notice for a while. It would be a lot easier if we had a list that shows what player "owns" what units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 24 minutes ago, Higgs said: I think you missunderstood me. It's not about who gets what in the start. It's when technical issues happen and we lose a player. The callsigns under that players control get assinged to other players. Sometimes they don't notice that. In some extreme cases they don't notice for a while. It would be a lot easier if we had a list that shows what player "owns" what units. Surely the player that dropped knows what they have? When they rejoin, they just pick their unit (if they only command one vehicle / Platoon), or they pick say one Platoon and then once they have rejoined they just ask the Commander of X Company for the unit from there or wherever. I'm mean it must be pretty rare that a single player is commanding say 5 vehicles scattered across 5 different Platoons in several Companies? Anyway I guess its a "wish list". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 19 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Surely the player that dropped knows what they have? When they rejoin, they just pick their unit (if they only command one vehicle / Platoon), or they pick say one Platoon and then once they have rejoined they just ask the Commander of X Company for the unit from there or wherever. You still don’t understand me. The issue isn’t what units the player had. The issue is who owns them *after the crash*. When you have 20 players and 3 different channels on TeamSpeak and 5 differen companies with replacement and reserves and what not it’s suddenly not so straightforward as you make it seem. Then it can happen that I get a vehicle because someone from a different platoon crashed. Especially newer player sometimes don’t know how to check and if the message needs to be relayed 5 times it just takes a while and is rather annoying and tedious. 22 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: I'm mean it must be pretty rare that a single player is commanding say 5 vehicles scattered across 5 different Platoons in several Companies? Yeah that’s also not the situation I am describing. 23 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Anyway I guess its a "wish list". What’s that supposed to mean? No need to get snarky about it. Especially not before understanding the issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Higgs said: What’s that supposed to mean? No need to get snarky about it. Especially not before understanding the issue. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky and I apologise if that's how it came across. I just meant instead of me asking "why" I should just let you post it. But I still don't understand the basic request. If I "own" the number 4 tank in 2 Platoon, when / if I drop I just hop back into 4 tank, 2 Platoon on the unit list and then ask the person commanding 2 Platoon to give it to me. Edited June 24 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 4 hours ago, Higgs said: So today we had another case of a player who dropped because of internet connection and needed his units back when he rejoined. Everytime that happens it takes us a few minutes to figure out who owns his units, simply because not everyone is on the same channel and newer players sometimes don't know how to check. So a simply list, showing what player owns what unit, viewable during the game would neat. Agreed, this would be an obvious QOL improvement, has been mentioned/requested here by myself and others many times. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 So basically... What you @Higgs are asking. Is that when on map you klick any unit that is not in your control. That someone else controls: You'd somehow get to see owner of the vehicle in MP session. I think that would be great feature and help a lot. Especially in huge games where often because of vehicle losses in platoons and companies give some vehicles to other platoons and companies to keep players in those able to keep playing. This ability to see who own vehicle would be real handy especially when in game vehicle callsigns no longer match the callsigns that players their platoons are using. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 7 hours ago, Gibsonm said: But I still don't understand the basic request. If I "own" the number 4 tank in 2 Platoon, when / if I drop I just hop back into 4 tank, 2 Platoon on the unit list and then ask the person commanding 2 Platoon to give it to me. We had a player who crashed last night, I believe it to be Chrisreb, and it took him a solid 5 minutes and about 15 call-outs in the command net to get his units back. In Kanium we often hand out spare vehicles to players. Those spare vehicles aren’t necessarily handed out to players in the same platoon. Instead the lead vehicle might get handed to a player somewhere else in another TeamSpeak channel who might not even be listening to command net. Now if that person doesn’t realize that they received a vehicle, getting them back can be a bit of a hassle. Especially if it’s more than one vehicle. If I start out in say first platoon and drop that’s not a problem. But if my first tank gets, say immobilized, and I get a replacement tank, possibly from another company, things aren’t as straightforward anymore. Then the platoon leader of that vehicle might be in another platoon and in another TeamSpeak channel. With Kanium we often have replacement vehicles and hand them out when a player’s vehicle is destroyed or damaged. If I start out in A12 and that vehicle is out of commission for any number of reasons, I get a spare vehicle. Say E22. But there’s no guarantee that my platoon leader (who started out in A11) received E21. In fact, that vehicle being also a replacement vehicle, might have been handed to anyone in the game and my platoon leader might have been better than me and not gotten himself killed. Therefore he wouldn’t control the vehicle when I fall out of the game. If that player who does get control handed to them is new, or busy fighting or stressed out for other reasons or simply doesn’t get the call to check the map, it can take a while until I get control of E22 back. 7 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snarky and I apologise if that's how it came across. I just meant instead of me asking "why" I should just let you post it. Alright apologies from me also then. I took that message with more ill meaning than it was written with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissAdmiral Posted July 3 Share Posted July 3 I would like it if here both the NATO and Russian reporting names for the ATGMs were included, that way people like me who are more familiar with the russian designations for ATGMs could figure out what I'm looking at a bit faster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 9 Members Share Posted July 9 Moved a couple of posts into a new thread: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm of steel Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 I would like the different obstacles to be able to spawn like we can spawn units to add randomnes (or enemy courses of action) and replayability in a scenario, I know you can do that with FASCAM, but it would be preferable with AT-mines, abatis etc as well. And it would also be nice to make obstacles detectable to use in scripting to make a condition: "if known obstacles (or mines, concertina if you want to be very specific) in obj A". Then you could make conditioned routes or events that makes the enemy take another route/course of action or breach instead of headbutt their way trough a mine field. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 8 hours ago, Ssnake said: Moved a couple of posts into a new thread: Well it would be nice if the MICLIC related part stayed here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 9 Members Share Posted July 9 3 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Well it would be nice if the MICLIC related part stayed here. I think we should first establish if the MICLIC cannot be scripted at all, or if it can, but doesn't work in your case (and if the latter, why). I will concede that I have less practice with the Mission Editor these days - but I was involved in the development of the basic logic, and back then it worked. So there is a good chance that it's actually more of a support case than it is a wishlist item for a feature that doesn't exist yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 23 minutes ago, Ssnake said: I think we should first establish if the MICLIC cannot be scripted at all, or if it can, but doesn't work in your case (and if the latter, why). I will concede that I have less practice with the Mission Editor these days - but I was involved in the development of the basic logic, and back then it worked. So there is a good chance that it's actually more of a support case than it is a wishlist item for a feature that doesn't exist yet. Ah OK. I'll post a sample scenario for that in the Support thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgs Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) An indicator that the possession of a vehicle or unit has been handed to you would be nice. Maybe in the radio/text message space? Ideally indicating who gave the vehicle to you and what unit it actually is. For example something like this: 1-1A, Leopard 2A4 (Higgs) Edited July 29 by Higgs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Higgs said: An indicator that the possession of a vehicle or unit has been handed to you would be nice. Maybe in the radio/text message space? Ideally indicating who gave the vehicle to you and what unit it actually is. For example something like this: 1-1A, Leopard 2A4 (Higgs) Doesn't the colour coding already do that? e.g.: "I'm giving you 2A" (via Teamspeak, Discord, Rolling Text, etc.). Player looks at map and sees that 2A is now darker blue. Edited July 29 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 29 Members Share Posted July 29 Well, medium (blue/red/...), actually. The unit that you currently occupy is the one in dark shade. Units owned by anyone else (be they other players or the computer) are drawn in the light color variant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major duck Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 (edited) Wisent 2 https://suv.report/daenemark-beschafft-17-wisent-2/ Skyranger 30 with piranha 5 , Lynx, Pandur and boxer Austria (36 ordered + 9 in option) Pandur EVO vehicles Denmark (15 planned) Mowag Piranha V vehicles Germany (1 prototype + 18 systems ordered) GTK Boxer vehicles Hungary (Number unknown) Lynx-based air defence vehicle being codeveloped with Germany and Denmark Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicle https://suv.report/erster-in-ungarn-gefertigter-lynx-kf41-schuetzenpanzer-uebergeben/ K2 Black Panthers https://suv.report/rumaenien-will-bis-zu-500-k2-black-panther-beschaffen/ Besides all the polish ones Edited August 3 by Major duck 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.