Jump to content

DoctorMcBatman

Members
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Private

About DoctorMcBatman

  • Rank
    Sergeant First Class

Recent Profile Visitors

231 profile views
  1. Player count capped at 30 is what did it for me. The second we have 40+ player games again, I'll be back.
  2. Can confirm, TSA players have been map glitch hunting and reporting for basically the game's entire EA period thus far. I've played with them and they will occasionally test a glitch or stumble into something, but it's never their predominant or intended play-style.
  3. I think it's too specific in that image. A simple left arrow, right arrow, up arrow, down arrow (MAYBE show two arrows for a diagonal like up and right arrow), but showing a specific area is too much info IMO.
  4. Depends on the players and map - both games I played last night were very close, within 300 points. One was Polyarny too. Other was Smolensk.
  5. Rolled my eyes at the thread title, then saw the poster and I shifted gears to prepare for the lulz
  6. I'm not a coder (I mean I've done some very basic stuff in Netbeans and Delphi, and HTML/JS/CSS), but my understanding is this should not be a concern. UE4 is pretty much the most popular game engine out there and its capacity to have optimized experiences is probably more limited by what the dev wants to do rather than the engine itself. Optimization is something that almost always comes last in game development, though it's partially continuous too. Since WW3 is EA, people are demanding optimization earlier in the dev process than it usually would be - which is sort of fair, if TF51 wants us to play, it needs a decent level of optimization. Optimization has gotten better since release, there was a major optimization update in the late fall of last year if I recall correctly. If this is your only concern about the game, I think you'll be very happy when it releases. But it's not fair to compare WW3 to AAA already released and majorly patched games (re: optimization, comparing for gameplay is fairish). WW3 is in development, those games were released many months ago and have received many updates. The game is not supposed to run perfectly as is, but it will get better as we get closer to release. And FWIW, there will always be people who have trouble running the game despite their hardware being fine - this happens with every game and it's just the nature of PCs being so radically different from one another in both a hardware and software standpoint.
  7. I think 32 vs. 32 is the largest. Honestly, it's a genuine question though and I wouldn't mind a rough time-table (weeks? 2 months? 5 months?). Even 20 vs 20 games are much better than 15 vs 15. WW3 is at its best when many players are on the map IMO (in Warzone at least), I reinstalled about a week ago, but the small games are really deterring me from playing.
  8. Will there be modes with dynamic/moving maps? (like BF's Rush or the newer BF's Grand Operations)
  9. I agree with #1. Maybe not 3 seconds, but 1 or 1.5 seconds. Even .5 would be nice. I think server browser QoL improvements will come naturally and they probably plan to modify it further, there are other things needing attention at the moment.
  10. Last year/earlier in the year I remember playing 40 - 44 person matches without performance issues. Did some of the new content mess with that optimization? Not complaining since they'll come back of course, but I'm curious since I remember playing bigger matches fairly regularly.
  11. Reinstalled last night and played a bit for the first time in months today. Forgot how good this game is. I just finished Rage 2 and I know they're very different types of games, but the vehicles in WW3 feel much better to drive on KB/M than in Rage 2 (a game that's supposed to be about driving). WW3 is feeling very polished (nice pun) and I am enjoying the new weapons and maps. Looking forward to continuing.
  12. Just saw this second part, very much agree about TDM. I know a lot of people asked for it (not me! :P), but those people are largely gone it seems. I don't think TDM really fits with WW3's overall vision, or at least the vision I've interpreted from marketing materials I've seen and playing the game myself. And I worry that dedicating resources to TDM is taking away from WZ, Recon, and other development needs. I don't know much about Recon and the little bit I've read sounds interesting, moreso than TDM IMO. But I'd also agree it maybe shouldn't be a priority at this moment. Though, if it's really fun and unique maybe it's worth it since it seems to be a strategic/slow-paced type mode, which fits much better with WW3's style than basically blind 'run n gun' like TDM often ends up being.
  13. That's a great point too. If anyone has genuine grievances with WW3, now is pretty much the absolute best time to state them (in a composed manner). The pool of players giving consistent feedback is a lot smaller than it ever has been, ideally meaning the feedback that is stated now (again, in a composed manner) has a much better chance of being reflected in the game compared with any point in the EA timeframe so far.
×
×
  • Create New...