Jump to content

rawalanche

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Private

About rawalanche

  • Rank
    Specialist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, A month ago, I've reported this bug: For some ridiculous reason, that thread was closed so I can't reply to it anymore. It's been a month and I still can't play the game since there is no audio. One of the recent patched solved the issue where Audio was coming from the Oculus Rift headset, but the audio from the main game is still not working. I tried gazillion of different workarounds, like fiddling with different audio output settings both inside and outside of the game. EDIT: Actually I was wrong. The issue with Audio playing from my Rift is still present. I just had the Rift earphone volume set really low. Is there any chance I could get a refund? The game is not much of use for me if I can't play it.
  2. No, absolutely every single game and Windows application on Steam and outside Steam works flawlessly. Sound comes from my Speakers, which are set as Windows primary audio device. The issue is clearly related to initialization of Oculus VR libraries bundled with Unreal Engine 4. I am still unable to play the game.
  3. Just tried, did not work. I don't actually have problem with SteamVR launching when I start the game. It happened in some of the previous build, but it doesn't happen anymore, so I don't think it's SteamVR related at all. Even with -nohmd launch option, the sound still only comes out of oculus earphones.
  4. DESCRIPTION OF BUG Sound comes from Oculus GAME BUILD ID 3343723 DESCRIPTION OF BUG: I am no longer able to play the game as sound comes only from the Oculus Rift earphones, despite default Windows Audio device is correctly set to regular speakers. Turning off autodetect device in audio settings doesn't help, and audio device option has only one setting - main, which can not be changed.
  5. Yup, I guess 4000 points is fine now that income is much higher
  6. In the original post, I've proposed reducing time limit to around 30 minutes. I did not propose doubling the score income or anything like that. I think the games should take around 30-35 minutes at most, but it was never my intention for matches to be as short as they are now. Luckily, the patch is just in the test environment, so I am sure it will be tweaked.
  7. Yeah, so I am fine with 30 minute time limit, and perhaps score limit could be raised to something like 3500, but doubling the score income indeed makes games way too short. Reducing it to 3000 is one thing, but reducing it to 3000 and doubling the score rate means basically reducing it to 1500. I'd suggest reverting the "doubling" of the score income, and I'd double, or at least increase battlepoint income instead.
  8. I really don't think that 30 minutes is not enough, but what confuses me is this (from the PTE changelog): Reduction of score limit to 3000 and time limit to 30 makes sense, but doubling the score income on top of that means the 3000 limit will now go as fast as 1500 limit before. I am not sure if that's intentional. It could be a typo in the changelog, because what would make sense is doubling battlepoint income, so that the players can enjoy their battlepoint rewards sooner in shorter matches. But if it's really score income what's been doubled, then the change is indeed too extreme.
  9. It was me, I mostly cried it was too long. I think you may have joined a server already in progress. You should make a judgement after you play a few games that you've joined near the start. 30 minutes is plenty of time I think part of the issue now is not that matches are too short, but rather that the game doesn't have any concept of map rotation yet.
  10. So here I am, back in this topic I've created. I owe developers an apology, especially for my harsh tone in my original post. I've just seen the 0.1.1 in PTE with different changelog, where time limit is changed to 30 minutes and battlepoint limit to 3000. I know it's easy to say now that the exact wish I formulated few posts above got fulfilled, but I am not saying it because of that. I don't expect developers to do exactly my bidding, I am just really happy that they listen, and sorry that I was being an ass. Even if this wouldn't happen again in future, it will still do my best to choose my words carefully next time I am dissatisfied with something.
  11. How about finally some natural environment maps instead of gray concrete jungles. That's my biggest issue with the current state of the game. All the maps look almost the same. Gray, and full of concrete. The only non-urban environment map is Smolensk, which is still locked, and not even in the game. Yet almost everyone in this thread has posted image of a concrete jungle. One thing that Battlefield game series did well was to introduce sufficient variety of map environments to play in, where as WW3 EA launched with 3 almost identical maps, probably because all 3 could reuse similar assets, if natural environment assets are still being worked on. I'd like to see maps similar to for example Zavod 311 or Caspian Border from BF4. Or Dalian Plant, Daqing Oilfields or Dragon Valley from BF2. Those kind of environments.
  12. Only proper solution to steamrolling is a good auto balance system. Artificial changes to battlepoint reward system based on which side is winning will just discourage the players from trying. What's the point of doing well in the game if you get punished for it, instead of rewarded. It's like progressive taxation. Stalin would be proud
  13. That's actually not how proper depth of field works. The proper DoF blurs the scene based on distance from focal point, so correctly set up DoF will generally only blur the very near foreground such as extremely close obstacles and your rifle. What WW3 does is actually called "Vignette Blur" where scene is blurred from the screen center towards the edges. The intention for it was probably to simulate a "Focus" of soldier when his eye is aiming down the sight, but I agree that in its current form, it's quite distracting and not very well done. Often, I am actually rubbing my eyes and checking if my glasses aren't dirty because things that should be in focus seem a bit too blurry.
  14. That would be the worst imaginable. This is exactly what divided Battlefield playerbase into two camps not playing with each other, which showed in the amount of available servers as the initial interest in the game dropped off. There should be only one set of game rules, completely rigid. Only that way the game can stay competitive.
  15. You make very little sense to be honest. You are implying that the length of the match would somehow affect the skill/challenge level of this game, which is not true at all. You can't possibly back that up. Shorter duration would not modify the game mechanics in any way, the game would just end sooner, that's it. Then you proceed to talk about the laziness and attention span. Those two contradict each other. Having to be very active in the game and constantly focused on staying on the very top of scoreboard through both high K/D as well as constantly capturing and defending points requires a lot of energy, the exact opposite of being lazy. That's the exact reason I prefer shorter matches. By shorter I don't mean 10 minutes, I mean like 25-30, which is about 2/3rds of what it is now. So that the last 10 minutes of the game, I don't feel like the game is a chore and instead I am motivated to play another match. If one is a lazy player, then THAT'S when the match length doesn't matter that much, because you don't need to pay that much attention and focus to the game. It has absolutely nothing to do with inclusivity. What is it with the modern kids having to drag politics into everything. This is simply about making the game more fun by not making the matches obscenely long. You want your killstreaks? Fine, if matches are now 2/3rds long, let's just reduce battlepoint requirements for them by about 25%. Nearly every match I've played past 5 days, I've always ended up among top 3 players on the scoreboard on my team... did I have fun? Yes, but only about first 30 minutes of the game, after that I started praying for the match to finally end so that I can see a different map, customize my loadout again, or just quit the game because I am uncertain what's the penalty for leaving the match before it ends. Last 10-15 minutes of a match which is ended up by a 45 minute timer feel just annyoing, especially if you are the kind of non lazy player who wants to keep up the energy and effectivity throughout the whole match. I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the idea. I am not saying we should have CoD like 10 minute matches. I am saying that we should have about 30 minute matches. 30 minutes is still plenty of time. There are 2 dimensions to any extremes. In this case, very short matches can be equally as bad as very long ones. I agree with you completely that too short matches would ruin the game. My point is that a right balance needs to be found, but (as I wrote in my original post), I don't think that the right balance will be found by so weak and excessively careful tweaks in order of few %.
×
×
  • Create New...