Support NeoGAF

[tha_con]

Oh I do the same thing. I don't just sit in front of my tv looking at stats for hours you know!?!:lol , the ideal thing that I would like to do is set up the server when I leave for work/gym or whatever, however due to the freezing issues I don't want to be wasting my electricity just for the game to be hung on some screen.

yea, I see what you're saying. I just wish more people would put up ranked servers. But I've heard that it's possible all of the stats will get wiped after the beta? That kinda stinks, but oh well, just means I can start fresh, lol.

 

[tha_con]

There are definite clipping glitches. On the city map you clan fly down right above the water, then back up through one of the main buildings (the building where a teams main base/flag is in CTF for example).



I'd like to mess with this tonight. Can you or someone host? If not, I can. If we can get a server hosted I'll join when I get home.




If enough people take interest, I'm down.

Cool man, I'll host a game tonight around 7:30 PM CST, I'll call it...stunt_room?

I can only host a server for 8 people though. So we'd either have to have a private room with just a few of us in it password protected so no one ruins our "testing" :lol

 

[belvedere]

Cool man, I'll host a game tonight around 7:30 PM CST, I'll call it...stunt_room?

I can only host a server for 8 people though. So we'd either have to have a private room with just a few of us in it password protected so no one ruins our "testing" :lol

Ok, sounds good. I won't get home til around 7 CST anyway so that's perfect.

If you want, set a PW and PM it to me and anyone else here at GAF that's interested.

May the laws of re-created physics be pushed to their very limits!

 

[Ragnarok10]

I hope Incog devotes quite a few dedicated servers to this game once it goes live. By far the most difficult part of playing this game is getting in one.

Incog will almost certainly wipe our stats. It wouldn't be very fair to the people that didn't get into the beta to be behind the people that got to play for free.

Someone should set up a server called something like "Fizicks_are_phun!" where you guys can mess around with the maps and the physics engine with impunity.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Well I just ranked up but no flames like I thought. Just all black versions of the warhawks, and helmet/arm changes in the soldier. Gah so now I guess I'll keep doing rank until I get 500 points, and the warhawk wings ribbon.

 

[captive]

I hope Incog devotes quite a few dedicated servers to this game once it goes live. By far the most difficult part of playing this game is getting in one.

Incog will almost certainly wipe our stats. It wouldn't be very fair to the people that didn't get into the beta to be behind the people that got to play for free.

Someone should set up a server called something like "Fizicks_are_phun!" where you guys can mess around with the maps and the physics engine with impunity.

Why? Its not like you get anything that gives you an advantage out of the gate by ranking up in the beta.

Several MMO's let people roll over their beta accounts into production.

I dont care either way, im going to play and rank up when it comes out anyway.

 

[captive]

So, someone want to explain to me how one ranks up?
I have 145 total points, 93 team points, 58 combat points.
i got badges for pistol, knife, teamwork and ground combat and im still a recruit. :-(

PS Death match still sucks ass. People just camp the damn spawn points and either nade spam you or mine the place up.

 

[fatigues_gasolini]

So, someone want to explain to me how one ranks up?
I have 145 total points, 93 team points, 58 combat points.
i got badges for pistol, knife, teamwork and ground combat and im still a recruit. :-(

PS Death match still sucks ass. People just camp the damn spawn points and either nade spam you or mine the place up.

each rank advancement requires points and a specific badge. Ive gotten both but still wont rank up. cant get any new stuff

 

[fatigues_gasolini]

im in the stunts only room. Im amassing a pile of vehicles to do an airstrike to see what happens

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Go to your profile page in game while you're online. Check out your score, and press triangle to get out of that box to navigate to the badges - ribbons - rank & requirements. Go to Rank & requirements to see what rank is next and what you need to level up to that rank (Usually it's X#points + a ribbon). You want to look at the ribbons to see what you need to achieve to get it. The Warhawk Wings ribbon for example = spend 4 minutes in a warhawk, kill 1 soldier on foot, kill 1 jeep/tank, obtain 5 bonus points to obtain this ribbon.

Edit: The server seem to take a while to confirm your rank up. If you have both and didn't get your new rank, go into another ranked game and you will get it right as you enter the match (thats how mine showed up). Good luck getting in another ranked game bro Also after you exit said ranked game after getting your, "Hi there you've ranked up here's a medal picture in the lower left hand side of your screen" message. Go to the profile screen again, then exit out. For second confi

 

[belvedere]

Stunt Update

Though I can't seem to host a server that lasts more than 20 minutes without locking up, I've been successful at a variety of different stunts. There's definitely possibilities for good stunts in this game.

What I've accomplished by myself so far (playing split screen controlling both 1 and 2p)

Standing on a Warhawk while another person pilots it in all directions.

Up and down is the most stable, the forward and backward movements are very touchy launching the person on top off very easily. I was even able to have the second player stand on a Warhawk parked on the top of a very tall building in The Destroyed Capital map then push both the player and the Warhawk off with another Warhawk. The funny thing is there seemed to be a clipping bug where the Warhawk was hanging swinging back and forth on the edge of the building while the player remained on top of the Warhawk the entire time. I was able to "Warhawk surf" for about 30 seconds until I hit the waters below. It looked hilarious.

Jeep on top of hovering Warhawk.

I was briefly able to land a jeep on top of a Warhawk I had hovering under a bridge on the Eucadia map. It slid off quickly however as it's hard to balance two different controllers.

Jump from mid air jeep into Warhawk.

When performing the Warhawk surfing via jeep trick I was able to actually jump from the falling jeep into the Warhawk and take off in mid air.

I'll try to get some screens and video.

 

[captive]

Go to your profile page in game while you're online. Check out your score, and press triangle to get out of that box to navigate to the badges - ribbons - rank & requirements. Go to Rank & requirements to see what rank is next and what you need to level up to that rank (Usually it's X#points + a ribbon). You want to look at the ribbons to see what you need to achieve to get it. The Warhawk Wings ribbon for example = spend 4 minutes in a warhawk, kill 1 soldier on foot, kill 1 jeep/tank, obtain 5 bonus points to obtain this ribbon.

Edit: The server seem to take a while to confirm your rank up. If you have both and didn't get your new rank, go into another ranked game and you will get it right as you enter the match (thats how mine showed up). Good luck getting in another ranked game bro Also after you exit said ranked game after getting your, "Hi there you've ranked up here's a medal picture in the lower left hand side of your screen" message. Go to the profile screen again, then exit out. For second confi

This gets it, except my problem is apparently you have to complete a game after "being recomended for advancement" and i keep freezing, frozen on three different servers.. :lol

But ranked servers dont seem to be a problem there are quite a few up now, including Earlybird servers, which seem to run great for some odd reason.

Edit, i officially jumped rank.
The irony i joined a ranked game that only had about 2 minutes left, i didnt freeze.... until after the stats were uploaded and we were counting down to the next map. :lol :lol

 

[tha_con]

So what is everyone's favorite ground weapon? My personal favorite thus far has to be the Binoculars, Sniper Rifle, and the Mines.

I got the Warhawk wings, I just need another 200 points and I can rank up to Airman 1st class.

And sorry for not being in the stunt room last night, I failed hardcore, lawl. I ended up working late, and then by the time I got home was around 8:30ish, and I just jumped into a (surprisingly) open ranked game.

 

[belvedere]

So what is everyone's favorite ground weapon? My personal favorite thus far has to be the Binoculars, Sniper Rifle, and the Mines.

I got the Warhawk wings, I just need another 200 points and I can rank up to Airman 1st class.

And sorry for not being in the stunt room last night, I failed hardcore, lawl. I ended up working late, and then by the time I got home was around 8:30ish, and I just jumped into a (surprisingly) open ranked game.

No problem. I may host another Stunt server tonight depending on when I get home. Someone else may have better luck though as mine crashed every 20 minutes.

I don't know if you read my impressions so far, but stunts are definitely possible in this game.

Can't wait to explore it more.

 

[Ragnarok10]

Are the binoculars a pick-up or does everyone start out with them?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Pickup and they are used for airstrikes, and less for actually seeing far off. Darn dangerious weapon but has it's bad sides to balance it.

 

[PuMa]

Are the binoculars a pick-up or does everyone start out with them?

You have to find them

 

[JB1981]

Are the binoculars a pick-up or does everyone start out with them?

They are perfect for taking out turret spammers.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

They really need to up the player limit to at least 64 players.

 

[JB1981]

They really need to up the player limit to at least 64 players.

:lol

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

:lol

I'm serious. The game's got all the right components, it's just missing that balls out war intensity that cramming more players into the map would surely assist in establishing.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

or make the maps smaller. It should have at least 40 players IMO

somewhat smaller maps with 40 players should rule!

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

or make the maps smaller. It should have at least 40 players IMO

somewhat smaller maps with 40 players should rule!

There already are smaller subsections to each map. I'm talking about doubling the player count on the largest maps.

 

[Wollan]

.

 

[Ragnarok10]

Dear God patch the game Incog. I really want to get into it but hard restarts are such a buzz kill...

 

[kaching]

I'm serious. The game's got all the right components, it's just missing that balls out war intensity that cramming more players into the map would surely assist in establishing.

I haven't had any problem with the sense of "balls out war intensity" I get at times when I've been playing in sessions with even just 12-16 on the map, involving only 3-4 players in immediate shooting range.

 

[tha_con]

I'm serious. The game's got all the right components, it's just missing that balls out war intensity that cramming more players into the map would surely assist in establishing.

And completely negate any strategy the game might have, turning it completely into a run and gun shooter. Seriously, doubling the player count would only make it chaotic, somewhat like Resistance get's with 40 players some of the smaller 40 player maps (especially in death match). It just wouldn't be "cooL" especially not with the team element this game clearly tries to encourage.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

And completely negate any strategy the game might have, turning it completely into a run and gun shooter. Seriously, doubling the player count would only make it chaotic, somewhat like Resistance get's with 40 players some of the smaller 40 player maps (especially in death match). It just wouldn't be "cooL" especially not with the team element this game clearly tries to encourage.

Bull. You just have to develop strategy on a larger scale. And there's nothing that says that 64 would be a requirement, just an option for those who prefer large scale battles.

 

[chubigans]

Things I love to do:

-Shooting Warhawks with charged-up lightning bursts. It attaches to the plane and you see pilots frantically trying to shake it off. :lol

-Grabbing some binoculars, then hopping in a Warhawk and going to the tallest & closest mountain near the enemy base, land and get out on it to get a great eagle-eye'd view of the map, then bomb the hell out of the enemy.

-Lightning bursts. They are just so awesome.

 

[tha_con]

Bull. You just have to develop strategy on a larger scale. And there's nothing that says that 64 would be a requirement, just an option for those who prefer large scale battles.

Well, it sounds good in theory, but with a current clan limit of what, 16? And the easily killed characters, I really don't think there would be much planning do it. On tank could roll over a fleet of people, and anyone trying to coordinate any team efforts on any scale of that size is just not going to happen on a frequent basis. Not to mention there are already few people who can successfully host a 32p game, how on earth will anyone host a 64p game? Without some serious bandwidth on someone's side, I really just don't see it being a possibility. Or even a "good idea" for that matter. 64p rooms will quickly fill with idiots who will just run and gun, team kill, and turret spam. That player count leaves room for each and every turret to be filled, tons of snipers, and a stupid amount random crap. It just would take the game down a notch, IMO.

 

[captive]

I'm serious. The game's got all the right components, it's just missing that balls out war intensity that cramming more players into the map would surely assist in establishing.

as if there isnt enough assholes that come spawn camp in team death match.

 

[Greg]

The game is a blast, and I know it's only beta, but there are so many things that just can't be fixed when it comes to balance, especially considering the scope. It's one of those games, like BF2, where it's fun to play the game for what it is, but when it comes to being serious, too many things need to be enforced on the player side to hold that fine balance of fair and fun. It goes far beyond the simple things like weapon damage, it's problems that involve the mechanics tied to the scope of the game.

 

[DireStr8s]

I keep seeing thin green pointers(like the sniper rifle in Conker L&R). Anyone know what it is?
BTW any slots left open in the GAF clans? PSN¦ nickslick

 

[slider]

Sounds like an awesome game (is awesome too strong a word?).

I wonder if there'll ever be any follow up to the rumours of Sony being "pissed off with Incognito" after the feedback this sucker's been getting.

 

[Killthee]

I keep seeing thin green pointers(like the sniper rifle in Conker L&R). Anyone know what it is?
BTW any slots left open in the GAF clans? PSN¦ nickslick

Sounds like land mines.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Bull. You just have to develop strategy on a larger scale. And there's nothing that says that 64 would be a requirement, just an option for those who prefer large scale battles.

Im usually on your side Andrews but I got to say I think the player count is perfect. Those matches with 32 people are plenty chaotic I cant even imagine having more warhawks to contend with up in the air it would just be insane. I think as is the game gives you a little of everything you have plenty of chaotic moments but then you have times where you can just try and sneak up on some guy in a turret. Its a really good blend right now.

 

[TTP]

Sounds like land mines.

More like binoculars...

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

That player count leaves room for each and every turret to be filled, tons of snipers, and a stupid amount random crap. It just would take the game down a notch, IMO.

And that's a bad thing? Every part of the map filled with immediate danger? Sounds ****ing awesome to me. Don't like turret campers? Then arrange a joint assault against them using every Hawk, tank or gunner in your 32 man strong fighting force.

The one thing that'd likely need to happen for this to be effective is increase the damage and stall margins a bit.

 

[spwolf]

And that's a bad thing? Every part of the map filled with immediate danger? Sounds ****ing awesome to me. Don't like turret campers? Then arrange a joint assault against them using every Hawk, tank or gunner in your 32 man strong fighting force.

The one thing that'd likely need to happen for this to be effective is increase the damage and stall margins a bit.

all you need is single tow missile... 32 player games are already pretty chaotioc....

 

[tha_con]

And that's a bad thing? Every part of the map filled with immediate danger? Sounds ****ing awesome to me. Don't like turret campers? Then arrange a joint assault against them using every Hawk, tank or gunner in your 32 man strong fighting force.

The one thing that'd likely need to happen for this to be effective is increase the damage and stall margins a bit.

Yes, it's a bad thing. Basically that could result in a game of "let's see who can capture spawn points first and pin down the enemy".

I'm sorry, but honestly, there's just no way to justify an increase in the player count without severely hurting the experience. It sounds cool in theory, but trust me, it'll be horrible in execution.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Yes, it's a bad thing. Basically that could result in a game of "let's see who can capture spawn points first and pin down the enemy".

Give the game a starting minimum of 24 people and any issues with capturing spawn points will become purely a matter of being the lesser team.

Now considering the fact that player count is an optional setting, I don't see much issue with at least giving it a fair shot. Your theoretical nightmare scenarios are precisely that, theoretical. Some of the best gaming experiences I've ever had have been large scale Battlefield sessions. And I can almost bet on that there were several people who argued that it'd result in nothing but unruly and surely game-breaking anarchy. The worst thing that could happen here is that large scale battles devolve into chaotic kill and camp fests, and then people who do not wish to play those type of games can simply stick with the 32 player games. That's the worst case. In an optimal scenario, these battles could lift the whole experience to a new level of intensity. The potential positives far outweigh the negatives here.

 

[kaching]

The argument in favor of a 32+ player count is moot until Incog can first demonstrate that they can support just up to 32 without freezes or lag. I was seeing more of the latter in tonight's sessions, moreso than I have in previous nights and at this point I don't know if I buy into the idea that it's mostly due to something FW 1.8 did.

I don't have any particular problem with upping the max player count if the netcode can support it, I just don't buy the justification for doing so that the game isn't chaotic enough in its current state.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Ploid that was hilarious I love how I would just be crusin around and I would find you just chillin in the most out of way places. That server was fricken cake though I had a 24 kill streak on that one I must have pissed off the main guy cause he booted me!

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Yea I was getting my TOW on . So many juicy bugs like to hang out near the flag. One time I was trying to hide from and locate the stationary missile launcher that was locking target on me. Anyone notice how effortless it is to change to chaff lately? Dont hardly have to think about it, so used to doing it now.

 

[FightyF]

I don't have Warhawk...just read the last few posts...but I'm thinking an increase to 40 players like in Resistance shouldn't really create any lag issues. That is, unless the game is struggling with 32 players at the moment.

That number is like some sort of sweet spot for Resistance. The extra 4 on each side do help, and it's not too big to become unmanageable.

I get the impression that WH is large in scope and that the more the merrier. At the same time I can see that anything over 50 players would ruin the game.

Just throwing that out there...for discussion...maybe.

 

[garrickk]

I don't have Warhawk...just read the last few posts...but I'm thinking an increase to 40 players like in Resistance shouldn't really create any lag issues. That is, unless the game is struggling with 32 players at the moment.

The game doesn't struggle to keep up with 32 people on a server with a great connection (there are few of these).

The EarlyBird servers run beautifully with 32 people - my ping is usually around 66ms. Silky.

They very badly need to up the requirements of running a server (how many people you can host).

The beta is just buggy. We need a patch.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Yea I was getting my TOW on . So many juicy bugs like to hang out near the flag. One time I was trying to hide from and locate the stationary missile launcher that was locking target on me. Anyone notice how effortless it is to change to chaff lately? Dont hardly have to think about it, so used to doing it now.

Man I feel you on that I was hiding near the mountain on the other side and just launching those suckers like crazy.

I played for about 4 hours yesterday and the game never froze on me. A couple servers crashed but no freezing they didnt send out a patch did they?

 

[kaching]

no patch yet

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Nope not yet, and I just started freezing again yesterday lol. Went days without a freeze, just server crash/going down for some hosted servers and none SCEA/earlybird games.

This is our last week with the beta (from this thursday), if we get no patch today, we might not get one at all.

 

[Ragnarok10]

Nothing new coming from the devs on the beta forum? It's kind of gone silent from them. Tried playing a little yesterday but it froze twice on me in 30 minutes (both times on ranked servers) so I gave up.