Dogs Of War Vu
Sim/Strategy/War => Steel Beasts Pro => Topic started by: Asid on February 23, 2015, 12:33:28 AM
-
22 02 15 T.A.N.K.S. mission
Mission: Eagles Claw
16 players
(http://i1288.photobucket.com/albums/b498/Asid_1/Strategy%20Sim/Steel%20Beasts%20Pro/Misc/220215tanksmission_zps6ecc3dec.jpg)
-
Awesome mission with this many people. Was great having this many, and I look forward to having more in the room. Maybe the number might get to a whole company of crewed tanks. :D
-
YAY! Great!
Im a bit sad that I missed all the fun!
That must have been great time there!
-
It was nice to see so many people, but the mission was a disaster in my book.
Lots of weird technical issues / game bugs which killed the mission pretty early on.
.
-
Aww. Well I guess it would be important to discus of what went wrong and what didn't work. So we could be wiser next time.. if you already didn't?
-
It was nice to see so many people, but the mission was a disaster in my book.
Lots of weird technical issues / game bugs which killed the mission pretty early on.
.
We are trying to track down the problems. It could have been network related where host and client see different things. Some form of packet loss/corruption?
When issues rear their ugly head then the immersion does suffer.
Regards
-
Sure thing, I just found it shocking to see so many issues. Its not like SB Pro has been around for only a few weeks, if you know what I mean.
Sliding vehicles, vehicles getting stuck and detroyed for no reason on bridges, infantry visible but really not there, the old infantry doing pushups when dead, infantry clipping issues.
Just so many issues that made me feel we were playing some beta version. It was ugly.
For something touted as THE definitive mechanised combat sim it was a bad show.
And due to the above, it killed the mission early on. Pretty major, don't you think? Not something we as users can fix, I would assume.
-
That is really sad to hear that it was this bad. Durhams mission on last time caused some weird problems that were based to map and roads there but this... sounds something unusual and clitchy. I'm starting to wonder as myself if version 3.011 would be solution for gameplay to be a bit more enjoyable for us all.
And what comes to users fixing things. There are some few things we probably could do... or rather things that we could avoid doing in missions.
Also there have been problems with roads, brigges, buildings, and other obstacles. that cause troubles on pathfinding as long as I remember. I assume some of those troubles could be fixed with map editing. Just is it worth of the efford?
But with infantry thing I feel quite helpless. - I might give a look if I find this issue as myself, but I don't feel too hopeful. Any idea when this infantry issue does occur? Have you noticed any clear pattern. On my single player games I have not yet seen any troubles. with it.
And if it is packed loss or corruption... uuurgh. >.< -sighs deeply.-
-
I was somewhat weird but it was super fun with so many people.
Multi-crew I don't know ;) I probably irritated my commander "Assassin" if we were in the army I would still be doing push-ups.
(new joystick with new key layout so I was lasing instead of zooming in and messing up his targeting range)
-
In kind of way I wish I would been there. I do like so much this multi crew. :) would love to do some more multi-crew when ever having change. ^^
-
I think the MP mission was an overall success, despite the technical difficulties and glitches, because of what we learned from it--but mostly because of how many people were there. The fact that Asid was able to post a screen capture of the TS channel with so many participants is awesome. There are a lot of take-aways from the mission and we learned a few things about ourselves, each other, and the sim in general. Moreover, we uncovered the need for effective command, control, and communications. Cougar had a good plan, we just had a hard time executing it because we weren't communicating effectively on teamspeak.
For example, in the middle of the battle, as the column moved north towards the main road, those of us at the airfield that quickly lost units switched over to the relief column's channel and we attempted to integrate while they were in the middle of fighting a battle. Some folks were calling out targets while others were saying "anyone have a tank? or need a gunner?". It's going to happen, but perhaps there could be a better way to re-integrate. For example, when there is a lull in the battle, or just typing in the text box that you need a vehicle or unit?
Just my two-cents folks. Don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water. The sim has its limitations and quirky behavior that no effort on our part can change or effect--and those things we'll always have to deal with it seems no matter what MP game/sim we are using--at least that is my experience thus far. What's left is the meat and potatoes that we bring to the table as multi-players. That means, having a good working knowledge of the vehicle were in, effective use of the input devices (i.e., mouse, keyboard, joystick), and clear, concise, and effective communications.
-Beef
-
I agree with you about the comms. That was indeed part of it, but SB did bot behave either.
Durhams mission is a very nicely done piece of work, Lets put that up front.
But it exposed many issues within SB in terms of roads, AI and Infantry behaviour.
Perhaps it wasn't so bad for the tankers, but for people in the MRAPs or support vehicles the experience was far less positive.
The mission had gone to shit in the first 10mins by the bridge issue.
Then followed a tedious amount of time detaching all vehicles in my platoon to cross the bridges manually to prevent them getting stuck.
Then a quick dash towards main T junction, but by then the losses were so high the mission was effectively ended already.
It wasn't a fun experience and frankly a lot of fiddling was involved giving me the feeling of a waste of time.
That there were so many people on was even worse! It could have been a grand evening! :)
Better luck next time I suppose, but I am ticked off at SB cause I have never seen so many issues before.
It seems like 023 and 025 were a step back from 011 in this regard. :(
.
-
Comms procedure:
The regular D.O.W. players have a comms procedure which works well. However the very nature of the Sunday T.A.N.K.S. mission means that the comms can fall/fail. We are open and encourage everybody to play the T.A.N.K.S. mission regardless of skill or ability. The D.O.W. missions on a Saturday are different. They are more "procedural". The comms can and do work well in SB.
We have played quite a few missions with 14-15 players with no issues.
Regarding the SB engine v3.025....jury is still out.
Regards
-
I personally think that there is probably just a lot wrong in that map / area that Durham uses. I'm interested to run some testing on that map / area. On many other maps and missions there has been lot less trouble. But still some.
Also could it be that there is for some reason colliding navmesh that is not purged?
And I do personally agree and think same way as Beef does when it comes to Steelbeast as simulation.
It has it's troubles. But I will not quit playing it cause of that. More I'm annoyed constant mocking of simulation, or vehicles in there. All that negative atmosphere and spirit makes me to withdraw to just be. and perhaps play it rather alone than to even ask peoples to play with group.
-
Hi Lumi
There may be an issue with the map. There was a new navmesh V13 released recently. I believe Durham did purge and reapply the navmesh.
Some issues were:
Bridge crossing. This has been flagged many times as an issue. The players need to take control of the units to be certain of a safe crossing. If you want the AI to do it then you must "march" formation across it.
Unit 1 1/A teleporting. This one I'm not certain about but maybe network connected.
Infantry spawning then dying and repeating. I believe that is a network issue.
Comms procedure or lack of is a human/user issue. When we open the session for "everybody" then there will be some who do not understand the DOW comms procedure. There is no excuse for DOW players though.
Players disconnecting after losing vehicle or for visible no reason at all. This shows a lack of manners. It is even worse when a member of DOW does it.
As for criticism. People will criticise when they see an issue or are disappointed in some way. ity is fair to constructively criticise and show disappointment especially when there is little evidence of improvement. I am sometimes disappointed with the limitations and issues within SB, especially infantry. I continue to play it though. If someone has a criticism then they should discuss not just diss (American slang lol).....
-
Comms procedure or lack of is a human/user issue. When we open the session for "everybody" then there will be some who do not understand the DOW comms procedure. There is no excuse for DOW players though.
Players disconnecting after losing vehicle or for visible no reason at all. This shows a lack of manners. It is even worse when a member of DOW does it.
As for criticism. People will criticise when they see an issue or are disappointed in some way. ity is fair to constructively criticise and show disappointment especially when there is little evidence of improvement. I am sometimes disappointed with the limitations and issues within SB, especially infantry. I continue to play it though. If someone has a criticism then they should discuss not just diss (American slang lol).....
I do agree with coms and lack of manners.
And yes it is fair to criticize, but don't you think it has been too excessive recently even so that it sounds like dissing.
One of those things that I ran away from Wot and Warthunder.
Anyways... Criticize as much as you guys want. I... try not to mind it. Sorry for mentioning that on first place.
-
Anyways... Criticize as much as you guys want. I... try not to mind it. Sorry for mentioning that on first place.
No apologies necessary. DOW are a respectful group and we respect each other’s views and opinions even if we disagree with them.
Regards
-
I had a great time and really enjoyed the concept of the mission. Also, gunning for Renders resulted in some pretty tense moments. I also have a question for you more experienced guys, one of the main problems I had during the mission was that Renders would move me on to a target, I would engage. However, my barrel would not have proper crest clearance and I would slam a sabot into the earth. Any of you guys have tricks or tips so I'm not wasting rounds next game?
-
Clearance can be an issue, and here are a few ways to deal with it.
1. jump to the AUX or GAS gunners aux sight and since it is in line with the gun and does not move will show if it is clear. That is the only real way on the tank without a driver to tell you.
2. Have Commander in TC hatch not F8 view, which will give a better idea of where the tank is actually at but not precise.
3. Once the GPS sight is clear have the commander move a little farther up depending on the terrain.
4. TC experience and observation over time, and by not being stuck to the CITV commanders sight.
Other than that there maybe ways that I am not aware of, especially from a game standpoint from the more seasoned players.
This reminds me of a exercise I was part of with 4 bradleys against my one tank. The had dismounted infantry, and were converging around a hill we were using for engagements from all sides. I was gunning, and we moved from berm or crest to berm or crest taking them out. What I did to make sure accurate shots, was to use the GPS to find the bradleys, and then when the moment was right, I would tell the gunner to move up on the crest, while looking out the GAS sight. The ranges were all under 1000 meters so I just used the GAS sight, and during the day. As soon as the GAS sight cleared I told the driver to stop right after I pulled the trigger as we told and through experience to not throw the lead and other things off as the driver hits the brakes. The driver would stop and I would confirm the kill after kill like this moving from one berm to the next. It is easy to see a bradley with its antenna slowly coming over a berm, and then the turret. Takes time for the TOW, and its a one shot kill to the turret. We ended by coming face to face with the last bradley at less than 50 meters. I should not have fired due to safety reasons with the Hoffman device (which is a stack of simulators about a quarter stick of tnt mounted above the gun to simulate a round being fired), but his light bulb was flashing to simulate the 25mm being fired, so I fired back. I won!!! LOL. It was a lot of intense fun, and great experience using the tank in that manner, and having it work as intended. ;D
-
Thanks Cougar, I'll keep your tips in mind for the next game. Cool story too, One tank vs. four brads sounds like one hell of a time! :D
-
On leopard A5, 6 then again. :)
this is from the tutorial. You might find this as helpfull ^^
Unlike the Leopard 2A4, the GAS on the Leopard 2A5 is mounted on top of the turret like the GPS. The consequence is that you cannot be sure the gun tube is clear of a ridgeline or obstacle when engaging a target. When approaching a ridgeline, as a rule of thumb you should set the HEAT range in the GAS view to 2300m, and see whether the crosshairs are still above the ground. It still is no guarantee, but a good indicator that the gun tube is clear.
The GAS is a sturdy 8X telescope and it moves with the gun tube.
-
OK, I didn't remember that from the tutorial, thanks for the information buddy
-
I was somewhat weird but it was super fun with so many people.
Multi-crew I don't know ;) I probably irritated my commander "Assassin" if we were in the army I would still be doing push-ups.
(new joystick with new key layout so I was lasing instead of zooming in and messing up his targeting range)
You did well, in a firefight sometimes things don't go as well as planned, so we had to fire and adjust.