Sleepdoc-iBeta
-
Content Count
870 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by Sleepdoc-iBeta
-
-
I am less interested in when they release the demo and more interested in what the demo contains.
No matter what, I'll download it and play it. But since I was on the Beta, I would prefer that the demo contain at least one section of single player and/or coop. just like the original GRAW1PC demo did.
If the demo is nothing more than the RvA Beta all patched up, I'll still mess with it to see how many bugs they squashed, but I probably wont do much more than that since I'm pretty tired of that one single map.
Sleepdoc
-
Despite the early release of GRAW1, GRiN proved that they have "Sticktoitivness. The summer of patches all the way to 1.35 proved to me that they are men (and women?) of their word. They dealt with the pressures of release dates which UBI placed on them, and still did the rest of their orginal design. Amazing actually. And promised it all through out the summer.
I know they didn't hit 100% of all their early promises, but that was just reality meeting desire. Nothing else. Their end result (1.35) has kept me excited playing it for many many months.
They earned my respect last summer. The recent video release (and the Beta) shows lots of "listening". I, for one, will buy the game before I read a single review. Not becuase I'm foolish. But becuase the few extra bucks in their pocket makes me a commited partner in any future patching that may have to come. Hopefully, this release will be less buggy, but all software releases with bugs. So I'm putting my down-payment on that process and their support up front. They didn't let me down last time, so why shouldn't I?
Keep up the great work GRiN. You guys are excellent.
THANK YOU
(and nice post Papa... good to see your not just a guy who always cry's foul....)
-
The two coop modes are different types of game play and as such should have different features in my mind. Why else have 2 different modes?
[GR] coop remains different from MISSION coop whether or not squad capabilities exist.
This is a tac sim/shooter. Squad capability is one key element that makes it so. So why not always have it (and have it easy to turn off piecemeal in the setup)?
It would be nice if forming up in a squad in [GR] Coop (or whatever it's called now) actually meant something, ie the squad leader could give orders and communicate with other squad leads.
Yep. Would be nice.
Know what else would be nice? having the option to turn on or off squad capabilities (server side) for all TVT games as well.
Imagine this......
8 v 8 in team deathmatch. Squad leader capabilities on. No respawns allowed. Winner is surviving squad (not just surviving team or person). Then throw some non linear objectives in there. Or maybe just have it turned on in the new RvA mode.
I can think of lots of interesting variants where squad leader capabilites are turned on that we cannot play through without them.
Some people wouldnt take the time to use the system. some love to just run and gun and lone wolf it. Others would. I'll bet the squads that learned to move as a team using the system would be a slower, more careful, more coordinated team. Heck. They might even dominate.
-
One of the things that made MISSION coop so much fun in the advanced warfighter world (for me and my buddies) was the advanced warfighter tech. Additionally, it was the ability for the squad leader to give his friends a visual order, on their screen, as to where he wanted them to move or cover etc.
But in [GR] coop and other modes which also allow 4 man squads to define themselves, the squadleader only has 2 special powers. The ability to allow the rest of his buddies to spawn on him and the ability of the squad members to see their names posted next to the diamonds.
I have always wished for giving the squad leader in any game that allows squads to form into groups of 4, the same powers they have in MISSION COOP. (server side controlled on or off --- of course)
ie.
#1. the ability to issue move and cover orders from the menu (server side controlled - on or off)
#2. The ability to use satellite (server side control - on or off of course .... its not for everyone)
#3. The ability to use cross com of my buddies (server side control)
So what about it GRiN? you guys seem more open these days with feature and image info. Will I, as squad leader, have any of these abilities in other multiplayer games other than MISSION COOP?
Here is to wishful thinking.-- cheers
-
So they can be set however people like, but should not be set to high or the game won't run on min spec systems. That's where the call has to be made. So with higher min spec comes many better things...
Right. That is kind of what I was saying. It would be nice if the setting could be controlled server side or at least a mod that gets rejected if not same as the server.
Many servers do not allow high pings. Why not discourage low machine specs?
It would be nice if high end servers could set longer range clipping planes and if players get bad frame rates as a result, then those guys would simply not want to play on those servers. So we would essentialy end up with servers out there for higher range and lower range machines.
It would be nice to put this draw distance control back into the hands of the players and the servers and let the "groups of player and machines" chips fall where they may depending on the server settings
-
...........................And if it was only me and my friends, it wouldn't matter in the greater scheme of things, but I do belive that we're not the only ones.
Respectfully
krise madsen
Rest assured Krise. You are not the only ones.
Coop saves would be very meaningful to me and my buddies as well, even though our approach to coop play is not the same as yours (we do internet, hookup via xfire, and we schedule times to start that often get interuppted .... kids, wives, dogs etc)
-
I have to strongly agree with viiiper. This is a futuristic shooter. It is not rayguns, but it is "ADVANCED". These elements are integral to the entire line of the story that this new incarnation of GR is trying to develop. To likeor not like diamonds is personal. but to like or not like it in the context of an advanced warfighter makes little sense. Either you like this game play element in the context of a futuristic war fighting system or the entire game makes no sense to you. unfortunately for McGhost, he has nothing else to fall back on yet. Maybe call of Dity 4 will be "near present" enough for you and lack the "10 years ahead" technology. But I'm not sure of COD4 will have the tactical elements you do like.
Its tough to be a Tac-sim PC gamer these days and I feel for McGhost. We have so few options these days.
-
I have lways found it odd that even though the draw distanec for humans and other objects is 150M, that there still exists other things (like buildings) that can be drawn well beyond 150M.
So I continue to wonder if this is hard coded in the executable of if some smart mod guy will finally find out how those long range draw distances are imparted to the objects that do draw far out and start imparting those smae properties to players, vehicles etc.
My guess is that in GRAW1, it was hard coded. I'm hopeing that the folks at GRiN extrenalized the data needed to manipulate that so that those of us with better machines could mod it for our own use. After all, GRiN knows it has been a issue. They read everything we post here. And this issue is as old as GRAW1 itself. It was in the "top 10 most harped about" issues.
Of course, this sort of mod would need to be picked up by their in game anticheat, or it wouldn't be fair to the poor saps we keep sniping through the abyss.
-
I'd like an answer from the Grinners regarding this screen:
<img removed>
There is a lot of confusion and some say that this is a pre-rendered shot. So is it a realtime ingame cut-scene shot (doctored with photoshop or authentic shot?) or is it a pre-rendered image? I'd really like to hear the answer from the devs themselves
That one's a loading screen picture, so it's a touched up ingame shot.
Well there ya go. Dem grinners sure are starting to leak. Maybe they will leak the actual full game into stores soon.
-
I've already given respawns as an option instead of saves in Coop, but that wasn't a fully acceptable replacement by the post earlier in the post. So taking the earlier parts of the discussion into consideration that really doesn't answer my question.
Wolfsong. I did not mean to suggest that respawns in Mission coop wouldn't be good. On the contrary. Respawns in mission coop wouold certainly be a tip-of the-hat to the coop people in the right direction. In fact, I often wondered why they did it for [GR] and not for mission coop.
So Please do not misundersand me. I agree with you that mission coop respawns would have been a nice feature for mission oop players and would have alleviated alot of the issues for mission coop that the "less than hardcore" folks would have enjoyed.
But I still love having multiplayer save capability. I consider it an excellent feature of A+ titles. It is just a different thing than respawns and serves some different purposes. Plus, with the feature existing now in SP, it may be closer to existing in coop.
Rocky noted it might just leave him with a bunch of saves no one wants to replay. He is almost right. It certainly leaves the player with lot of saves no one wants to pick p on. But it also leave the player with one or 2 that the player was very happy he had.
All save game features leave a bunch of useless saves along with the gems that make the player happy.EDIT: They're, their, there... confusing with so many similar sounding words in english sometimes.
They are homonyms ( i.e. sound identical, and maybe even spelled the same, but different meaning)
-
You can give orders from the drone, that is new, I wonder if you can give orders from the AI full screen viewport?
Yes you can !!!
If you look closer in this picture, you will see that from the view of the Brown's CrossCam that you can give orders by clicking on the middle mouse button
link :
http://www.gamona.de/static/handler-image_...22857300632.jpg
Yep. and this is a very big deal in both SP and Coop. I used to always wish for this feature in GRAW 1. The meaning of this is not subtle.
I can now advance people who are already seeing around a corner for me further down the line. This greatly increases my chances as a tactical leader to keep my guys always ahead of me or to split my team into a fire and flank team without having to enter the tactical map when things are too hot for that "heads down" time.
Think about it. I send #1 and #2 around a corner. Myself and #3 are taking the side street with intent to be the flank team. Without having to enter tactical map, i can manuever them through their eyes into forward positions of cover and then order them to suppress with fire. Then I can move myself into flank. This was very hard outside of tactical map before and tactical map was always too slow and clunkity for creating fast move plans.
Me likey mucho....
-
Did you guys notice the small cross com window in the upper left corner has been improved? The new screen shots show far better 3D detail of what the lil' com is looking at.
For those of us who use that feature (I glance at it all the time for qiuck looks at geometry and enemy), the new mini cross com can show you things (it appears) that the old one could not. in the new pics on that german site, you can see distinct support columns on buildings and the rail and road on a road. This level of detail simply wasn't visible in GRAW1's mini cross com.
This is very good indeed. In fact, if the 3D wireframe perspective is as good as these few images imply, this may prove to actually be more useful than a full color cross com for qiuck situational awareness.
I learned from previous posts I have made on the subject that some players never use the little window and don't get what I am talking about. Those of you who advance your guys and scan/glance at that window as they move forward know exactly that I am talking about.
It can add one more layer to my situational awareness.
-
sweet tap dancing geezuz.
The more I see, the more I believe that my new PC was worth the cash.
-
I've never heard of such a feature before so it's interesting to hear it's there in flight sims.
It is in many other games than just flight sims. As others have indicated, it is in Age of empires, NOLF2 and Splinter cell chaos theory. And there are many other games through the years that ahve taken the time to implement the feature.
Does it have a place in tactical shooters, perhaps - it could be one of those features you wondered how you managed before with out it. For me, I suspect I'd end up with a bunch of save games nobody wanted to pick up on, prefering to start from the beginning again.
You think if you just played an hour to get near the ned with your buddies, and did an emergency save before the big firefight, then died, you and your buddies would say... "oh well ... i guess well just repeat this hour long saga again next time"? You might say it, but many many many would not. I think Krise expressed quite correctly and accurately the frustration that a great majority of people felt with GRAW1 Coop. And although I finally pulled myself up by my bootstraps (after 6 months of disgust) and made myself play through coop, they lost tons of players. And more important, GRiN lost yons of consumer confidence. Don't get me wrong. I still think that GRAW1 was a near classic. But to truly own the crowd, features like what I am talking about would have gone a long way toward fixing the reasons why people left in droves on the coop side.
-
Hardcore players don't save, period. They replay and replay and replay.
And time. Hardcore players find the time as they always do, that's one reason they are hardcore players because they want to do it for real and not cheat with saves.
I think you missed my point Wolf.
let me paraphrase your statement..
ONLY hardcore players don't save.
Other do. And harcore players aren't born. They are developed over time. And the best way to build the crowd is to provide hardcore/realistic games that have optins to be played in a "less than hardcore" way. So everyone can access the game the way they want to access it.
Just becuase a hardcore game has save points doesn't mean you have to use it.
To provide a hardcore game that can only be played hardcore is to limit the crowd that will buy it and play it. And providing simpolified options in a realistic game doesnt take anything away from you who may wish not to use those options.
Lets not confuse hardcore game play and hardcore games with the presence of softcore options. One does not preclude the other.
-
Checkpoints would be enough IMO.
Hockey and freinds,
My strongly held opinion...
When you make a realisitic (or hardcore) game that can be played in a very realistic and hardcore way but you still provide options for the less hardcore to do their thing in a less harcore way, you have created a good thing which has mass appeal. ....... When you create a hardcore realistic game that can only be accessed the hardcore way (with no options to simplify the expereince), then you limit your sales and exposure in the market place. And you are less likely to expand the ranks and bring in the new guys (who will eventually fall in love with te harder way .... just not at the outset.)
So in my opinion, games are less likely ot build a new generation of hardcore , realstic shooter fans unless they give them options within harcore games to survive and get through. The genre shoots itself (and us) in the foot when they do not include such optional features that allow a larger group of people ot try and enjoy the expereince. Not everyone is "hardcore or the highway"
We as realism and hardplay fans can eat our cake and have it too if gameplay is in tact and features (that we can opt not to choose) can be chosen by others to mnake their first experience more accessible.
Case in point.....
First time i played coop GRAW1, i was ready to pull my hair out. I finally convinced my buddies to play it with me on the easiest AI level. We almost lost everyone just becuase it was too hard. Eventually, and by some miracle of coimmitmenet, we got organized, got slow, and started winning.. But we almost quit. Now we only play it on hard level of AI. If simple AI had nto been available, the lack of other "ease in" fatures would have certainly been the end of our time together.
They almost provided too little inthe way of helping the player ease in. I'll bet tons of other people just threw their hands up and quit. I don't want that to happen to them. They deserve other features to keep them interested too.
I completed every single mission in coop with human buddies except for vip2 down with no check points and no saves. But it took hours upon hours. And I always wondred.
1. How many people actually have time like we did to pull this off
2. How many people actually have to commitment to pulling this off.
3. If few poeppe have he commitment and time, how many people were exluded from actually experiencing the later aspects of th emmissions becuase they could never get there.
4. How many people decided not to buy the game again or decided not to tell their freinds to buy it becuase of this "limitation".
5. How badly was our genre hurt becuase of these reduced sales.
I believe choice in features makes for larger markets. And I believe that teh hardcore/realistic shooter genre is made larger by hard core gameplay that includes choice for everyone. Even for the less hardcore group.
-
Are these Blue cover cones diagramatic, or are we about to get a new in-game visual interface for issuing and visualizing the current cover order of our freindlies?
MODERATOR EDIT: Large image changed to link per forum rules.
-
Most games don't allow saves in MP. ...................
As for how it works in GRAW2, we'll have to wait and see but I find it highly unlikely with saves in any coop type mode.
Flight sims have allowed saves in multiplyer for years. And it most certainly is not becuase it is easier to do it in flight sims. It is becuase the community that intially developed games back in the day thought it would be a feature worth figuring out. And they were right.
Falcon 4.0, which can handle 10 s of players simulataneously in a complex campaign while serving 10s if not hundreds of AI enemy and freindly can be saved at any point in a coop or adversarial game. That saved games can be sent to any one else in teh form of afile and picked up. In slots where humans choose not to go, AI fills in.
The key to having such wonderful features is to insist on them in design and to believe that people want them. I want them. But I can certainly see why the FPS market did not pursue this feature while the flight sim market did. Just a different genre issue.
-
It has been said enough now that we know that there is some sort of save game feature built into GRAW2 PC wherein save points can be made (in SP missions I assume) as long as you are not involved in a firefight. I'm very pleased about this.
But will this feature extend to MISSION co-op games? What about [GR] co-op?
So for an example in the MISSION coop realm, myself and 3 buddies are moving through a mission. We then save to take a break. When we get back, one guy has to go. So will we be able to start again from that save point with 3 players and a AI freindly to fill the previous slot of the guy who could not return?
I really hope we get this save feature, whatever it is, in MISSION coop especially.......
I have seen games before that allow saves in coop. The only way I have ever seen it done well is that all character slots are saved. Upon return, if you don't have enough humans to fill the slots, the remaining slots are picked up by AI.
-
I guess all I'm asking is why computer games seem to induce such strong reaction from the customers? Why is there this sense that the customers has a sort of "ownership" or "moral claim" on this particular product?
Respectfully
krise madsen
This one is easy.
Strong reaction = fear of the absence of their favorite addictive component.
Gaming is an addiction for many. Plain and simple. I know it is for me and I can tell from many of the posts here, that it is for many of you too. To deny this is intellectually dishonest. Coffee is my other big addiction. Slef induced surges in both Adrenalin (norepinephrine - an alpha receptor stimulator which cuased many bodily reactions including heart rate increase, vascular compression and icnreased blood pressure etc - flight if you will )and cortisol (a stress induced steriod secreted from the adrenal glands - which sits atop the kidneys) are the molecular culprits of gaming addiction.
It is no different than when a person's cigarettes are messed with to the have all of the nicotine removed. After a couple of qiuck smokes, the addicted individual knows that his addictive component has been removed. For those that have very specific ideas and feelings about certain features in our tac-sims, they feel their nicotine may be missing from their next cigarette ... er ... desired tac sim game .... and they don't like it. It scares them. they know their current game lacks the potency ... they ahve played it for too long .... and they yearn for the next fix/rush.
It takes a very special smoker in deed to keep his cool under such circumstances. Many smokers ... er ... Gamers ... lose their cool and post hostile posts becuase of their fear of losing their addictive fix ... and it makes them irrational.
-
Nice read on all your posts Wolfsong. I think you have a excellent grasp of today's hardware realities. And that is hard to do considering the details of the new gen consoles and the moving target that is PC.
-
what I'm really curious about is just where or when will the Bros. GRIN's attempt to save the sinking ship that is :AW2 ? Does the lure of future contract work from Ubi trump any and all responsibility to their product and/or consumers?
Show me the company Balance sheet and cash reserves for GRiN and I'll tell you the answer......
-
As it turns out, some game sites do have permission to post media from the beta. Not us lowly No.1 fan site though, we are prohibited. A bit rough considering we've provided the only working forum for beta bug feedback, and bailed them out when their bug reporting tool failed.
I'll try to put this into perspective for ya rocky if I may be so bold.
Despite the truth that you are the # 1 fan site, fan sites are singularly focused. It is in Ubisoft's best interest to give the "exclusives" to web sites that promote ALL their games across ALL genres. Their bottom line is less affected by fan sites of one game and much more affected by sites with wide area traffic across all their titles.
Lest we forget that businesses are in business to profit the most with the least amount of risk and effort.
But of course, it would be nice if businesses were sometimes a bit more humanistic and allowed their fans to share in the spoils more......
-
I aggree i was really thrilled to be given the oppurtunity to beta test this, normally i probably wouldn't of had a chance too, but people giving out links against the NDA could stop future beta testing for people like me. Nice going.
Don't worry too much Stelath. although I am adamantly against violating NDAs, the reality is that as long as games continue to be around and get more and more complex, so will be public beta's. All the professional QA in the world cannot replace the value to developers for a non-professional public beta test. The free work from the community who actually intend to buy the game and love the Genre brings out points, bugs and ideas simply often missed in the laboratory of a professional QA environment. And the risk to the project of an NDA violation (albeit illegal and unethical) is realtively low when public beta's are embarked upon this close to the actual release date.
So although I don't recommend violating NDAs, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over other people's occasional indiscretions. Your chance to be involved in the next great shooter's beta test is not reduced one iota by this one guys bad act.
Can Co-op Games be saved?
in GR:AW 2 (PC) - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Sleepdoc
At its best? Who says? you and your group of freinds in your way of doing things? Not to sound to sarcastic here, but it amazes me when people believe that their perspective is only way. I am a proponent of choice. Not of defining for others a narrow approach that meets my needs and no one elses.
huh? I love my dogs. If *MY* dogs run away, its too bad for telephone poles and store owners. Becuase I am posting stuff all over the place to find them. Man. I hope that is not really how you feel about dogs...
What if I'm not an anesthesiologist with intubation skills? then what?
Why? What if I see things differently? Why are you so convinced that your philosophy is the best one outside your small group of freinds? Haven't you been reading the other posts? Some people would find it useful. Don't you think a feature that takes nothing away from your style of play, but gives other people options they want is a good thing?
Whose tradition? your tradition? and your buddies tradition? Lets see. the original falcon 4.0 in 1998 sold 900,000 copies. Its second incarnation has made a lot of sales too. It has saved coop games. Squads all over the world have formed around it. It has a 10 year shelf life and counting... I know. I know. its not a tac sim. Its a flight sim. But there **is** a lesson here. A lesson i see over and over in many genres of PC games. When you give people lots of user configurable options (note i said user configurable) you attract more players and greater loyalty.
Not to sound rude or sarcastic, but this isn't about you and your buddies. You and your buddies represent about 0.0000003% of the people who might buy this product (OK OK... i didnt actually do the math ...)
.
Think about it. Your tradition means nothing to people like myself who would love to be able to interupt a long coop mission with a save so someone could change a kids diaper or feed the dog. Sorry Chiles. Your view is about you. Not about the gaming community at large. My view is about you and me. I like features that give a broader audience what they want. My request is inclusive of you and your "shoot in the ass" buddies. Yours is exclusive of me and my "gotta feed the dog" buddies.
Huh? i guess that a paint ball reference?
A guarantee eh? Wow. Really?
Take care.... no harm meant. Just philosophical disagreement.