Sublime Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Plus 1 to what Sublime said... I think that's the first time you've ever agreed with one of my posts =P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 We're nearing completion of v2.01. We keep finding "just one more thing" to fix/tweak, but I think we're just about done with that now. Which means a deceivingly significant patch is on its way to you guys. Then v1.12 for Normandy and v1.02 for Italy. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Thanks for the update 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerMike Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 We're nearing completion of v2.01. We keep finding "just one more thing" to fix/tweak, but I think we're just about done with that now. Which means a deceivingly significant patch is on its way to you guys. Then v1.12 for Normandy and v1.02 for Italy. Steve Wonderful, I am itching to play CMBN again because the wandering MG/AT crews will no doubt stay with their guns now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 ...even if it took thirty-some-odd pages to do it. Michael Nah, it would have gone to thirty pages even if BF had commented on page 1. Know your audience 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 If some of the revisions Steve has hinted at- enhanced MG power and suppression effects- turn out to be significant they might consider boosting the strength of the attacking side by X% in the stock scenarios. And re-adjusting QB point ratios as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerryCMBB Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 It took forever before BF even admitted they were looking at it. Prior to that we had a certain group of people arguing, IIRC sometimes in an aggressive manner, that there was nothing wrong. Nah, it would have gone to thirty pages even if BF had commented on page 1. Know your audience 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The fourth and sixth posts were by beta testers. That -implies- an awareness by BFC. Page 1. (Would it be preferential if all beta testers had that title listed in their sig, or whatnot?) However, an official public announcement by BFC may have calmed the waters. Then again, it may not have. If it always takes a public, official, BFC post, then a LOT of development time will be taken up, to no effect. The next time a problem is found, but BFC doesn't announce they're looking at it, even though they are, that will cause much angst, fury, and silly postings. It almost FORCES BFC to always announce they're looking at something. FWIW, keeping the discussion alive has been worthwhile. It allows for a continued development of the issues and various perspectives to be examined. That may not occur in other cases. 74 pages? Yeah, that's a lot. But there have been a lot good posts in there. That's my .02. Ken out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 C3K has it right. Plus, I've found (as others have said) that saying "we're looking into it" doesn't often do much to alter the discussion. People who think there's a problem post, people who think there isn't one post, people who think there's something inbetween post, people who just want attention for an unrelated issue post, etc. What I tend to do is let the testers sort things out here and on our private testing forums. We then get a handle of the specifics and scope of whatever the issue is, including reproducing various aspects, then documenting it for Charles/Phil to look into. For something VERY complicated, like MG behavior, we then have to do a lot of backs and forths because often times changing things has undesirable side effects, doesn't totally fix the problem, or highlights a previously unnoticed issue. It's usually at this stage that I prefer to talk about things with you guys. Because only then do I have something to tell you that is really new and useful to the discussion. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 So would you say now in hindsight, that the MGs were flawed, or do you think it was a matter more of opinion of fans? Also is the mortar retargetting issue going to be fixed? Once the mortar (in direct fire) brackets the first target, switching targets allows it to hit them dead on. They dont need to find the range again. This I think contributes greatly to mortars seeming overpowered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForwardObserver Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Also is the mortar retargetting issue going to be fixed? Once the mortar (in direct fire) brackets the first target, switching targets allows it to hit them dead on. They dont need to find the range again. This I think contributes greatly to mortars seeming overpowered. It was fixed in CMFI v 1.01 Fixed a trick that allowed mortars to retain existing LOF after moving to a blocked position. Corrected an issue that allowed mortars to estimate range-to-target correctly too easily when changing targets. But for some reason, that fix didn't make it into CMBN v 1.11 neither v 2.0 :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 So would you say now in hindsight, that the MGs were flawed, or do you think it was a matter more of opinion of fans? I think most people have felt that some situations weren't up to snuff with MGs disproportionate to other features. So in that sense, the new behavior means we weren't entirely happy with the old behavior. As to how much different the new behavior will be... I think it will depend entirely on how people play and the specifics of a battle. Some testers hardly notice a change one day, then a big one the next. Also is the mortar retargetting issue going to be fixed? Once the mortar (in direct fire) brackets the first target, switching targets allows it to hit them dead on. They dont need to find the range again. This I think contributes greatly to mortars seeming overpowered. See below... But for some reason, that fix didn't make it into CMBN v 1.11 neither v 2.0 :confused: I don't remember which specific bits were addressed when, but by the description that sounds like what we fixed for v2.0. v1.11 uses a different code base so we have to manually backport fixes made to the v2.0 codebase. Sometimes that won't be possible to do, but we will try. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 It was fixed in CMFI v 1.01 But for some reason, that fix didn't make it into CMBN v 1.11 neither v 2.0 :confused: AFAIK, that specific issue was addressed in 2.0. 2.01 will tidy up a few more things with indirect fire, as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I can't test it myself, but that fearsome opponent of mortar uberness womble claims on-board mortar retargeting accuracy is still bugged in 2.0. Too bad that thread quickly degenerated into 10 pages of bickering about other stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Yes thats why I mentioned it. Not because FI, (yes I know it's the FI forum) but because in BN 2.0 it is still bugged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 I can't test it myself, but that fearsome opponent of mortar uberness womble claims on-board mortar retargeting accuracy is still bugged in 2.0. Too bad that thread quickly degenerated into 10 pages of bickering about other stuff. Womble was testing 1.11. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Yes thats why I mentioned it. Not because FI, (yes I know it's the FI forum) but because in BN 2.0 it is still bugged. If you have personally seen a bug with mortars in CMBN v. 2.0, please give us the situation and we will be glad to see what the issue is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Womble was testing 1.11. Indeed, and I believe the mortar zeroing bug is fixed in BN 2.0. It certainly seems to be in FI. If I ever said otherwise, then I apologise for mistyping, since I've never thought it was broke in v2.0. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Hey Wombie, I am just glad I don't have to start re-testing mortars, I am getting a bit tired testing HMGs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Indeed, and I believe the mortar zeroing bug is fixed in BN 2.0. It certainly seems to be in FI. If I ever said otherwise, then I apologise for mistyping, since I've never thought it was broke in v2.0. My bad. I was unaware that there were bugs fixed in the 2.0 upgrade not fixed in the 1.11 patch. I thought it was just an upgrade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If you have personally seen a bug with mortars in CMBN v. 2.0, please give us the situation and we will be glad to see what the issue is. If Im wrong I apologize, but I could swear I've seen the mortars retarget with no spotting rounds since 2.0 I'll look and if I can find the file I'll absolutely send it. Good news is the files are all there turn by turn they're pbems, bad news is it will only be a few out of hundreds of files. However rereading your post I will point out that mortars and crew served weapons ARE bugged in 2.0, with the famous crewmember running away bug. The workarounds don't always work either. For example a M1919 crew had the extra pre destination waypoint and when I played a turn just now they'd vanished - Until I noticed they just started running for the rear for no reason at all in 1's and 2's. =( And I urge you guys not to only look into the deployment positions, but TIMES. I believe one of you told me the problem was it went into an infinite deployment loop and eventually broke out - thus the variations, but if you run tests you'll clearly see some 81mms setup way faster than others, just like any MG. Sometimes works like it should, sometimes takes several minutes. In buildings, in the open, wherever. And I DO have turns of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If Im wrong I apologize, but I could swear I've seen the mortars retarget with no spotting rounds since 2.0 I'll look and if I can find the file I'll absolutely send it. Good news is the files are all there turn by turn they're pbems, bad news is it will only be a few out of hundreds of files. They are supposed to be able to retarget without spotting rounds if shifting to a nearby target. Don't actually know what the range is for "nearby". This may be deliberately fuzzy. However rereading your post I will point out that mortars and crew served weapons ARE bugged in 2.0, with the famous crewmember running away bug. The workarounds don't always work either. For example a M1919 crew had the extra pre destination waypoint and when I played a turn just now they'd vanished - Until I noticed they just started running for the rear for no reason at all in 1's and 2's. =( And I urge you guys not to only look into the deployment positions, but TIMES. I believe one of you told me the problem was it went into an infinite deployment loop and eventually broke out - thus the variations, but if you run tests you'll clearly see some 81mms setup way faster than others, just like any MG. Sometimes works like it should, sometimes takes several minutes. In buildings, in the open, wherever. And I DO have turns of this. Joch is clearly talking about the targeting issues specific to indirect weapons, not broader bugs that happen to affect mortars because they are heavy weapons. You cannot setup mortars in buildings, so I think you are confusing issues. The listed setup times are estimates. Actual deploy/pack-up times are somewhat variable. There is a bug specific to HMGs in buildings, however, that can lead to major problems with deploy times. The heavy weapon deployment issues (including issues with HMGs in buildings) should be fixed in 2.01. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 No I didnt try to setup a mortar in a building, Im not an idiot. I lumped them in with MGs, etc because they share the same deployment bug all heavy weapons suffer from. ATGs too, in the open, and this is the crew member wandering off. This is not just buildings either. And I've seen HMGs in the open have the deployment error. I dont think it's a variability issue with this, sometimes MGs deploy within a turn, other-times it takes literally 4-5 turns. Sometimes 2-3. It honestly feels like a continuation of the bug previous to 2.0 where all crew served weapons deployed instantly at the end of a move order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 No I didnt try to setup a mortar in a building, Im not an idiot. I lumped them in with MGs, etc because they share the same deployment bug all heavy weapons suffer from. ATGs too, in the open, and this is the crew member wandering off. This is not just buildings either. And I've seen HMGs in the open have the deployment error. I dont think it's a variability issue with this, sometimes MGs deploy within a turn, other-times it takes literally 4-5 turns. Sometimes 2-3. It honestly feels like a continuation of the bug previous to 2.0 where all crew served weapons deployed instantly at the end of a move order. The building setup bug with MGs is a separate bug from the wandering crew member bug that affects all heavy weapons. Both should be fixed in 2.01. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Oh really? Thats interesting and perhaps a combination of the two bugs is why I notice the behavior *especially* during MG setups in buildings. It's strange too, when I played a turn earlier (pbem) a .50 cal I had ordered into a building setup in 1 turn like there was no bug at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.