SirJustin90

Yes, huge companies who can push their way through other huge companies. I know this from experience working with developers as a beta tester. There is a reason I left Xbox to go to PC, and this was one of the main ones. *Forgot to add, these companies have the funds and manpower to massively test these updates to satisfy the unreasonable demands of the console giants. And yes, Sony is worse, in some ways, because they want everything to be done their way that doesn't affect their ecosystem. Look at War Thunder, and Skyrim for example.

Can't say I'd like to see the pivot. It is already far easier to hit things with the Arty than the V2. And we definitely don't need the allies having yet another advantage over the nerfbound soviets. However, deploy would be great, but if as push said that's a problem, perhaps traction could work? ... Engine limitations are a pain.

You're missing one huge problem. Consoles hate updates. They seriously seem to do their best to avoid them, with either insane requirements to have an update pushed, or a limit to how often/how large updates can be. Even some times they simply have a hard limit or prevent updates all together. So past the current issues, you're dealing with brain-dead corporations that continue to hold games back by artificially limiting update potential.

Tried the maps with the new bots, it was great fun. Simply having a tech there means you must run with infantry, gang up with bots or arty/v2 the tech to death... but they'll be back. Must say though, bots with light tanks are pros. They can snipe a ranger shot for shot. One thing I do note, is they get very mad when I splash them with a V2.... but they'll only run about 25m or so... stare at me... and then run off. Is there anyway to convince them to go that extra 10-50m to get within engagement range and defend instead?

Nice changes, hopefully this will be what the medic ultimately needs. Also Nice to see the Volk nerf, we've been getting away with a bit too much with him lately haha. (Too bad he couldn't have his own lower headshot bonus, since his face is mostly metal and all) Shotgun changes are good. And the change with the Yak's, does this mean we get points for them now? (We didn't before right?) And lastly, +1 for more bots on levels, and @Raap Ditto for the bots, love to see them get further development. If only we could fix the scoreboard issues with them, counting as kills and such then maybe we could see them on more maps.

Awesome, nice to see us getting a little love.

"This will greatly" ??? You missed the end there. I assume greatly increase his survivability. Anyways, looks great, especially for the poor Riot Trooper.

Hmm we'll see. That might make a difference. If it isn't enough it'll just be the same problem except a bit easier. I think the only reason it becomes a problem is that except at close range, damage tends to be more gradual than quick... and large groups tend to shred anyone who closes in. Either way, without seeing it in action with multiple different groups, we can't say how much the removal of armor healing is going to make. The numbers look good, but we still need to see then in action to derive the actual affect this change will have. Still is the medics own healing speed going to be lowered, as that is one of the major issues atm as well? You say "His auto-heal only kicks in after 1 second of not taking damage - so concentrated fire will put him down, Starshina/V2 burn will delay the regen by an extra 2 seconds and flamer burn will nullify it for a good 10 seconds." However, the auto-heal in my experience still seems to function, and I take zero damage from burns. I don't heal of course, but I'm not being damaged either. This is especially true against flame turrets. (Is it intended to just stop healing, or prevent all Damage Over Time, that way?)

So it seems, one of the things that will be important, as far as the med-kit goes is that it needs limited ammo or a greatly reduced fire rate, to prevent it making hordes near invincible indefinitely. I favor limited ammo, as it allows it to still be strong, but not able to continue a siege indefinitely. The only thing really stopping medic sieges I find are mines on vehicle maps, and to a lesser extent hinds, as rocket troops can deal with them easily. Otherwise I think medic rushes would be just as powerful on vehicle maps if used, with the exception of the mines and lesser hind worry.

Also, I know there was another post. But I find having a separate one, with a poll to show the community as a whole was more appropriate, then a single post in a already flooded thread.

I don't find they are useless on other maps at all. If you can get them in a building, good luck getting them out. They can still survive insanely long. (This is the same as saying a captain shotgun rush in a building is useless except on those maps, which it sure as hell isn't.) As for leaving their base vulnerable, that's a mute point, as units anywhere other than there base does the same thing, medic rushes are no different. As you take it, they will be balanced on those two maps, but still have the problem of endless heals in the enemy base. The rate at which the medpack is re-shot most likely wont make that much difference. However, nerfing the medic's ability to be nearly invincible except under extremely focused fire will. Especially the burn, as at least shotguns can be bought without a barracks. However, shouldn't the healing abilities on the allies under med-kit also be able to be stopped by burning as well? (If this isn't the case, which is hard to tell at the moment) With the slower fire of the med-kit and no armor, that would actually stop the problem a bit.

The medic as it is seems fairly overpowered. The issues I see at this time are: 1. The heal rate is amazing, so much that I can solo commando, and out-heal fire damage WHILE BURNING (which never stops, unlike volkov). The heal rate could be a bit slower to remove this commando ability. 2. The healing of groups. Since it isn't possible to make the medic work like it did in game (1 unit at a time), it becomes insanely overpowered in small games, and even in infantry matches of 10 v 10, as it is very much impossible to kill reliably with a huge team of soldiers running circles around it. As a workaround, I suggested limiting the amount of heal packs it can use to something like 10-20 at most, to at least force it to not be able to continue an endless assault. The flamer is now USELESS against them, as the heal can be spammed to get rid of the burn issue, and the healing out heals burning anyways. Even 10 packs would last, if the medic timed them each time the pack ran out. 20 would be overkill, but at least it's not unlimited. (This would finally make the pack tactical, either choosing constant heal, or choosing to keep it running longer, by using it when needed) As for the weapon, I see no problem with it. My issue was that I am nearly invincible SOLO if I use my auto-heal correctly (which never stops, unlike volkov), rather than the weapon being OP. The issue is the mass survivability not the ability to fight. Lastly, making increases to time switching between is POINTLESS, that isn't the issue that they can heal and fight... the issue is that they can heal endlessly, and that they can survive too well alone and become a mini-commando.

Also, minimized, it just closes with no error rather than report amount of players.

Takes an error on join attempt: " See the end of this message for details on invoking just-in-time (JIT) debugging instead of this dialog box. ************** Exception Text ************** System.ComponentModel.Win32Exception (0x80004005): The system cannot find the file specified at System.Diagnostics.Process.StartWithShellExecuteEx(ProcessStartInfo startInfo) at System.Diagnostics.Process.Start() at System.Diagnostics.Process.Start(ProcessStartInfo startInfo) at W3DHub.Form1.btnJoin_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e) in C:\Files\TEIA\Projects\W3DHub\W3DHub\Form1.cs:line 145 at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnClick(EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.OnMessage(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m) at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam) ************** Loaded Assemblies ************** mscorlib Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework/v4.0.30319/mscorlib.dll ---------------------------------------- W3DHub Assembly Version: 1.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 1.0.0.0 CodeBase: file:///D:/Users/Justin/Desktop/PlayerCountTool/W3DHub.exe ---------------------------------------- System.Windows.Forms Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll ---------------------------------------- System Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Drawing Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Configuration Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Core Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Core/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Core.dll ---------------------------------------- System.Xml Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll ---------------------------------------- Accessibility Assembly Version: 4.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 4.7.2053.0 built by: NET47REL1 CodeBase: file:///C:/WINDOWS/Microsoft.Net/assembly/GAC_MSIL/Accessibility/v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/Accessibility.dll ---------------------------------------- ************** JIT Debugging ************** To enable just-in-time (JIT) debugging, the .config file for this application or computer (machine.config) must have the jitDebugging value set in the system.windows.forms section. The application must also be compiled with debugging enabled. For example: <configuration> <system.windows.forms jitDebugging="true" /> </configuration> When JIT debugging is enabled, any unhandled exception will be sent to the JIT debugger registered on the computer rather than be handled by this dialog box. "

Yeah, looking for to mount and blade more than anything, and carefully watching ace combat... as "assault horizon" was a massive disappointment to me. Also, I do like age of empires, so that is interesting. All in all though, I've not seen any E3 yet, have been too busy to take a peek.

Ah that is true, so it won't be an issue for any buidling with an MCT then?

Is it possible to simply have no C4 zones in all areas not reachable, IE; the top of refinery (the areas you can't actually walk)? Imagine a C4 on the Refinery smoke stacks.

Sounds great! Edit: The protection from direct hits likely shouldn't be too much of an issue as they generally aren't 1 hit kills anyways? And the healing should help... but I suppose only testing would say for sure. (Being unsquishable, and immune to high direct hit damage, you could virtually ignore the vehicles entirely).

I think simply making the squish proof would be great. It would achieve your earlier goal of helping infantry versus vehicles, but not make it even more OP on infantry maps / indoors. If that's the case, and armor can be messed with, is it possible to give them squish proof, and armor more resilient to vehicles specifically, and not other weapons as well? Edit: I don't think AP protection is a good idea, we already have engineers for that, who should be far safer if a medic is nearby. Using both is good tactics, and gives a reason to have the medic there in the first place, to allow combat disarms.

The current medic is insanely OP atm. The real one in game only healed one at a time. I think just simply lowering the heal per second would do a lot. I could see giving him this ability plus a lowering to his heal over time speed... but to just buff him with the heal pack, would just make it even more insane on infantry only maps. (It isn't only his healing other medics that the problem, the heal speed alone is... especially on smaller teams 5 v 5 etc.)

Awesome looks great. Any thing able to be done about thieves being able to bunny-hop around and still steal from the Refinery/silos?

Yeah, I've been saying this in matches for a long time. I would love to have thieves need to stand still and man the terminal. (even if it has to be a flare type animation) The fact they can somehow break into a system and withdraw funds while bunny hopping to hell is a bit ridiculous at the moment. No thief should ever be able to steal while a person is opening fire on them, but currently it's not that difficult.

Well done. Looks great. Hah that is too true.

I have 4. Best advice is give them all the attention they want till they're about one / start talking well enough. Then when they scream/misbehave to get something, it's better to ignore them, then to tell them no over and over, as negative attention is still attention. * Of course if they're crying or misbehaving because something is genuinely wrong, then of course deal with it. But if it is because they want something they shouldn't have, or simply do it to get attention, then this applies.

Ah. Still having them learn more would help them not be so "bad".