A rant about a severe lack of basic features.

[Rayers12 19]

How about we finally get some modern gaming conventions in A2? How about a better LOD switching system or at least a grass layer? How about some sort of detail on the weapons, rather than saying bullet drop is all it takes to fire a weapon? While the game does definitely have heights, it really needs more work on the plateaus.

I just want to have you guys know that I love the series and would hate to see one of the last free thinkers in gaming fail.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Rayers12

[SASrecon 0]

How about we finally get some modern gaming conventions in A2? How about a better LOD switching system or at least a grass layer? How about some sort of detail on the weapons, rather than saying bullet drop is all it takes to fire a weapon? While the game does definitely have heights, it really needs more work on the plateaus.

This takes lots of time, effort and dedication. (you can get many of the features you're requesting already in mods)

It's also the result of a 10 year old engine which won't see any improvements in things like LOD switching until the optimisation gets a major overhaul.

This rant is pointless...

[Rayers12 19]

That is why its tagged with Rant.

[jw custom 56]

That is why its tagged with Rant.

Wouldn't it be better to tag it pointless then :p

[ProfTournesol 956]

I like the "find more posts by Rayers12" feature. Hard to find someting else than rants.

[max power 21]

What do you mean by grass layer?

[Tankbuster 1733]

I like the "find more posts by Rayers12" feature. Hard to find someting else than rants.

hehehe

[dm 9]

I like the "find more posts by Rayers12" feature. Hard to find someting else than rants.

So true, so sad.

If it pisses you off so much, uninstall the game, leave the forums, find something better to do with your time?

The rest of us are bored with reading your incessant rants :j:

[whisper 0]

Grass layer is implemented. Rant indeed, when it contains false informations :p

[rekrul 7]

Uhm guys? Constructive criticism is what developers need. If there's a lot of threads about crappy LOD switching, then it means that many people would like this improved. Bugfixing is in reality a popularity contest.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Rekrul

see the difference between a rant and constructive criticism.

If someone reports a problem in a objective manner, says how the bug manifests himeself, what the user expected to see (instead of the bug) and, if possible, a reproduction instruction so developers can verify the reported bug as easy as possible...thats constructive criticism.

A post containing just "i want this, that looks crap, get your fingers out of your *you know the word for it* and do something" is just a rant and doesn't help anyone.

Even more when the rant is from people that even don't understand game programming in it's basics.

:EDITH:

and if there's a lot of threads about crappy LOD switching, then it proves only that a lot of people didn't used the search function and posted theyr issue in the already existing "Crappy LOD switching thread".

Honestly, i for myself would also ignore any new pointless rant post, complaining about whatever and instead checking the useful posts which give me a clear description of the problem and with which i can work with. If i was developer.

That said, on my said the LOD system works flawless, also does the grass layer. Should i now say "problem solved since non-existing"?

Edited March 24, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[max power 21]

Uhm guys? Constructive criticism is what developers need. If there's a lot of threads about crappy LOD switching, then it means that many people would like this improved. Bugfixing is in reality a popularity contest.

In what ways is this rant constructive? In what way are the issues he raised bugs?

[nomdeplume 0]

Uhm guys? Constructive criticism is what developers need.

I think the so-called "rant" would be useless to me, if I was a developer.

How about we finally get some modern gaming conventions in A2?

What does this mean? I assumed it was a lead-in to the following statements, i.e. what followed were some of the "modern gaming conventions" the poster wants. But the next statements don't seem to bring any clarity, so I'm left playing clairvoyant.

How about a better LOD switching system

This contains the only actually useful information: a better LOD switching system. At least from this I can infer that the poster finds the jumps between detail levels quite noticeable/distracting/otherwise not good. However, this information is nothing new and adds nothing; it would be more useful as a "I too experience the problems with LOD you're discussing" in another thread that provided more information on the topic or in a bug report on the community issue tracker. Here it's no more than a "me too!" post under an opaque subject line.

or at least a grass layer?

They added a grass layer in the last beta cycle. So either the poster hasn't played the game for quite some time, or they actually mean they want it improved/fixed somehow, or maybe they mean something else when they say "grass layer" and again I have to get out my crystal ball.

How about some sort of detail on the weapons, rather than saying bullet drop is all it takes to fire a weapon?

I have no idea what to make of this. More details? Serial numbers on the textures? Ability to inspect the guns to see if they have religious references inscribed on them? A more complicated procedure for employing weapons? This might be an interesting topic, but again there's no actual information here. What details are being suggested? I'd have to be some kind of mystic to actually derive any useful information from this sentence.

So, the post completely fails to be at all useful or constructive. I think it also fails as a "rant": I read it because I was expecting/hoping for an amusing and passionate venting of frustration about the poster twitching and gasping on the ground in their death throes while their medic ran back and forth beside them scanning for non-existent enemies; or being pinned down by enemy fire and desperately hanging on while the support gunship flies in... only to have it miss with all its rockets and crash into the trees.

No offense to Rayers12, but I found this thread very disappointing. :(

[Rayers12 19]

I would like to see low grass, no just low plants. I mean... actual grass, not just a texture. Also, it would be nice if low plants drew at >500 meters, preferably by some setting.

I would like to see the LODs switch out at much further distances, or at least be able to not look horrible at 75 meters. Yes, the system does work fine but its still a pretty horrible system.

I would like to see weapons that have their RL features better matched, rather than just bullet drop simulated. These include:

1. Dispersion. Its really not that much to ask.

2. Some sort of way to dial in sniper shots, again somewhat simple.

3. Better weapon textures, and feel. For example, look at the M16 and M4SPR weapons, the effect used on those guns make them look horrible. For feel, try an A1 M16 vs A2 M16, they removed a setting I can't think of at the moment. I think that the games went from "back of head" to "front of head" controlling.

4. The scopes for weapons need to match the weapons attributes such as range and what-not.

5. Just a few types of ammo, like LR or tracer round mags. Also, some minor details such as shot for shotguns and hopefully an Ironsight M16A4.

Also, to those complaining of my own lack of some skill making my own experience. I paid for a product that I like. I paid for a finished game, not a really really good set of tools. What is wrong with me trying to get my money's worth? Sure, I can make my own weapons, but then I want part of the money I paid to BI back. I mean like, I did pay for something, I'm not asking for something for nothing here.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Rayers12

[Defunkt 431]

I paid for a product that I like.

You paid for the product on offer and you were afforded every opportunity to satisfy yourself that you liked it before buying it by trying the demo.

Then there's the question of what is a reasonable expectation for $50? I personally think more than 225 square kilometres of terrain, 70 vehicles and an effectively open-ended variety and potential playing life represents exceptional value compared to your 6hr shooter-on-rails experience and a lot more than your "money's worth".

[Rayers12 19]

Sure, it may be a big map. It is however, an extremely repetitive and detail-sparse landmass.

Reasonable $50: Something that is unique but functions well or better. A2 is unique, but it really needs to function better as a whole.

[grub 10]

A2 is unique, but it really needs to function better as a whole.

Holy.... Again?

It will, patience look at the game for what it is and its size and know that there are limits. Sheesh.

And then sit back and read the other 30 threads about the same thing.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

TO ALL:

The posts actually attempting to kill suggestions is laughable. I see them everywhere in this section. As soon as someone shows a bit of dislike for the game or even just a part of it, the same crowd jumps on the thread and begins a desperate attempt to shut it down. Even without providing the very constructive critism they preached; oh how hypocritical. I have no doubt somebody will reply to this post claiming i'm a troll, having no understanding that I am posting in the defense of the thread starter, even though I disagree with some of his suggestions.

TO THREAD:

Grass layer has already been implemented. Just letting you know in case you ever bring that up again.

[Placebo 28]

Constructive criticism is what developers need.

Absolutely, agree 100% with that.

This thread isn't constructive criticism.