RadicalEdward2

Insider
  • Content count

    1,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,498 Excellent

About RadicalEdward2

  • Rank
    Colonel
  • Birthday 04/15/1993

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    Germany
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

3,196 profile views
  1. Test New Vehicle Handling On Prototype

    Oh...well now I know. I'm just used to seeing people spawn things I guess lol However, I will say the drifting is fantastic and its fun seeing vehicles just abandoned and on-fire instead of despawning
  2. Test New Vehicle Handling On Prototype

    UPDATE Someone forgot to turn off console commands so people are spawning vehicles left and right. Switching the ammo while operating vehicles with interchangeable ammo types brings the vehicle (tank or IFV) to a hard stop. The fact that road-based vehicles spawn in the woods with everyone else does not bode well for people hoping not to be camped stepping out of the woods. Crashed the game 5 minutes in. You guys have my crashdump The German IFV paintjob is not in the prototype, 0 out of 10, would not rent again from Blockbuster Paratroopers still don't have one additional equipment point lol
  3. Test New Vehicle Handling On Prototype

    I'll check it out tonight
  4. New encounter map is terrible

    He did care about the map. It was one of the few maps where they actually gave him a bit more freedom with what could be changed. In fact, I worked with him pretty closely in-regards to the layout of the map. One point I will stand by though is that the map should have had a cardinal direction deploy system. This is an early screenshot of the map that I illustrated how the dynamic could have worked. Desji always wanted there to be the option of alternating deploy zones but, it never saw fruition and Garman was evidence that the idea never saw fruition. This was his exact quote on the matter when I brought up the idea with him. He genuinely did care about the game and he wanted to undo the damages but, it was outside of his control. You partially have me to thank for the inland side having a backup deploy in the event that the bridgers attempt to farm the other team "Depot style". One of the drafts I shared with Desji in October I actually explained to Desji that the current issue being addressed in this thread was EXACTLY what I was afraid was going to happen. I made this image for Desji privately back in October 2017. One thing you'll probably notice is that the trees on the left of blue side of the bridge end earlier than they do in the final version. Had the alternating deploy zones been implemented, this discussion probably wouldn't be happening today. Desji actually agreed with my notes. In fact, the encounter map was originally going to have "6 deployzones in a circle around the objective, causing many different possible setups on the same map." This idea alone was one that made me consider that the map should be renamed "Crossroads" (had the name not been used for the tank map). I told him I was going to vouch for his idea when I arrived at Reto HQ but, I may have forgotten to do so due to jet-lag (it was a 8-10 hour flight). I still feel somewhat guilty about forgetting to bring this point up at the Summit to this day.
  5. Upcoming Tank Map "Crossroads" (Work in Progress)

    That is true though. Reto France is not France at all. But the layout of Crossroads was indeed a decent start. Hopefully it doesn't get scrapped in Desji's absence.
  6. New encounter map is terrible

    Considering they don't have a dedicated level designer at this moment, I would say otherwise. I'm not giving up. There could be stuff in the works right now that I just haven't disclosed yet. Also, I took the liberty to correct your grammar mistakes. If you're going to try discouraging me, the least you could have done is make sure you typed coherently Lastly, if you're not going to contribute anything of worth to this discussion, then, I would suggest that your business elsewhere and/or invest your time into something more productive that could be life fulfilling (like learning the English language, pursuing a career in a field that you care about as much as I do, or even take up painting). I considered telling you to give up after deciphering whatever you were trying to tell me but, then, I realized that there's much better things that you could be doing than living without purpose or an end goal. I won't tell you to give up on your ideals because the things you could be striving for in life could be just outside of reach; like mine. Addendum: I was the one up-vote on your comment ♥
  7. My Q/A Question #2 : The Equipment Depot

    Bumping because I had another question involving the depot. Why aren't tanks sent to the Depot when a soldier switches their career back to Infantry? I have a Light Tank in my main infantry's vehicles that just can't ever be used or sold and my depot is empty. Considering that I (and probably countless other players) probably won't change the career of a Rank 15, is there a possibility that tanks left in our inventory can be reimbursed? Better yet, if there's mains with other career vehicles or weapons that they just can't use, can they just have access to them in-battle?
  8. New encounter map is terrible

    You do realize we both joined the Forum just four or so months apart and I was playing before I ever joined the Forums right? I know War used to be fun and it wasn't much more that the simple gratification of winning. I sucked playing then and I sucked only slightly less now. I was around during that period where you had the thrill of playing in your own Assault Team and how exciting it felt to realize that extra 36 or 60 infantry just saved your team a pivotal battle (like Warsaw or Paris). But nowadays, that small feeling of accomplishment is a dragon I've been trying to chase for 3 years now. I don't want to keep hammering in the point that War needs some sort of gimmick to make it interesting because this isn't Beta anymore. The period of "oh maybe they'll implement something as an end-game payout before they launch" has passed. Friends I knew in-person that joined this game because I told them how cool it was have also long since moved-on (not dead) and went on to find other games to play because they got tired of waiting. I'm the only person left in my circle of friends (outside of the community) still clinging onto hope. Sure, I'm not online as much as I used to be but, that doesn't mean I gave up. I'm not completely riding on Reto's hmmhmm lol That should be perfectly clear by how harsh my remarks are whenever I make long-winded tangents about how they need to do more. I sacrificed a normal sleep schedule coming up with ways to revitalize the game and my "extreme" idea of map pools is me doubling-down because the only non-level design idea that I know is being considered is changing the faction colors on the map so they never blend with the changing color of background that I suggested to @Reto.Vashu and they still haven't turned off auto-resolve but I'm still waiting for them to do so @Reto.RedBjarne lol The several part Post-Summit topics I've been making detail some of the ideas I offered them but, I still haven't even heard if they're going to consider them yet either. At this point, the only way I can ensure that anything I propose (not limited to the map pool) see fruition without becoming lost to miscommunications of my concepts is if I can actually sit down with them in-person for longer than one day and sort it out with them. I've suggested tons of ideas and concepts to enhance War (removing auto-resolve, Major City perks, AT abilities, fully fleshed-out game modes with maps I made myself, powerpoints, and even physical drawings). At this point, I don't know what else you guys want to hear from me because it seems like everyone is too complacent to even fathom little changes because it could somehow break the very fabric of time and space as we know it. Risks have to be taken and sacrifices have to be made. At this point, the ideas I suggested over the course of 3 years just need a crash test until we can all see what sticks and what doesn't because nothing will ever be accomplished if everyone is too afraid to even see change. Long story short... We got Staged and we got Staged with Warfunds and less people in it. What do you propose that we do aside from saying that they need to do something? lol Post note: You never even addressed the other idea I suggested.
  9. New encounter map is terrible

    That's what I mean. Now that there's more than one map for each existing battle type, there can be a move towards making new maps dedicated to War. Its not a new practice either. Back during the days of Halo 2 (classic not the Mr.Chef Collection), there were maps that could only be played in the Ranked Playlist while Social (unranked) had a a substantial catalog of maps but, if players wanted to play on some of the other maps, they would have to play the Ranked playlist. Its a form of population control that worked pretty well and even continued on to Halo 3 and Reach (we don't talk about the others...). For example: Coagulation (Blood Gulch) is considered an Unranked map. Tombstone and Foundation are considered Ranked maps. I'm in no way saying that Staged needs to be neutered of its maps but, War needs actual perks to make it different from Staged. The current existing maps should be available for both War and Staged but, any new ones will be exclusive to War until more maps come out. Take the new Russian maps for example, one of them should be added to Staged as incentive to see what the other Russian maps have to offer in War. The difference however is that Counterstrike is a shooter. Yes, H&G is one as well but, not in the same way that Counterstrike is. H&G isn't trying to be Counterstrike because it's not Counterstrike. H&G isn't an MLG game with tournaments. If people wanted to play Counterstrike, they would just go do that. Different scenarios you say? I know, easy joke. But really, War can be more unpredictable than Staged. You'll never have a situation in Staged where one moment, you're about to close off the enemy's entry point only to have another line with thousands of resources open up on the other side of the map. Everything in Staged is set in a controlled environment with smoothed edges and cushioned walls and the only real threat could very well be the incompetence of your own team. I know the resources are unbalanced. It's War for crying out loud. If one army has mustard gas and the other doesn't have gas masks, they're not going to postpone the battle until the enemy gets their gas masks. The only saving grace for real strategy to come to fruition is if they actually do away with the open areas between Capture Points, Objectives, and Deploy Zones. You can't strategize if there's no map to strategize on. Even the strategies in this game are getting predictable. Its all very rudimentary. The only thing that keeps those tactics from getting stale for new players is just that. There's always new players to use as fodder. Which brings us full circle with the posts initial point. Some maps suck and the fact that players suck less than others. The sad thing is that, this shouldn't be the case. I shouldn't have to feel like I'm pulling teeth just to play the actual game (not Staged). Agreed. I and hundreds of other users have suggested plenty of tangible solutions to add variety to War but, they just haven't seen fruition yet or haven't even been considered yet; thus leaving the Generals as a waste of a full retail price Nintendo 3DS game ($39.99 USD). They could give Generals the ability to use map routes that aren't visible to non-General players. They could give Generals the ability to issue global commands in-battle (similar to squad commands but, all respective faction units on a selected assault line could follow it for twice or even triple the XP bonus that would be offered by squad commands. Since the ability to see enemy vehicles was removed from the respawning camera, add a badge that allows Generals to see enemy units on the battlefield so he/she can actual guide his troops to victory. Imagine an RTS camera angle like the ones in C&C or Army Men but, instead of directly controlling the units, the General can point his army in the right direction by placing markers on the map that would appear in the HUD of players on the battlefield and have a marker on the players' personal maps. The general could even type-in what the soldiers are supposed to be doing at the beacon he placed. That way, every rally point won't just say "Clear Area", "Rally Here", "Attack X", or "Defend Y". For example: Tank near this area. APC here. This player is responsible for losing the APC. Stolen tank here. (with a marker that follows the target for a few seconds that could be upgraded with badges or something) Use this path to flank the defends at the CP. Try harder and stop trying to use the bridge. You get the idea. There's plenty of stuff that they could try adding to actually make playing as a General fun or at the very least, interesting. As far as I know, all a General does is: Regret that they spent $40 USD buying a General. Move numbers around a map. Question whether deploying ATs was worth it. Hope that their ATs aren't auto-resolved to death due to a lack of battle attendance rates indirectly caused by the majority of players being involuntarily matchmade into Staged battles by the game itself. There needs to be ways to make Generals interesting enough that people would consider picking up the game just to play as a General without even having a soldier alt character. Until that task is taken to heart, I don't think the new Assault Team types or class-specific game modes will do much of anything to revitalize War's less-than-ideal state.
  10. New encounter map is terrible

    Well, that's the big point. The game itself needs more content. New maps, new game mechanics, etc. Until that happens, War won't have anything to offer because the game needs more stuff to offer.
  11. New encounter map is terrible

    I see your point but, at the same time, maybe that means Reto needs to work on coming up with new benefits for players that play longer. There's a large stagnation period on the way leading up to unlocking Generals where nothing is ever rewarded. I know there's a bunch of milestones like Physical Fitness but, I honestly don't know it any of those milestones mean anything or reward anything besides upgrading badges. The issue with War is that it depends heavily on population. Without players, there's no battles. Without battles, there's no players unlocking assault teams. Without assault teams, there's more unbalanced battles with footmen against armor. Without cogs and gears, the machine ceases to function. War needs more benefits to actually make it worth playing. The concept behind War mode was what got me into the game. Players sticking primarily to the controlled environment of Staged, is killing War and inadvertently making the mode bad. Sure, its not the community's fault but, steps need to be taken in order to make War worth playing. I don't even see a reason to purchase a General nor do I fully comprehend how they function because of how pricey they are and how unforgiving War can be on resources (due to matches getting auto-resolved so often). Additionally, Staged and War should be treated differently because they are two different modes. I want to play War but, there's no matches. One other possible solution (which will probably be shot down because it detracts from Staged) would be... Watering down some of the Staged maps or removing some features from them (referring more specifically to Assault maps). If players are going to get the exact same experience in Staged that they would in War with little-to-no room for variables, then there's no point in having War around. Staged is intended as a compliment to the game's War mode; not as the be-all-end all. That's why I believe that Staged should get the shorter end of the stick. If players want to get the full experience, they should have to "step outside" of the comfort zone. By allowing Staged to remain unregulated, it only decreases War's value even further. I get it, the casual players are important but, what if they wanted to consider playing War? Just let them find out that its identical to Staged but, with less people? Outside of XP, warfunds, and credits, what can you tell me that War has to offer positively? Are the maps different? No. Are the battles different? No. What about the vehicles? No. In fact, you might not get any because no Generals and Field Officers don't feel the need to deploy any. And even if there were vehicles, you won't be able to use them without the proper Aux Seats. Then what's the point? That's the issue that needs to be fixed. War SHOULD offer more than Staged and it shouldn't be limited to monetary gain. And the only way that this can be accomplished is by using figuring out ways to wean players off of Staged as its not the core mode of the game.
  12. New encounter map is terrible

    Actually Battlefront 2 failed because they didn't have a character customization system, made players pay for RNG crates that oftentimes just offered the equivalent to H&G credits but, not badges, and tried to hide Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader behind a pay wall. Also, EA kept the developers under very strict guidelines so they couldn't release more content at launch; in hopes of making quick bucks on DLC. Luckily, Disney put their boot to EA's neck and told them to cut that shite out so now the Seasons DLCs are free. Those are the exact reasons why Battlefront 2 failed. Sans the part about Disney intervening. Changing up the formula with how XP and credits are rewarded to players in Staged as opposed to War isn't anything new. The idea of only offering certain perks in a ranked mode is a concept that's been around since Halo 2 on the original Xbox and then carried over to Halo 3 and Halo: Reach in which certain armor permutations were only unlocked by playing Ranked matches. Yeah, I guess it sucks that you can't make equally as much in Staged as you would in the core mode of the game but, this game is running out of options and sometimes risks are worth taking if there's a clear goal in-mind. In this case, it would be getting people to play War. Its the same argument as to why the game's night mode is fundamentally broken in every possible way (visually and gameplay-wise). Players keeping moaning and winging about how they want to be able to see and they can't stand the idea of making nights dark (you know...like a different mode from day battles?). Maybe if they just took the risk in listening to some individuals instead of listening to the majority community, maybe something would actually get done? I'm aware of how hypocritical that sounds but, in this case, its a hand worth playing.
  13. Lost Assets

    Can someone verify if these trash bins always looked like they were lacking dedicated textures/skins? I always found it peculiar that they used the same (or at the very least similar) placeholder material as the machinery in/around the Factory. I mean...the machinery in the Factory could at least use the same material that the (green-ish) kilns and factory doors are made of to keep the machinery all uniform in terms of color while simultaneously breaking the consistently gloomy blue tones. But that's just my stance on the matter
  14. New Map & Building Concepts

    Sorry for going so long without saying anything (I was the one that upvoted you btw). I definitely agree with you. One thing I definitely would say that station needs is more infrastructure (on top of bringing back the old layout from pre-Garman). One possible thing they could try doing is porting over the new Factory loading bay building that functions as D line's D-3. Now that I think about it, since Desji kind of indirectly confirmed that building pieces could be mix/matched to make new buildings, they (or even I) could go to town with making new station buildings; stuff like stock car garages or enclosed loading bays. (seen behind the car) Or in the case of Factory... Go all out and make a roofed platform separate from the A-2 cargo bay. There's that second platform next to A-2 with nothing but a guard post and boxes on it. With enough type I could probably whip something up real nice. Speaking of whipping things up, I am still making stuff. I've just been trying to build up my portfolio by networking in the Empire at War modding community and now have my name attached to four different mods. In regards to H&G related stuff, I've been in a bit of a slump because I'm trying to replicate the Sawmill so I could use it in a couple of different potential mock-ups but, since all of the resources are being made from scratch (or borrow parts from other assets I made), it's been a very tedious process. On top of that, I've just been on/off with it because there's only so much that I can do with my free time since I'm still unemployed
  15. New encounter map is terrible

    But that just proves my point. If you're exploiting the system by using inexperienced players as fodder to grind badges, then a hard daily Staged XP and credit cap would need to be enforced. Otherwise, players would just continue to play Staged because they could earn all the stuff they need there without ever even considering War. If players know that they can earn more in War than they can in Staged, that would encourage them to play War instead of staying in Staged battles because eventually, they'll reach a point where they won't be able to afford to repair their equipment. I'm not referring to the seasoned players. Obviously, they'll always be able to afford to repair their equipment but, I'm talking about the players that actually need to conserve their credits. On the plus side, this would also encourage players to buy Gold if they want to continue faffing about in Staged instead of actually earning more in War because there's probably players out there that actually would pay gold to have stuff repaired. I'm not talking about 200 credit repairs. I'm talking about the ones that need to debate whether repairing is actually worth it.