News: Game Update 09 patch notes - 22nd May 2013 - Page 5

ChipMHazard · 2013-05-22, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Falcon_br

My game won´t load past 98%.
Already tried all known fixes.
Delete useroptions.ini
Validate game asserts.

I just hope my character hasn´t be deleted!

No one got this error?

Not at the moment, no. But I have had this happen to me before, no idea why or how but it just started working again later on. I wouldn't worry about your character though.

camycamera · 2013-05-22, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

It means that you don't have to wait until the reload animation is finished. As soon as you see that new bullets have been put in the gun you can interrupt the reload.

you explained that better than i ever could XD

Falcon_br · 2013-05-23, 12:57 AM

After several attempts, my game loaded after 98%.
Played a lot today, spended all those 6000 certs I was saving for that update.
2250 only on the max anchored mode, just to discover that it doesn't deploy the anchors it have on it, just assume an idiot position for the bonuses.
The part that made me more sad it was to see the harasser halbert price going from 250 certs to 700, that means I won't be getting it, but it looks like the m525 for the harasser is only 250 certs! Can be a good choose for those who wants to harasse the enemy infantry, but the truth is, I never saw a harasser using a weapon that is not the halbert on it.an outfit member bought the m60 for it, no one wants to go with him, because my sunderer got two of it with nv, extended mag, maximum level of speed, 80kph, and maximum level of blockaded armor.
But those ones with halbert and armor always get a gunner fast.

Emperor Newt · 2013-05-23, 06:13 AM

Change how the Saron works and make the weapon which is now closer to what the Saron was (Halbert) more expensive.
Nobody could have seen that this might rub players the wrong way?

ChipMHazard · 2013-05-23, 06:24 AM

There is one thing that I really don't like. Apparently you cannot capture points unless the base you just came from is secure, in the sense that the capture point isn't being contested.
I most certainly wouldn't want to be placed on guard duty away from the fighting just so that one wee bastard doesn't contest the point.

NewSith · 2013-05-23, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

There is one thing that I really don't like. Apparently you cannot capture points unless the base you just came from is secure, in the sense that the capture point isn't being contested.
I most certainly wouldn't want to be placed on guard duty away from the fighting just so that one wee bastard doesn't contest the point.

Now that statement is kind of whiny, you know... You could do the same thing in PS1. Except it took a little bit more finesse to do that. Okay, well, maybe it just took a bit more actions (like "Pull a REK, press "Fire""), but NEVERTHELESS!..

That "problem" is the only backhacking we have in the game right now.

Assist · 2013-05-23, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by NewSith

Now that statement is kind of whiny, you know... You could do the same thing in PS1. Except it took a little bit more finesse to do that. Okay, well, maybe it just took a bit more actions (like "Pull a REK, press "Fire""), but NEVERTHELESS!..

That "problem" is the only backhacking we have in the game right now.

Yeah but it's far too easy to get behind enemy lines, combined with the number of players in the game. I also don't like this change. If they want that effect then they should just have it so your faction has the control point(ie. 50% in your favor) of the previous base. Prevents the annoying backhacking which serves no purpose other than to annoy an entire zerg, while also allows a squad+ of players to get in behind a zerg and control a base in an attempt to divert the zerg.

The only thing that having the control point un-contested has done is create a lot more downtime/waiting around for players. Which is not a good thing and something that the lattice/battle flow system is meant to eliminate.

ChipMHazard · 2013-05-23, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by NewSith

Now that statement is kind of whiny, you know... You could do the same thing in PS1. Except it took a little bit more finesse to do that. Okay, well, maybe it just took a bit more actions (like "Pull a REK, press "Fire""), but NEVERTHELESS!..

That "problem" is the only backhacking we have in the game right now.

You know.... I don't care if you could do the same thing in PS1. Don't whine about my whining

Like Assist wrote it's just annoying because it's so easy for one player to screw up the attackers. You literally just have to walk into a cap zone and start contesting it.
There needs to be some sort of backhacking in the game (Something for spec teams to do) but this aint it.

CrimsonTemplar · 2013-05-23, 09:24 AM

Related somewhat, to Chip and Assist's comments here, yesterday I was on Indar with the new system. The TR was making a push on the Eastern side, trying to retake Camp Waterson.

Now I expected the LL, to be rather bare bones as of now and it is. I also knew it would take time for people to adapt to the new flow of battle. On Mattherson, I was rather pleased to see a three-way attack on Camp Waterson, with the bulk of the zerg following straight down the line, while smaller groups went around and attacked from the north and south. Accidental or not, it shows that some players are starting to use the early days to their advantage.

Yet it was when we reached Mao Watchtower, when I saw exactly how limited the LL is right now. Zerg pour into the territory, I thought to myself that it'd be good to take a few of my squad, go into Mao TP and disable the Gens and hack the vehicle consoles, so we can spawn in some sundy amses, to prep the base. The problem was we couldn't. We couldn't hack the gens or vehicles consoles for that matter (though the latter may be a bug), unless we had a direct Lattice link to Mao itself.

That annoys me. I understand why they did this, so as to limit ghost hacking and ghost capping. Right now there's not much for small squads to do and I know in time there will be. However right now, the devs have actually removed the few things smaller squads could do, in order to soften up a base's defense against allied forces. That's too restrictive in my opinion and it needs to be relaxed a wee bit.

This isn't PS1 lattice, I know but for the meantime there could be a workaround. For instance say the TR are attacking the Mao Watchtower, in order to take the main techplant itself. How about if there are a certain number of allies in an enemy SOI (48 let's say), then any base with a lattice link to the watchtower could be, not cappable but certainly have their consoles and gens hacked (Barring SCU of course). Instead of having ghost hackers everywhere, this would confine these activities to the immediate area, and would grant smaller squads something to do to support their forces, while not directly involved in the bigger battles. What's more it would actually spread the fight out a little bit, since allies and enemies would have to decide on whether they keep their forces together and risk the security of the immediate bases, linked to Mao Watchtower, or spread out to combat different areas of attack. It would also allow for more flexibility, more tactical manoeuvrings without compromising the purpose of the Lattice system.

wasdie · 2013-05-23, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

There is one thing that I really don't like. Apparently you cannot capture points unless the base you just came from is secure, in the sense that the capture point isn't being contested.
I most certainly wouldn't want to be placed on guard duty away from the fighting just so that one wee bastard doesn't contest the point.

You wouldn't, but some people do. It's a good mechanic that emphasis defense a bit more. No more of this constant attacking business.

In time things will work itself out better. I've already seen a lot better fighting going on around bases, not just grinding towards the point. Territory on the flanks of a lattice is still very important and people were fighting over them. This wasn't just by accident. Because the lines are more focused and there is now a clear line between attack and defense, tunneling a zerg just isn't good enough.

I'm excited to see how this unfolds for the other two continents as well.

Dragonskin · 2013-05-23, 09:37 AM

Personally I liked the way this works. I was playing on NC and we were surging forward to hit a VS tower. The VS were flanking us and attacking our base trying to get to the capture point to prevent us from attacking their tower. It made our NC zerg split into 2 forces. 1 that was attacking the tower and 1 that was defending the base we were launching the attack from. NC was unsuccessful and eventually the VS did push us out of our base. It split the zergs up though. It gave something for attackers and defenders to do. Personally I am more defensive naturally than aggressive.. so I tend to enjoy defending. Just unfortunately VS had time to mass more players and counter our push, but isn't that pretty much what the Lattice system is designed around?

It focuses battles and allows players to both defend and attack. You have to keep watch on your base you are attacking from and if you see it start slipping then go back to help push out the enemy so you can continue attacking. I think it is working as intended... just players will have to catch on that they can't all endless attack... some people need to defend.

Klypto · 2013-05-23, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by vampyro

Why nerf the Enforcer now? it wasnt like zomg the tank with an enforcer is coming. thats like the only good weapon to put on your vanguard.

That's what I was wondering too. It's now more of a close range Anti-Infantry gun.

RANDOMpercent · 2013-05-23, 11:25 AM

I participated in a fight between Indar Excavation and Quartz Ridge that was just Zerg v. Zerg. Neither side was able to take the other base and the attack and defense just kept flip flopping. It got boring after a while.

Mox · 2013-05-23, 11:28 AM

Lets celebrate! Lattice inc!

capiqu · 2013-05-23, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

Well re: TR AA MAXes in anchor mode. You will only be able to turn 180° making you a sitting duck of the ESF comes in from high altitude and dive down behind the back of the AA MAX.

Sure it will be slightly harder to kill off TR AA MAX from the air. But it's already a risky idea to try to pull it off so the anchor mode will not really change much in reality regarding air. At least not when it comes to faction, platoon, squad balance. 1 Vs 1 ESF Vs MAX it will slightly but this game is not balanced after 1 vs 1 fights in all scenarios. It's balanced for team play.

LOL instead of anchor mode maybe we should have screw down mode. That would allow TR maxes to do 360 turns. Haven't we learned yet from PS1 that locked down max = a dead max especially from behind.