I have a similar issue. Unfortunately, stability and frame rates are both worse for me.
I already reported the CTD with the auto feedback form.
As for frame rates, have noticed something odd. I messed with the settings during a local coop game to see if I could make it any better and noticed that it seemed to be a COMBINATION of MEDIUM SHADOWS and ANTI-ALIASING (tried FXAA, SMAA x1 & TAA).
Obviously, these can be expensive, but what is notable is that when combined, the drop was extreme (I had down to 13 FPS when I'm usually around 60). The other notable thing is that it only happened with MEDIUM shadows. When I shifted to HIGH shadows, the extreme frame drop went away.
So, yes. For me anyway, running with HIGH shadows rather than MEDIUM actually gives me better and more stable performance.
Not technically a bug, but unusual behaviour.
When you run and do a knee-slide into a car or barrier, if you have any excess momentum, you will ricochet and your excess momentum can carry you beyond cover.
I think that when you slide into a barrier, you should stop - no matter what the angle of the barrier is to you.
The slide should be terminated when you hit the barrier (green slide) and you should NOT continue to slide out of cover at an angle (red slide) like you are on a ice rink.
As described in title: Q & E Keys are hard-coded on resupply page.
I use Q/W for lean and E for use.
As the resupply page seems to re-purpose the LEAN keys to switch tabs/pages and the USE key to resupply, for me it should be Q/W to change tabs (incorrect) and E to resupply (correct).
I think a couple of tweaks to the existing system could address some of these problems:
ONLY count the initial explosion as friendly-fire. Burn/Gas/whatever damage-over-time should NOT be considered friendly-fire.
The shooter does have control over where he triggers the explosives and thus can take responsibility to avoid friendly fire. However, he can NOT prevent people from entering (or failing to exit) the affected area and should not be punished for such.
Friendly fire is often only a fraction of full damage. In a short TTK game like Insurgency, this is presumably to give time for the shooter to register "blue on blue" warnings and have time to stop before killing the friendly.
I'd suggest lowering the friendly fire bullet damage even further and make it asymmetrical. Perhaps something like:
- Friendly target recieves 10% of bullet damage.
- Friendly shooter receives 15% of bullet damage.
Ideally, this would achieve a few things:
It would give more time for the shooter to realize his mistake and stop shooting before anyone dies. Helpful for genuine accidents like when someone walks into your line of fire. This would also help prevent griefers from causing you to teamkill by intentionally walking into your line of fire as you'd have more time to avoid the unintentional TK.
If he (either intentionally or unintentionally) doesn't stop in time, the HIGHER reflected damage would kill (and thus stop) the shooter BEFORE the friendly dies. So the target (while still getting wounded) wouldn't pay the "ultimate" price for the shooters mistake. Griefers who want to TK for the LOLZ would only kill themselves and be more obvious about it to teammates.
As this potentially would "only" require tweaking values to the existing system, I'd like to think that it also would have the advantage of being relatively easy to implement.
Once again, just my 2¢
Only one of my two friends can see my community server in their server browser and connect to it. The other friend and myself can connect with no issues.
This led me to believe that the first friend (who can't connect) has a network issue specific to him. However, he can join our party and play together with us on NWI public servers.
His inability to see my server persists even when trying to connect via IP, after a reboot and trying again on different days.
What's odd is that he can see SOME community servers, but not as many as my other friend and myself which is strange!
Also, he's only using standard windows Defender/Firewall. He also tried connecting via a mobile hotspot to bypass his home network and had the same results.
I'm forwarding "-port=27102 -queryport=27131" as per my startup .bat.
Anyone got a solution or any advice?
Do you have to wait through the entire draw animation of an explosive before you can move to the next slot? If so, that should definitely be fixed.
Yup. I've died so many times cycling through explosive animations. Takes an age.
So let me get this straight. Are you saying there should be a shortcut key that allow us to toggle either a grenade slot or the RPG slot?
Yea, sure. I wouldn't mind having a new binds for selecting a specific explosive type. Speaking of binds, I remember the community from Day of Infamy requested adding a new bind that treat 'lean' as a toggle. I'm glad they added it in Sandstorm. I would love to have new bind for selecting a specific explosive slot.
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Each explosive slot should get it's own bind so you can select it immediately.
Currently, when you select an explosive, you switch to the one in the "first" slot. If it's not the one you want, you have to wait until you put it away and then take out the next one. If that's still not the one you want, you have to once again take the time to put it away and then take out the next... <boom! you're dead> ... one.
Having to cycle through your explosives is very time consuming. Especially when you can't set the order you prefer at loadout.
If I have an RPG & Moltov and want to quickly toss the Molly, I usually have to cycle through the RPG first which takes an age. With heavy carriers this just gets worse.
Please consider adding dedicated binds for each explosive slot and/or at the very least let us set the order which we want to access them.
Thanks for the consideration.
Just wanted to add my thanks for the effort you've put into this and your willingness to share it with the community.
These things take a lot of time and I appreciate you being generous with yours.
I'm away and won't be able to test it until after Xmas but didn't want to forget to pass on some kudos.
Okay so despite the title, I'm really not sure whether NWI is trying to be dishonest, being forced to do so, or just extremely bad at estimating development times...
...Granted I have zero experience developing a game, but when everything they announce is as unrealistic as it is, it makes me question their honesty.
I don't believe it's a question of honesty. Software development is full of unexpected challenges, not just technical but marketing/financial/etc. which often result in very poor estimates. That's why you so often hear from larger developers (who can afford the wait): "It'll be done when it's done."
This doesn't take away from your point that their estimates have been wrong and that content has been scaled way back. When they realized they'd bitten off more than they could chew in the time available they back-peddled. But I believe this is more about correction than deception.
Being primarily a co-op and single player guy, the lack of game modes including the story is disappointing. At this point, we'll have to hope their good track record of post release support will remedy this.
The worrisome part is of course performance. Even if their internal build is gangbusters, there is precious little time to get it out into the wild and test/tweak in before release. As concerned as we all are about this affecting Sandstorms initial reception, I'm sure it pales in comparison to theirs.
...To make myself clear: My issue is not the slow development of this game, it is the unrealistic announcements of NWI and them then trying to rush this game out before it's ready... <snip> ...I would be happy to see this game delayed for another few months...
Like you, I'd much prefer that they bake the cake until it's done. It may not be ideal that they ice it with additional content after it's served, but so be it. The important thing is that it is solid on launch. I am also happy to wait.