Posts by Furry1

    I understand that you take reports seriously and that analyzing reports on a 500 player map is no small task. That being said, I've reported this player like 3 or 4 different times, as I am sure others have as well, but I haven't really noticed any changes in game. Several players quit that particular game because this guy got out of control.

    If you've reported him several times and they've investigated him (72 hours but USUALLY much quicker) it means he is not cheating and more than likely is a GM whale. There is nothing wrong with that and as long as you don't complain about GM usage in the paper etc, you will be fine. I KNOW it can be frustrating but if you're a skilled player, you can usually make some good points fighting them with your armies. Good luck and good hunting.

    Hi I am playing 3055760 O have spent 1650 golds to reveal armies of the Litvania after showing them for about 2 mins, the information again back to ? marks..

    Please solve this issue or pay my golds back. :cursing::cursing::cursing:

    I suspect that what Hastings said is most likely what happened in that you deployed the spy just prior to day change however, there is also another possible suspect and that is your "victim" made moves or changes just after you did the reveal which would also cause the report to be updated back to regular.

    Hi, to answer some things:

    Graphics are not calculated on the server, they are all being rendered on the client side. Therefore the addition of the new graphics have not slowed down the server. For many people with newer hardware the game actually runs smoother in new graphics than the old graphics. This requires more computational resources on the user's end of course. Still much less resources than in typical client games. The new graphics should run fine also on hardware that is some years old.

    Yes we have test servers and QA before releasing things. There can never be 100% coverage though, and we try our best to minimize and fix bugs (many are fixed before release actually).

    Thank you for your answer and yes, you are correct that the graphics and audio of the client has the most impact on the ability to play any online game. But this is one of the reasons that I've posted this particular complaint. What you are basically saying is that you don't care that your your updates mean your customers have to go out and buy new systems in order to effectively play the game like they had to do previously. Once again, as I said in one of my previous posts, do we REALLY need "moving water"?

    As for fixes being done before release, it simply doesn't seem that way for those of us who prefer playing in Legacy mode. When something as obvious as display of day change disappears and has to be reported, it appears that nobody cares about how updates affect the legacy mode players.

    Gentlemen and ladies,

    I play all my games in legacy mode and there's a reason for that. It's clean and simple. Every now and again I go into the game in non-legacy mode to check it out and see if perhaps I might change. To date, I have not wanted to do so. With this addition of sound that is not going to help change my mind. Salzz, actually, this sound idea is not from the 90s, it's from the 80s, trust me, I know because that's what I DID back then with graphics programs.

    What I am seeing and have been seeing since I joined a number of years ago is that bugs and upgrades are implemented but then this invokes NEW bugs coming into play. (Latest one being the loss of Day Change display) Also, be aware that the 3D graphics look cute but whatever you're using to generate them is very resource needy and has overall slowed down the performance and draw on the servers which trickles down to the clients (Users) causing frustration. As a computer graphics pioneer and specialist, I suggest you rethink some decisions like 'moving water' to save resource.

    Why I'm posting this and what I want to know since I've seen this pattern of fixing something and having it break something else has been ongoing for awhile now, is do you NOT have a Sandbox where you test and take note of what's broken BEFORE you release or invoke change? I understand that there will be bugs "appear" that won't happen until a special set of circumstances go into play but basics being ignored is just lazy coding.

    Okay, I don't normally agree with everything Deomonaire says (we have an ongoing err...discussion on our differences when it comes to arms trading) but I would have to agree with him here. What you're talking about would be impossible for 500 players because there simply wouldn't be enough land to go around. Prime example, Australia controlled by 1 person or even Canada controlled by 1 person would eliminate at least 30 player spots from the map. Ergo, the 100 player map basically answers the idea you have. Still world wide but less players.

    Obtuse? I'm not the one who's recurring to images with cats to avoid replying about the issue of trade of armaments AND soldiers and how unrealistic is that...

    Cat soldiers are no more fantastic than these invisible magical soldiers you seem to imagine accompanying the mech items in this game. IF we're realistic, could not the magical soldiers you're "seeing" go home and more magical soldiers from the receiving country take over from them?

    Oh I have far more arguments to justify the historical accuracy of countries trading armaments but the difficulty is that you are being willfully obtuse and therefore there is no argument.

    Okay, so you're saying the troops operating the vehicles are from the original country. But see, that's where we differ. Although I play the games as various different countries, I replace ALL the troops with men from my own country, Canada. I also change the flag to one that represents Canada. OH, and before you argue that with me, not only do I replace the regular men and women, I also put two Generals in charge who aren't even human. May I introduce General Basil Catticus and General Jasper D. Kat.

    No, it would be "armies given until war is over. When over, armies goes back to their country of origin" and/or "one infantry unit converted in and out per mech unit traded"

    Not like I agree with that, of course (S1914 with no troops trade is better game than before), but if we want to be fair...

    Okay, let's try this by the numbers.

    1. Does Russia, China, the USA, and Great Britain manufacture Armaments?

    2. Do those armaments include tanks, planes, ships, artillery, and more?

    3. Do they sell or trade some of those armaments to other countries? (I'll give you a hint here, the F-35 multi-role fighter is currently being sold to various countries)

    4. Do those same countries, along with others not mentioned, also trade USED armaments to other countries?

    Ergo, why do you think it's so strange to trade armaments in a war game between countries?

    Yes? I don't remember a situation in history where one high command told a whole brigade/division: "Hey, you know we're allies with France, right? Well, we decided to transfer you to the french army and, hence, you had been stripped from your american citizenship forever by the government. You're french soldiers now. and don't forget to say 'Vive la liberte!' when all of you present yourself to General Föch"

    Firstly, I think you're trying to split hairs to defend your argument, however, it has NOTHING to do with transferring men over to become another country's men. The Polish never gave up their nationality however they WERE under the command of British AND Canadian officers and were given an RAF Squadron number.

    Now as Golden Buddha is pointing our, armaments or tech. MANY countries built units specifically for OTHER countries, for example, Chinese soldiers in WW II were wearing German helmets and carrying MP-38 and MP-40s along with Mauser rifles not to mention the bigger weaponry. Oh, and in case you want to say that they never exchanged used tech. Two things come to mind, 3 Diesel subs were purchased by Canada from Britain. according to you, the British sailors would have had to accompany the subs....err...I don't think so. Australia recently sold some used F-18s and I'm PRETTY sure they didn't include the pilots who flew them.