[Suggestion] Maybe it's time for some outside help

I've come to believe the red circle is just indicative of "did a lot of damage," I think in terms of a percentage of the maximum health of the target. In Infantry, it's typically indicative of headshots, but that's only because invdividual bullets don't do much damage in the first place. Some weapons do, however, and often award red circles for body shots.

Flak armor won't save you from a Dalton round.

You're not direct hitting them./

I'm not dissing you when I say this, direct shotting INfantry with Dalton is incredibly difficult. Just hitting within 1m (~3ft) for a hit marker from splash damage is hard enough, and that most certainly does NOT kill them, even if it lands between their feet. Even if they DON'T have flak.

What you're used to is, at launch, the Dalton had OHK splash radius of like 3m.

Later that was nefed to 1.5m and then again to 1m.

The latest update to AV munitions removed all lethal splash, with only damaging splash out to 1m, and then not a whole lot.

Tanks can direct hit Infantry about 10x easier than a Dalton can do to angles, and the fact that the driver has control of the vehicle. though Halberd is still easier to direct hit infantry with than a Dalton even still because of the angles and distance involved... and Libs tend to move more.

Also, IIRC Dalton now has lower velocity than AP tank shells as well.


In any case, Dalton is supposed to be AV. It was far too good at farming infantry that there really was no downside in taking it. Sure, Zephyr could maybe get a better KPH, but not enough to make it worth giving up OHK on ESF's and the extra AV DPS.


All in all, the Lib is in a pretty good place these days. It's a difficult vehicle to use but the right crew skilled and trained in what they're doing are still quite destructive.

When you (or anyone) create an FPS with giant contiguous continents which supports 100+ vs. 100+ player battles, I'm sure SOE will call you (or the other dev teams.)

Until then, technical tradeoffs are a thing. BF4 can't simply go change some variable to up the player count without seeing some pretty strong negative impact (otherwise they wouldn't arbitrarily cap it at what...64 players?) And they're not taking place over maps as large as PS2's continents.

Maybe you can find a game with amazing visuals and 120+ fps, but it won't be a large-scale multiplayer game with giant continents. If all you care about are framerate and visuals, go find it! Otherwise, realize that PS2 is basically the only game worth playing that offers this sort of experience and enjoy it for what it is.

I mean there are fair criticisms to aim at the devs to let them know you want them to carefully implement new content (new content is quite probably the reason certain players see more hitching, as the addition presses up against some technical limits the game previously hadn't exceeded.) But to suggest they need "outside help" is silly. They're the most knowledgeable about their own systems and virtually the only devs who've been pushing these limits and hitting these problems (everyone else is playing it save with sub-64 player counts.)

It's SOE. They put a team together, release a game, then move all but a handful to the next project. Currently they have more than one in development, so they're probably also doing temporary reassignments. Seems the same as previous games.

So?
And EU3 is designed to handle lot more than PS2. It weights 700 MB and you will get 60fps on each PC.

Actually, that's kind of what I'm saying. Yeah, they're doing something nobody else (that I'm aware of) is doing, but without fresh perspective, people tend to make mistakes that outsiders would be more likely to catch. It's nothing to be ashamed of; it happens in every profession. People just get into a routine and start to do their jobs on auto pilot.

Uhhh... you're joking right?

For those who have no clue what EU3 is, it's Europa Universalis 3 (4 is the most recent version). And this is what it looks like:



I mean I guess you can say that there are thousands of troops involved in fights... except those thousands of troops are represented by a single model. Not to mention that each individual soldier model looks like:



Yea... so hardly very detailed. Compare it to a single PS2 soldier:



More over EU is a game where you can slow down time or pause it completely (in singleplayer at any rate). So even significant graphical hitches and slowdowns aren't going to be a problem. Whereas in PS2, being a FPS, gameplay that is not smooth is extremely problematic.

So comparing EU to PS is completely invalid because those games are so far apart it's completely ridiculous to even try and draw a comparison.

Comparing PS to BF, both being current generation FPS games, is much more relevant.

This has gotten a bit off topic for the gameplay section so I'm going to go ahead and close it. We certainly do appreciate everyone's feedback!