Jump to content

Kocrachon

Members
  • Content Count

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kocrachon

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I'm signing up for for F-14 Rio for F99th-Pyromaniac
  2. In general for gaming. I worked for a gaming studio for 3 years. Multiplayer gamers tend to engage with content longer than single player, and are more likely to continue to spend money. People who engage with other people for a game are going be more comited to playing multiple days per week and will spend more money to maintain a set of balance with their friends (Think a person is more likely to buy a module if they want to fly in formation with the same aircraft or run missions with friends). Also, I didn't say "Only". Yes, there are single player people who own all content. B
  3. So my main concerns are the same everyone else likely has already aired out. 1) Fractured MP, this is already a pain in the ass issue with the WWII stuff and I feel like impacts the online WWII environment, and was a hot issue for MP. This was also a key factor in the super carrier stuff. I would rather not have a paid for asset that others would need to join my server, I won't buy that if that's the case. And before someone goes "90% of players are Single player", yeah, but multiplayer people are still the primary driving factor of content advertising (Grim Reaper, Re
  4. So I had this issue also. What exactly is that watch for? The Hint it gives doesn't really tell me what its doing other than removing the F-14...
  5. So, just some minor opinions. The player numbers in Round 2 sort of tipped after a bunch of BlueFor didn't come back after reset. Bluefor needed to do CAP and Strike, while having nearly the same numbers as red who just needed CAP and had more SAMs. I think the challenge of the sudden change to older Era plus the change in player balance sort of tipped the match very one sided. If it were a CAP vs CAP mission with equal sams, that would be one thing, but it basically turned into a furball of A2A on the border with Red more heavily defended at both high and low altitude. I think if Red wa
  6. Here is a bunch of logs from 2 different servers experiencing this issue. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bRVGtYnb-GaPxzeafOxLIV125PWWwk7a/view?usp=sharing
  7. Just one last question, is this going to impact Russian equipment at all? IE, will they be limited to R/T or will they get ER/ET and 77s as well? Not a complaint, just curious.
  8. Theres no point in making a cheat mode to make it easier. The issue is not "Its too hard". The issue is, you need to find the technique that works for you. At the end of the day, AAR is just formation flying. And formation flying comes down 90% to speed control. Your issue is you are likely making too large of adjustments either in throttle or in stick. These are basic flying principals. It took me a few years to AAR but I found out the one key thing that made a huge difference for me. Sensitivity Curves. Tweaking throttle and stick curves so that your large movements on the stick are co
  9. Post above mine proves its not out of the question anymore. USAF are not wired for 4x Harms just like they are not piped for CFTs. But if ED is going to bend on every request, might as well cave into the CFTs for those Israel role players.
  10. So, if we are breaking the "USANG had X" rule TWICE now (For TER Mavericks and now 4x Harms) will ED finally give us CFTs? Lets stop lying about realism at this point and just give us everything
  11. I think this post has the most weight. And just makes me further feel like this is pandering to a select group of players. As someone who worked on UH-60s for the Army, the manual covered a lot of things that didn't exist in US inventory or didn't exist at all because the Army decided not to pay for X upgrade, or was there for the event that we decided to do things different. Being in the manual did not mean it was actually capable by the US military. So if the US military was not wiring the F-16s to do that, then I would say, technically, not possible. Or is ED going to give us Confo
  12. I am trying to make a switched condition trigger that is "repeatable". Repeatable in the sense of, instead of having 1 trigger for each group that dies, I want 1 trigger that increases a flags value by 1 each time one of the "Or" is completed. Attached is an example of that triggered. It is a switched condition type. But it only triggers when one of the OR statements is completed, one the next ones are completed, it doesn't trigger. Is there a way to make this work and not need to create a trigger for each group/unit dead combo I have? EDIT: Just realized that a Switch is not what
  13. Not everyone is making missions specifically related to the current events, so giving what Syria actually operates is pretty much a realistic expectation I feel like. Even if you do, the lack of Mi-8s to replicate barrel bombs could also be an argument for adding Mi-8 skins in itself.
  14. So, Syria is the new map but the lack of units that are in game with Syria skins are a bit disappointing for mission making. We only get the MIG-29A, where as the MIG-29M or T would be a better option for Syria. We do not have Mi-24s but we have Ka-50s.. We lack Mi-8s (They have Mi-17s but basically the same thing) I feel like we need some new skins and vehicles added to Syria for some of this new stuff. Would rather have a Syria Mi-8 flying around than a Russian one for missions. I know its a minor detail, but still ads to some of the gameplay.
  15. Prior to this patch, it out performed the AIM-120C in nearly every category. The only advantage its supposed to have is kinetic.
×
×
  • Create New...