Jump to content

AbortedMan

Members
  • Content Count

    1049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbortedMan

  1. Bullsh** that's legit. Looks like clear usage of padlock view. At 4:23 it looks to be enabled and locked on a distant aircraft (otherwise not visible/unknown without padlock), returned to default view, then reacquired through headtracking, in my opinion. This would explain an uncanny ability to find as many targets as he does. https://youtu.be/_dCiVvBZw1I?t=260
  2. Translation:I think, though the ban vote was not fair, but any actions and attempts to struggle and merely suspected fraud must be justified. This uniquely. The fact that Finn is not the fraudster is another story. But we must always look for cheaters. This is the case when you have to tolerate cases of unfair charges for catching a cheater.
  3. Bug report: Apparently if your game crashes on plane spawn it gets counted as a death... http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=17901&name=[TWB]AbortedMan
  4. I'd like to mention his current kill streak of 44 and call out anyone in the current campaign with similar play time that's even SEEN 44 enemy aircraft total to come forward. These types of numbers in a game like this always add up to someone using icons.
  5. How did you pull that turn at that speed, not stall, not lose consciousness, and not snap roll when you pulled back on the stick extremely abruptly while next to the La5? Why did you get VAC banned from steam?
  6. The video is not edited in any way. Only the last segment is slowed down via the track recorder in game. He should not have been able to make that turn without stalling, or at the very least blacking out even a little bit, also with the abrupt angle he took as he hit the la5, he should have stalled out completely. What we see instead is an intentional wing dip. Also, why didn't he go for the other easy targets that were in front of him? This seemed to be an intentional pick on someone he REALLY wanted to kill. I think he knew who he was going for which tells us he has icons on...which would explain how he's finding so many people to kill every sortie. 2 or 3 people in the group around the La5 witnessed this directly as it happened. This track recording is from the La5's computer. He sent it to me after the match ended. Your theory doesn't explain the high G s-turn and subsequent lack of stall.
  7. Tonight we were making a strike to the final target towards the end of the map while a questionable pilot, TPAKTOPUCT, demonstrated some even more questionable maneuvers...This video demonstrates what seems to be a 40G S-turn to single out and ram one of the players that seems to have a negative rapport with TPAKTOPUCT and shows him taking ZERO damage upon impact. Notice the 109 takes the impact and reacts to hitting the La-5, so this isn't a case of server/client desync. Multiple people witnessed this and are suspecting the use of icons, simplified physics, and the "unbreakable" setting that allows no damage during impacts. These settings have been known to be manipulated using hex editors for editing difficulty settings during online play by cheaters. Link to recorded track for in-game review: http://www22.zippyshare.com/d/CGFODcvm/456536/TPAKTOPUCTcheatevidence.zip Here is the mission log from TAW for the La-5: http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=13298&name=[TWB]fenderbird Here is the mission log from TAW for the 109 F-2: http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=13297&name=TPAKTOPUCT Can we get some investigation into this?
  8. What the actual f*ck is going on here? This is clearly not a product of lag or desync...it's blatant invulnerability. Is one of the LG guys straight up cheating??
  9. Pretty surprising to see BoS show up as the finale clip on Kotaku's popular highlight reel... http://kotaku.com/battlefield-1-horse-laughs-at-your-puny-explosion-1786579849 https://youtu.be/kda2iHyBh_0?list=PLsiJPoHlPqEFx_CNxEYpaAWIPnGYRFMNv&t=270 Should be some good publicity for the game!
  10. I just want to point out that this is the equivalent of your favorite pop star blowing you a kiss from the stage while you're in the front row frantic with excitement. Pand, I am reeling with envy right now.
  11. Do you have some information/source to confirm this?
  12. You're right. What was I thinking? You people are impossible. It's impossible.
  13. I'm reading so much turmoil about BoS not having coop missions...why can't you people just make them? It's extremely easy...lobby/briefing/staging area type setup and all. 1. Create your mission with all the units and bells and whistles 2. Don't enable those units/bells/whistles at mission start, only have them start/spawn on a trigger 3. Create trigger with a counter that is something along the lines of "X number of players spawn at this base" or "X number of players enter this area" 4. Your group joins your server and you coordinate who's doing what at the briefing/spawn screen 5. Form up or spawn in at the trigger zone and the mission you created is set in motion when everyone is ready and accounted for 6. Mission starts and everyone rejoices You can add as many AI as you want (in a plausible scenario for the time...no 100 aircraft bombing/dogfight sorties) and play with your little group of friends (4 to 8) with little effect on the game performance. You can even make a giant map-wide network of missions so one mission can essentially be a span of an entire theater campaign with no loading/reloading (if you have the time to link it all, it's not complicated to do, just tedious). What's the issue here?
  14. I just don't understand the logic behind cheat denying. What proof do people expect?...If you don't have eye-witness/video/first-hand line-of-sight of their monitor of a player installing hacks/manipulating bits to gain an edge over the competition then there's absolutely no way they're cheating? Come on.
  15. Cheating in online games isn't subject to lawyer-speak-logic. It's effing obvious in every game with a leaderboard who is cheating and who isn't. Don't be obtuse.
  16. Just create multiple copies of the bomber group on top of/near each other attached to one of a bunch of triggers that are set to activate and deactivate themselves in a series. Each trigger will enable the next bomber group, deactivate itself, then set the bombers group to activate the next trigger for the next bomber group based on a kill/out of bombs/crashed/landed condition (if you only want one bomber group active at a time).
  17. I may be confusing this with the MiG-3, but the dev diary said the P-40 tail wheel moves with the rudder controls unless you go full left/right rudder to its limits in which it then goes back to unlocked/freewheel. Try not hitting the axes limit when correcting deviations.
  18. My mistake Jupp. Apologies for the hairline trigger there. The animated flightline walkers are client side, I think, as I've seen people describe them in a different location than what I see on my screen. I imagine they don't take up any more resources, local or otherwise, than a camo netting flapping in the wind since the bodies are basically just an elaborate ruse of an "animation" of the ammo boxes. I'm merely pointing out that what the video clearly shows is not limitations of the usage of local resources and lack of optimization, but a clear inefficiency of distributing and receiving data over a network. This can be caused by a myriad of things...calling it "engine limitations" is extremely low on that list of causes.
  19. I'm a puppet for providing more insight into and proper terminology/pinpoint to the issue with the game that OP is discussing? That's a new one.
  20. The issues you're seeing here are from loss of packets due to straining of the server machine and/or bandwidth. It's not accurate to say this is a limitation of the game engine as everything is running smoothly FPS and functionality-wise...it's only the updated location information that is being missed/lost during server/client transfer and causing the warping/floating/sinking. Furthermore, this could also only be affecting your client only and/or in different ways for other people. This could be a product of missing packets between your own internet circuit from your house to the server (Note: low ping does not mean you're not missing packets!). Try providing the same type of scenario on a higher bandwidth connection with a more capable machine to host it on and that will be a better example/litmus test. Again, the "game engine" is not what you have issue with here, it's the current netcode implementation and its interaction with the server/hardware scalability...or it could simply be the server capability itself.
  21. I use this for BoS and other games that don't take other monitors into account. Works a treat. I didn't create it, but can confirm that I have not had any malicious/malware/adware issues with it. https://github.com/CyberShadow/AutoMouseLock Put this in your startup folder so it starts with Windows so you don't forget it. 1. Start command prompt (windows key+R) 2. type "shell:startup" press enter 3. Add shortcut to AutoMouseLock.exe in startup folder Be sure it's set to run as administrator in the shortcut settings (not sure if it's a 100% requirement, but I do it).
  22. TWB isn't tied to any specific nation. They play what is appropriate to even the population and ensure everyone has fun.
  23. You'd be ignorant to think there is no cheating possible in this game. Firstly, it's an online competitive game. There's ALWAYS people cheating in online games. It's not everyone, but there is a non-zero possibility that it is happening. Secondly, there have been methods discovered that make it very easy to gain access to difficulty settings for your own client in an online server with apparently little relative effort. Some people make it obvious that their gameplay methods are suspect...some people have a history of being a known cheater. You don't need verified proof to know when aids outside of the rule set of the game are being used. It's painfully obvious if you look in the right places.
  24. I applaud the effort to navigate and drive the long distance to an enemy airfield in a tank, really. Our group of 6 in teamspeak saw them approaching our airfield and we were happy to change our objective and deal with them. We weren't sure if they were players or not and we're going to let them be until we realized they weren't moving like AI. The issue I see is that with everything we threw at them I didn't see one tank get destroyed...we tried 500kg bombs, Stuka 37mm cannons, kamikaze, 20mm cannons. Nothing seemed to affect their combat effectiveness. This coupled with the fact that the airfield didn't change to "captured" or "neutralized" status to denote that it was no longer suitable for aircraft operations lended itself to circumventing the intended function of tanks being on the map. Bombing the airfield disables spawning there, and that's completely fine for multiple reasons...one being that it's explained in the briefing, and two, it has a time limit that is reasonable in the context of the given window of gameplay time (20min). Having players occupy your spawn zone only to destroy you seconds later with little to no explanation of what's going on or how to stop it, no matter how realistic or plausible it is, is simply not good gameplay. Couple this with the 3 aircraft limit before you must resupply (an amazingly awesome and gameplay enriching feature, by the way...Bravo on scripting that!!) it pretty much deflates any sense of wanting to continue. If player tanks are going to make it to the airfield and spawn camp, make it an objective that disables the airfield so people can react on it. Otherwise we're left with a sense of severe griefing since the tank player isn't actually completing any objectives, just stopping people from playing the game altogether.
×
×
  • Create New...