Scout ability

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • playbabe wrote:

      oh wow, how about i just go chasing a rat.
      no i will not go after a complain if it is not a wide spread OR already have evidence for it.
      and as i said, I DONT encounter such issue
      we've (I've) put a lot of effort into describing this issue

      playbabe wrote:

      yeah you can just say that. you have me chasing nothing burger
      First of all i appreciate that you're responding, however dismissing our legitimate concers (as rats and nothing burgers) is not very polite.

      The active members of a community can serve two purposes, one is responding to noob questions. The other is identifying legitimate issues and describing them well for devs to address. Ideally communication should be going both ways.

      Right now it's not clear to me if you're helping generate good feedback or just wasting my time, i see you have a special status in the forum and Discord and i really do appreciate that you're responsive (and proactively uploaded that video clip).

      If something here isn't clear I'm happy to try to clarify, even though I'm confident I've definitely articulated the issue already. I'm not sure what else we need to do to move this up the chain.

    • playbabe wrote:

      No, i mean that your elaborate description are misleading and moving away from issue you want to communicate.
      Playbabe is right about this - I often "drown" in your reports/descriptions - And my background includes a heavy doses of computer-science and user-interfaces.

      In your descriptions, instead of simply reporting contexts and symptoms, you often veer into speculation and assumptions about how you think the game is implemented and/or complex guesses about why you think a problems is happening.

      Leave out all of those assumptions. Just use ordinary words (not assumptions about graphics layers or ...) in short sentences to report what you see and when you see it.

      Folks like Playbabe (especially if English isn't their primary language) will have an easier time understanding and reacting to the reports.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      No, i mean that your elaborate description are misleading and moving away from issue you want to communicate.
      ... - I often "drown" in your reports/descriptions - And my background includes a heavy does of computer-science and user-interfaces.
      you have a choice,
      • you can try to help,
      • or you can criticize my efforts for not being good enough.

      So far I've only seen you try to help once,
      i hope your choice is different in the future.

    • Hakville wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      ... - I often "drown" in your reports/descriptions - And my background includes a heavy does of computer-science and user-interfaces.
      you have a choice,• you can try to help,
      • or you can criticize my efforts for not being good enough.

      So far I've only seen you try to help once,
      i hope your choice is different in the future.
      Piss off - Is that helpful enough?

      PS: One of your problems is that you didn't notice that what I wrote was helpful advice.

    • Im here to heal what KFG does, dont mind him, he means every word of it. He has great advice if he thinks your topic is worth the effort to think.

      TheShinwacker wrote:

      If you click on the radar the radar circle area( where there is no fog of war) should refresh. same with fighters, sams, moble anti air, and ships
      I think this might be solution to your 'problem' (not sure what to call it)
      "The greatest battles are never won by men but with words"-Me

      "Free flies and no work"-ME

      "Duty is heavier than a mountain death as light as a feather" Lan from the Wheel of Time

    • Hakville wrote:

      TheShinwacker wrote:

      Good ol' KFGauss
      He does this in almost every thread,
      Often i don't care but it's annoying when we're trying to address legitimate concers.
      Bless your heart - What color is the sun where you live? - On Earth we say that ours is yellow.

      Playbabe told you that you were writing confusing descriptions.

      I agreed with Playbabe and gave my description of what I think is creating much of the miscommunication in the earlier parts of this thread,

      I shared common-sense advice firmly-grounded in what I've learned from a few decades of creating, debugging, and otherwise working with and around complex systems.

      If you're too impressed with your own cleverness to absorb the advice Playbabe and I have given - That's fine - Be that way.

      But - Don't lash out with childish and wildly incorrect claims such as "He does this in almost every thread.", or try to inflate this thread's importance by implying that your hot on the trail of something important.

      Have a nice day.

    • ok,

      to clarify the sight on mobile is not 60, it's just not displaying the correct fog-of-war.
      (Display Sight = Fog of War bubble)

      what would be correct while patrolling,
      • display sight at Patrol range 50
      (not 25 or 60)

      what would be correct while moving,
      • display sight at 25,
      (PC is only correct while moving)
      (Mobile is always incorrect)

      This issue applies to units with radar on MobileApp, most Aero, Sam, Mobile Radar, TDS... they're missing the light/ intermediate fog-of-war.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Hakville ().

    • playbabe wrote:

      anyway i believe in recent updates, your issue is somewhat fixed.
      at least for naval units now have different brightness (between radar and sight)
      Naval units have always worked correctly (at least over the last 1-2 years), Aircraft with Radar have always had this issue (including in the video you uploaded PB).

      If the issue has been resolved,
      please post a screenshot or video showing this?