Agent

Blame @kenz3001 for bad volume placement

We're not adding a dropdown menu. We could add a "Next Mirror" button relatively easily, but ideally this shouldn't be at all necessary.

Yeah, this is one of the many unresolved issues surrounding the Win64 binaries. At some point in the future, they may be rendered unusable for online play for technical reasons.

Duplicate of

Your CPU is probably your more immediate constraint -- hence why you might not see any change in FPS when you change graphic settings.

Pretty much this -- the setting is being abused worse than EKT abused the mine limit settings, and so it's being removed. You still will not be able to switch teams prior to the match starting though, which was a legitimate problem. If we ever add it again in the future (big if), then we'll have to clamp the values for sanity.

I cannot even begin to fathom why someone would want to download the entire game client after every single patch, or even for installation. The launcher does integrity checks, retries individual files which don't pass integrity checks, uses the fastest available mirrors (plural because it will go to the next best mirror if one begins to fail), resumes progress on restart, and even has download compression. For unstable internet connections, the launcher is literally your best bet. If you have issues, you need to report them.

Yeah so for loading, Fort actually has the mutator hardcoded to get loaded in the game client. However you can theoretically place a mutator object in the level, which should work to some degree. I meant to look into this and make a tutorial some time ago but never got around to it since it wasn't an immediate major issue. A lazy solution may also just be to add a map setting I guess to let the level load an array of mutators. We'll see.

I want to say you'll want to look at PurchaseSystem, but those mutators may need to be rewritten or refactored in the future.

Test

As an update to this: We'll be looking into VOIP solutions (probably not Discord gamebridge admittedly, but it's an option) since it seems to have pretty decent support and it would obviously be possible to disable voice chat or mute individual players client side. Don't get your hopes up for this actually being added though -- it's not a high priority and would be non-trivial to implement when we already have a pretty decent backlog of features to implement (especially in the UI area).

I want to say someone else had mentioned this somewhat recently on CT's Discord server... It's certainly possible to implement this (or another VOIP service), but there's still a discussion to be had on whether it's necessary/desired, as well as setting aside the time to implement this -- my plate's full right now. If we were to have voice chat, we'd probably want to lower the number of players on each time -- 20 (or 32 on modified servers) people talking at the same time could quickly turn chaotic.

The only restrictions I can think of regarding the soundtrack is that you cannot monetize the track, claim it as your own, etc. Admittedly we should probably add a license file to the soundtrack somewhere.

I was going to say that anything that calls into ParsePlayer allows for substituting player ids and exact player name matches, but today I learned we have 2 separate implementations for this same function. It stores a reference to the ignored player's PlayerReplicationInfo, not their name.

Except I already added a client-side ignore command specifically on poi's request months ago. exec function Ignore(string PlayerName) { local Rx_PRI PRI; if (PlayerName != "") { PRI = Rx_Game(WorldInfo.Game).ParsePlayer(PlayerName); if (PRI == None) ClientMessage("Error: Player not found."); else if (PRI.bAdmin) ClientMessage("Error: Cannot ignore admins."); else IgnoredPlayers.AddItem(PRI); } } It's definitely not perfect, there's no UI, and it resets after each match, but it does help. Expanding it to be permanent would likely have steam-related limitations, or require universal authentication.

But seriously, I ordered a pizza at the beginning of the PUG and didn't get it until near the end of the PUG (over 2 hours late). When I called, they said they "got hit by the internet". I feel like that about sums up Pizza Hut.

Globally, nobody has ever been permanently banned for glitching (the only glitching I've ever reacted to is people getting vehicles onto infantry only paths or getting out of the play area, but even then killing is sufficient to resolve the issue). Servers are free to make their own rules, but I'd tend to discourage banning users for glitching except in extreme cases.

I said shotguns to demonstrate the effectiveness of snipers in CQC -- they have similar rate of fire and damage in RenX, but snipers had far less spread during hip fire, effectively making snipers better than shotguns for CQC. This resolves that issue. The alternative solution to reduce sniper effectiveness in CQC is to nerf their health. I tend to think that adding spread to hip fire more directly addresses the problem without nerfing the sniper into oblivion. Again as I've already said, the spread's untouched when scoped. They're still extremely accurate, high damage weapons. If you're using them as a sniper, then there's no change at all.

Except it doesn't nerf the damage. It doesn't nerf the rate of fire, magazine capacity, reload time, or ammo capacity. It doesn't even nerf armor, health, speed, or any sort of damage modifiers, and snipers still work just as fine for sniping as they always have. The problem isn't people not knowing how to counter snipers -- it's players using snipers as if they were shotguns.

It's 0, but do note that team changing is disabled during warm-up.

I don't think we have any particular problem against custom skins, though we don't exactly support them either. Proper support would probably require additional work, and isn't a real priority.

You raise a valid point, though it sounds like this would stop existing with a steal-time notification period. I'll expand this post (or post again) later.

Update: Talked to @KrypTheBear about this a bit; you can expect the implementation to send two separate EVA messages for each team: Victim's team: Jim's Medium Tank has been stolen by the enemy! Thief's team: John has stolen an enemy Medium Tank!

The 64 bit executables are not officially supported.

I've said this before, but banning someone from the game for misbehavior in chat is a drastically disproportionate response. We have chat bans, and I will gladly deliver them for repeated harassment as I've already told @poi many times in the past. All I ask is for proof and that it not be a 1-off remark (so proof for multiple incidents). The burden of proof is on the reporter, and I wouldn't chat ban someone for a single instance of misbehavior, but we don't want members of the community to feel harassed and unwelcome. Again, if you repeatedly experience harassment by an individual and provide proof, I'll gladly deal with repeat offenders. This isn't a technical challenge; we just need reports and proof (just screenshot your chat). There has only been 1 person who has ever been banned from the game for chat misbehavior, and that was Max. As soon as chat bans were technically possible, his ban was removed and replaced with a chat ban instead. To this day, he remains the only person to be currently chat banned. Game bans are not the solution for chat offenders; chat bans are. And just to clarify: Harassment is distinctly different from general remarks. Harassment is repeated. Harassment is targeted. Harassment is personal. If you're being personally targeted, repeatedly, that is harassment, and that is not condoned in any form.