1.9b

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » 19-02-2004 07:20

yay... so can we add a "post lover" and like a "TD king" awards =D

Dazlin · Post by **Dazlin** » 21-02-2004 14:53

well that was good clicked the shortcut to start it up...

splash screan works etc
then when i go to server browser

UT2003 Build UT2003_Build_[2003-04-07_17.42]

OS: Windows XP 5.1 (Build: 2600)
CPU: GenuineIntel Unknown processor @ 3062 MHz with 510MB RAM
Video: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 (5303)

Assertion failed: GIsEditor || GetSuperClass() || this==UObject::StaticClass() [File:UnClass.cpp] [Line: 857]

History: UClass::Bind <- (Class DBWarfare.DBW_Bot) <- ULinkerLoad::CreateExport <- (DBW_Bot 323091) <- IndexToObject <- ULinkerLoad<<UObject <- (LinkerLoad Package.LinkerLoad 323091)) <- SerializeExpr <- (2E) <- SerializeExpr <- (77) <- SerializeExpr <- (07) <- UStruct::Serialize <- (Function DBWarfare.DBWarfare.InitializeLine) <- UFunction::Serialize <- LoadObject <- (Function DBWarfare.DBWarfare.InitializeLine 323091==323091/449978 320983 2187) <- ULinkerLoad::Preload <- LinkProperties <- UStruct::Link <- UState::Link <- UClass::Link <- UStruct::Serialize <- (Class DBWarfare.DBWarfare) <- UState::Serialize <- UClass::Serialize <- (Class DBWarfare.DBWarfare) <- LoadObject <- (Class DBWarfare.DBWarfare 323091==323091/449978 30278 8349) <- ULinkerLoad::Preload <- PreLoadObjects <- UObject::EndLoad <- UObject::StaticLoadObject <- (Core.Class DBWarfare.DBWarfare NULL) <- UObject::ProcessEvent <- (Browser_MOTD Package.Browser_MOTD, Function XInterface.Browser_MOTD.MyQueryFinished) <- UObject::ProcessDelegate <- FTcpLink::ReceivePendingData <- FTcpLink::Poll <- AMasterServerClient::Poll <- AMasterServerLink::execPoll <- UObject::ProcessEvent <- (MasterServerClient Entry.MasterServerClient, Function IpDrv.MasterServerLink.Tick) <- AActor::Tick <- TickAllActors <- ULevel::Tick <- (NetMode=0) <- TickLevel <- UGameEngine::Tick <- UpdateWorld <- MainLoop

Post by **DavidM** » 21-02-2004 16:00

current version doesnt like any other db gametypes and in the browser it crashes
gibball, tennis, warefare, whatever....

RaGe|DB · Post by **RaGe|DB** » 21-02-2004 17:20

i won 6-2 from 2 bots in 15 minutes
yea, i had 60 missed chances, so what o_O

Chick-kun · Post by **Chick-kun** » 22-02-2004 13:54

damn, nice job makush, your keeper pwned me =(
few things i noticed though:
1: he always returns to his "central keeper position" before he does anything, maybe improve that a little?
2: he was nearer the ball than me but backed away since i was near
3: the only thing i could score on him with was either making him dodge out and shooting or bouncing it off the floor and wall making him jump out to intercept it but i vollied it before he could get it
4: sometimes the keeper lost his gold glow, but he could still dodge and stuff

but damn, he raped me, damn rapier

nice one makush $\o/$

screeny: he scored a goal by volleying it off the side wall, damn it =(

Apokalypse · Post by **Apokalypse** » 22-02-2004 16:34

lol 71/7 saves

Chick-kun · Post by **Chick-kun** » 22-02-2004 19:07

i know =(

RaGe|DB · Post by **RaGe|DB** » 22-02-2004 19:11

my godlike bot had like 10000/6 saves

fro · Post by **fro** » 23-02-2004 22:45

after a couple of days playing 1.9b, i can definately feel that its not balanced teamwise.

its become to attack centric, sure the mini switch and pass time is cool, but defence and keeping are positions few choose, and the bias towards attack in this version are going to make a few more people reticent to play d or keep.

iv spoke to a few other decent sweeps to make sure it isnt just me, and they express similar thoughts.

the bounce was something i used to my advantage, by getting in the path of the ball, i knew i could deflect, or catch, a cross, in the last few pickups, the balls gone through me (still making the bounce sound), and continued on its merry path to the other team attacker.

i dont mind change, im all for it, but this bias could kill off the few decent defenders that are left. :(

RaGe|DB · Post by **RaGe|DB** » 23-02-2004 22:49

froste wrote: after a couple of days playing 1.9b, i can definately feel that its not balanced teamwise.

its become to attack centric, sure the mini switch and pass time is cool, but defence and keeping are positions few choose, and the bias towards attack in this version are going to make a few more people reticent to play d or keep.

iv spoke to a few other decent sweeps to make sure it isnt just me, and they express similar thoughts.

the bounce was something i used to my advantage, by getting in the path of the ball, i knew i could deflect, or catch, a cross, in the last few pickups, the balls gone through me (still making the bounce sound), and continued on its merry path to the other team attacker.

i dont mind change, im all for it, but this bias could kill off the few decent defenders that are left.

i second that for like 100 %

Onge · Post by **Onge** » 23-02-2004 23:16

I agree with fr0...I seem to remember the catch radius being lowered when in your own area to discourage pbox camping in a previous version...So many balls seem to go through me which is annoying...In 1.9b, shots are more powerful, with the shake time to charge time ratio being lowered slightly...These changes are making db even more attack oriented. I see no shortage of goals in matches so isn't it about time to give the defence more of a chance...And I'd love so see the keepers get some support too...Keeping is damn hard and you can count the really good db keepers on one hand due to the fact it is such an undesirable position to play...

I fear these changes might put off new sweepers and keepers which will only be a bad thing for db...But nearly every attacker likes the new more powerful charge and will probably voice how much they want it to say...

fro · Post by **fro** » 23-02-2004 23:41

^ i dont know if the changing catch radius was ever implemented. i too seem to be missing a lot more crosses, i put it down to not having a fully tweaked mouse config, but im glad to see its not just me. increase of the bounce radius and a little more gun radius in your own half would suit me down to the ground, whilst still giving the attackers the faster shooting stuff.

since the balls are flying at keeps faces faster, why hasnt the volley delay been reduced to compensate?

Onge · Post by **Onge** » 23-02-2004 23:52

froste wrote: since the balls are flying at keeps faces faster, why hasnt the volley delay been reduced to compensate?

Why indeed.

I've always liked the idea of a keeper deflect...At the moment, there is currently a keeper volley delay...That can stay (but should be shortened). I'd like it so that if the keeper presses his LMB before the delay has elasped the volley registers but is very weak, maybe something like 10%. The idea is that it will change the direction of the shot only very slightly, without taking out much momentum, but this might be enough to pull off a save...It's a bit like a goalie in football getting his fingertips to a shot...Sometimes he does enough to tip the ball wide or onto the post, other times it still goes in. I still think a keeper should be rewarded for good reactions and the current system doesn't seem to do that...

fro · Post by **fro** » 24-02-2004 00:09

after being initially skeptical about the above idea, iv come to like it, sort of like a new pair of socks.. i mean, you like the old ones cos they are so comfortable, but this is something different and adds some variety to an otherwise dull sock drawer..

back from my tangent..

this is how onge sees it

(the red thing is the gun, not a carrot)

with the keeper mashing the button within the time period, the sg only deflecting a small amount.

as with most things, it should be dependant on power, ie 'faster shots less deflect and slow ones more' to quote the man himself.

-plær- · Post by **-plær-** » 24-02-2004 00:16

I'm an attacker, albeit a shite one, and while a more powerful shot is better, and I'd like to keep it as it is, I also realise that putting more emphasis on the attack will only discourage new defenders, and undermine the ability of our current crop of elite def.

So...basically what ^they^ said, but with a paragraph of cogent prose at the beginning to avoid being called a spammer.