Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevally.
Looking at campaign progress from a date line prospective, some areas of operations could be blanked out unless performance is high.
Would like to know what you all think  |
Not a good idea in my opinion. This would effectively deprive all players with objectives tonnage calculations issues (pretty much all to be precise) of that "hidden award" objective.
I guess you think that Mama's OSI.exe priority fix will solve this issue, but I must ask you, what do you think how many players actually knows about it and how many is prepared to mess up with windows services? Not to mention that many SH players don't even know what task manager actually is...
Note also that it has been shown that Mama's OSI.exe fix
simply wont work for everyone or under any operating system...
I also think that "high" performance in SH games is commonly associated with careless gameplay and low realism arcade settings. Do we really wish to make some extra objectives or even campaigns more accessible for arcade gameplay players than to, let's say, some high realism Captain who plays smart, safe and don't have some lunatic score under his belt, just like LARGE majority of WW2 U-boat captains?
No, I dont think so...This "should" be simulation after all, not an arcade shooter...
What would be actually quite useful in my opinion is complete revision of objectives start/end dates in Campaign.cfg files used in "No stupid Tonnage Bar" addon for OHII in order to somewhat reduce objectives dates overlapping , although I enjoy OHII with cfg files such as they are right now in TWoS...
Here's also one more post where I'm presenting my arguments against tonnage dependable objectives/campaigns...
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=281