best graphic settings to cheese this game

[gwTheo]

title. cut to the chase. impossible that I'm prone in tall ass grass and constantly get wacked instantly. ive done mil sims to airsoft to paintball. this literally, is impossible. ive watched recent vids and seen recent pics that show grass doesnt exist at all. which, is sadly, typical in these ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ games.

so, from an irl milsim player, played project reality and squad with everything in between, what are the best settings to kill these losers.

outside of getting extremely lucky, the chances of an irl person mowing down a squad of troops prone in a middle of a wheat filled, are very low. but in this game, it happens constantly. PUBG had this ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. lower the graphics and boom. you can see players but nothing theyre hiding behind.

so, what are the settings on this garbage ass game? or, by chance, am i seeing 10+ people and myself in the middle of a giant ass wheat field, phone, just magically get mowed down by a gun with a 50 bullet belt, be a legit thing in warfare. because in my experience as an average infantryman with basic camo, ♥♥♥♥ don't happen. some eagle eyes exist but the average joe does not have eagle vision. literally if they shot at every single moving blade of grass they'd have no ammo once it comes to fighting.

[Roovka]

Foliage = Medium.

Otherwise the LOD in this game is kinda buttcheeks so anything over 300m is a tossup whether you're hidden in a wheatfield or not, worse if you're playing a faction or with a uniform with darker colors.

Generally proning in grass won't work no matter what range you're at. One of the weird quirks with this game is your vision is more around your mouth/chin rather than where your characters eyes are.

Lastly, do not treat this as if it's a milsim, it's not one and never has been.

[Hylie Pistof]

exaggerating quite alot here ;)
what you describe is more the usual newbee impression then any exploit of settings XD

at first, what the **** is a RL milsim player??? are you real life or a player? and milsim... well just a sales tag for anything today ;)
btw: this is NOT about killing, there are no tickets and sometimes its advised NOT to shoot/kill!

prone in grass is NOT cover ^^ you have no cover in open fields and the textures do fade in greater distance.
that makes "hiding" senseless. nothing exclusive to this game!

the game engine has its limmits like all others too, but this game has some very far views and lines of sight.
as @Roovka said, in a certain distance you are visable, no matter what YOU see ;)
and the guns are realy leathal, you dont even need a scope to get kills in 300-400m distance (if you can hit twice XD)

experienced players know that people try to crouch or prone through such a weat field ;) so the just empty a magazin into it if they suspect some one comming ;)
imagine, someone sees you spawning or entering that field, and his mate with the mg just sprays that ping he made ;) no need to see you, and the gunner will wipe your whole squad with ease XD
i had some lucky hits that way already XD

not sure what "recent" vids you sah, but its long ago that players could use settings or .ini tweaks to remove foliage!!
even on lowest settings you still have a minimum of it present, but the whole game looks like crap then and looses one of the points that made this interresting - the immersion due to the rebuild battlefields.

lets get to the "camo" thingy :( this is a very often missunderstood concept!

camoflage works ONLY if you dont move!!
the human eye and brain is hardcoded to see movement from the times we where prey for other animals!!
any camo pattern is invisable in a certain distance because the toon on the screen turns into a shadow, there is no camo visable then, only movement or at best (if you can see it) a shape.

and since deaths mean nothing in this game, and some suppliers lay ammo boxes, there is no issue with running out of ammo just because some one sprayed and prayed a weat field with an MG or other automatic gun.

but yes, it happens that you get shot in the moment you reload - that just how it is XD there are so many ways to die ...
you are playing a wargame XD there is no save place anywhere! no matter how good you are at shooting, you WILL die over and over again ;)

so get rid of your ticket shooter mentality and embrace tactics and strategie in a squad/team that fights together.
dont bother to compare this with other games, every game has its own ways to do things, maybe you will get there, or not XD

good hunting and have fun!

[cmbaileytstc]

This game is definitely rife with cheats using various method whether technically legal (potato graphics settings) or out and out aimbots, as are all games of this type (games highly based on spotting and shooting).
There is one thing devs do in games like this constantly which looks like they positively love to aid and abet cheaters. They stack the maps full of clutter which is not solid cover, throw in dark, rain, and fog. IOW, stack the deck entirely in favor of those who have an illicit method of knowing where everyone is. At least if cheater knows you are behind a rock you have something close to an even break if it's easy for you to tell when he also breaks cover. Not so in a games where the devs idea of "realism" is simulating legally blind soldiers.

[✚Panzerlang✚]

Game graphic limitations and cheats are your two main explanations.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

This game is definitely rife with cheats using various method whether technically legal (potato graphics settings) or out and out aimbots, as are all games of this type (games highly based on spotting and shooting).
There is one thing devs do in games like this constantly which looks like they positively love to aid and abet cheaters. They stack the maps full of clutter which is not solid cover, throw in dark, rain, and fog. IOW, stack the deck entirely in favor of those who have an illicit method of knowing where everyone is. At least if cheater knows you are behind a rock you have something close to an even break if it's easy for you to tell when he also breaks cover. Not so in a games where the devs idea of "realism" is simulating legally blind soldiers.

Or what's more likely is the multitude of weirdo graphical and mechanical quirks causing the majority of issues that people attribute to cheats.

Accusations happen quite frequently on Stalingrad for example where entire sections of stone walls don't load in at 200m-300m sometimes. Sniping from House of the Workers to Railway Crossing is an area that springs to mind.

And before anyone has an aneurysm: I'm not denying cheaters exist, I am merely pointing out that there are factors that are far more common that should be considered first.

[cmbaileytstc]

Originally posted by Roovka:

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

This game is definitely rife with cheats using various method whether technically legal (potato graphics settings) or out and out aimbots, as are all games of this type (games highly based on spotting and shooting).
There is one thing devs do in games like this constantly which looks like they positively love to aid and abet cheaters. They stack the maps full of clutter which is not solid cover, throw in dark, rain, and fog. IOW, stack the deck entirely in favor of those who have an illicit method of knowing where everyone is. At least if cheater knows you are behind a rock you have something close to an even break if it's easy for you to tell when he also breaks cover. Not so in a games where the devs idea of "realism" is simulating legally blind soldiers.

Or what's more likely is the multitude of weirdo graphical and mechanical quirks causing the majority of issues that people attribute to cheats.

Accusations happen quite frequently on Stalingrad for example where entire sections of stone walls don't load in at 200m-300m sometimes. Sniping from House of the Workers to Railway Crossing is an area that springs to mind.

And before anyone has an aneurysm: I'm not denying cheaters exist, I am merely pointing out that there are factors that are far more common that should be considered first.

This falls into the "technically legal" cheat example. In War Thunder you could enhance the effect by setting view distance very low, and looking for little dots crawling in the distance with unzoomed view. Is it the same in HLL?
Devs of shooting games need to commit to making soldier models load in at PRECISELY the same distance as all objects and cover load in for a player. This is a much better solution than having an enemy soldier/tank be visible but the building he's hiding behind be invisible simultaneously.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

Originally posted by Roovka:

Or what's more likely is the multitude of weirdo graphical and mechanical quirks causing the majority of issues that people attribute to cheats.

Accusations happen quite frequently on Stalingrad for example where entire sections of stone walls don't load in at 200m-300m sometimes. Sniping from House of the Workers to Railway Crossing is an area that springs to mind.

And before anyone has an aneurysm: I'm not denying cheaters exist, I am merely pointing out that there are factors that are far more common that should be considered first.

This falls into the "technically legal" cheat example. In War Thunder you could enhance the effect by setting view distance very low, and looking for little dots crawling in the distance with unzoomed view. Is it the same in HLL?
Devs of shooting games need to commit to making soldier models load in at PRECISELY the same distance as all objects and cover load in for a player. This is a much better solution than having an enemy soldier/tank be visible but the building he's hiding behind be invisible simultaneously.

If something affects everyone equally, regardless of settings, how in the world is it a "technically legal cheat"? Ridiculous.

[cmbaileytstc]

Originally posted by Roovka:

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

This falls into the "technically legal" cheat example. In War Thunder you could enhance the effect by setting view distance very low, and looking for little dots crawling in the distance with unzoomed view. Is it the same in HLL?
Devs of shooting games need to commit to making soldier models load in at PRECISELY the same distance as all objects and cover load in for a player. This is a much better solution than having an enemy soldier/tank be visible but the building he's hiding behind be invisible simultaneously.

If something affects everyone equally, regardless of settings, how in the world is it a "technically legal cheat"? Ridiculous.

If a player is correctly using cover and concealment but gets popped anyway because said cover did not render from the point of view of the adversary, who has been watching what he should not be able to see the whole time, this player has been cheated out of a good military game experience where basic real tactics should work.

The only question is who cheated the player. This can be an adversary who blatantly downloaded a cheat code. Or an adversary who deliberately turned down render settings knowing what would happen, the "technically legal" cheat. Or, as appears to be the case in this instance, the party that cheated said player was the Devs themselves via not addressing the issue.

There is a simple fix for all this. If the wall, hay bale, bush, or whatever a player is hiding behind is *not* rendered in when viewed from say 500 meters to save resources, then neither should the player character be rendered in. If some player customization over this matter is desired, it could be made as simple for as a "render ALL the things slider" in graphics settings.

Naturally those with computer power to render all the things to 1500 meters would have an advantage over those who could only render out to 500, although our hypothetical potato player could lower other graphics settings to get more render distance. This would be better than the current upside-down clown-world situation in many games, where more potato settings=more competitive.


There's also a fix for the grass issue the OP mentioned, I believe ARMA has done it. Namely that if a tank/soldier in grass is far enough away that grass hasn't rendered in on the opponent's end, said tank/soldier will still look sunk in a plain green surface. In that case you probably have a better chance of seeing them if you do have a computer powerful enough to render the grass blades out to ends of the earth. As it should be.

Anyway, if cover renders in at the same "distance" in HLL no matter what render/graphics settings you are using, good on the Devs for that at least.

[Roovka]

I'm legit not reading all that.

[cmbaileytstc]

Originally posted by Roovka:

I'm legit not reading all that.

it's okay bro, functional illiteracy is a plague in this country.

[datCookie]

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

Originally posted by Roovka:

If something affects everyone equally, regardless of settings, how in the world is it a "technically legal cheat"? Ridiculous.

If a player is correctly using cover and concealment but gets popped anyway because said cover did not render from the point of view of the adversary, who has been watching what he should not be able to see the whole time, this player has been cheated out of a good military game experience where basic real tactics should work.

The only question is who cheated the player. This can be an adversary who blatantly downloaded a cheat code. Or an adversary who deliberately turned down render settings knowing what would happen, the "technically legal" cheat. Or, as appears to be the case in this instance, the party that cheated said player was the Devs themselves via not addressing the issue.

There is a simple fix for all this. If the wall, hay bale, bush, or whatever a player is hiding behind is *not* rendered in when viewed from say 500 meters to save resources, then neither should the player character be rendered in. If some player customization over this matter is desired, it could be made as simple for as a "render ALL the things slider" in graphics settings.

Naturally those with computer power to render all the things to 1500 meters would have an advantage over those who could only render out to 500, although our hypothetical potato player could lower other graphics settings to get more render distance. This would be better than the current upside-down clown-world situation in many games, where more potato settings=more competitive.


There's also a fix for the grass issue the OP mentioned, I believe ARMA has done it. Namely that if a tank/soldier in grass is far enough away that grass hasn't rendered in on the opponent's end, said tank/soldier will still look sunk in a plain green surface. In that case you probably have a better chance of seeing them if you do have a computer powerful enough to render the grass blades out to ends of the earth. As it should be.

Anyway, if cover renders in at the same "distance" in HLL no matter what render/graphics settings you are using, good on the Devs for that at least.

Very well said. Agree with every word. Always hated this in every game it was possible in, turning down graphics to gain an advantage.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

Originally posted by Roovka:

I'm legit not reading all that.

it's okay bro, functional illiteracy is a plague in this country.

And yet you somehow managed to completely warp a conversation from "hey this game has these well known and explainable graphical quirks" to "graphical quirks are cheating actually".

Functional illiteracy is indeed a plague and I sincerely hope you get cured.

Edit: Just as an aside, I think I am wholly convinced that anyone who even so much as mentions cheating on this forum in any form seems to not be very well. Going forward, I will treat you people as ghosts.

[Roovka]

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by cmbaileytstc:

If a player is correctly using cover and concealment but gets popped anyway because said cover did not render from the point of view of the adversary, who has been watching what he should not be able to see the whole time, this player has been cheated out of a good military game experience where basic real tactics should work.

The only question is who cheated the player. This can be an adversary who blatantly downloaded a cheat code. Or an adversary who deliberately turned down render settings knowing what would happen, the "technically legal" cheat. Or, as appears to be the case in this instance, the party that cheated said player was the Devs themselves via not addressing the issue.

There is a simple fix for all this. If the wall, hay bale, bush, or whatever a player is hiding behind is *not* rendered in when viewed from say 500 meters to save resources, then neither should the player character be rendered in. If some player customization over this matter is desired, it could be made as simple for as a "render ALL the things slider" in graphics settings.

Naturally those with computer power to render all the things to 1500 meters would have an advantage over those who could only render out to 500, although our hypothetical potato player could lower other graphics settings to get more render distance. This would be better than the current upside-down clown-world situation in many games, where more potato settings=more competitive.


There's also a fix for the grass issue the OP mentioned, I believe ARMA has done it. Namely that if a tank/soldier in grass is far enough away that grass hasn't rendered in on the opponent's end, said tank/soldier will still look sunk in a plain green surface. In that case you probably have a better chance of seeing them if you do have a computer powerful enough to render the grass blades out to ends of the earth. As it should be.

Anyway, if cover renders in at the same "distance" in HLL no matter what render/graphics settings you are using, good on the Devs for that at least.

Very well said. Agree with every word. Always hated this in every game it was possible in, turning down graphics to gain an advantage.

Only setting that does this realistically is Foliage being set to medium and not even to as much of an extreme level as people make out.

But I'd wager someone who hasn't played in over 3 years wouldn't be able to remember exactly what these settings affected. : )

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Roovka:

Originally posted by datCookie:

Very well said. Agree with every word. Always hated this in every game it was possible in, turning down graphics to gain an advantage.

Only setting that does this realistically is Foliage being set to medium and not even to as much of an extreme level as people make out.

But I'd wager someone who hasn't played in over 3 years wouldn't be able to remember exactly what these settings affected. : )

I'd wager someone who didn't read what I wrote would just assume I was referring specifically to HLL, when I was not. This is a problem in many games in general, where reducing graphical settings provides an advantage. No, it's not always limited to foliage, sometimes entire texture models look different or blend in less to the environment, making enemy players easier to spot at a distance.

Foliage is the biggest issue, granted, but it's not always the sole beneficiary of reduced graphical settings