Jump to content

Public Test 1.0.9 - 11-Jul-2013 - Morning Feedback


222 replies to this topic

Poll: Public Test 1.0.9 - 11-Jul-2013 - Morning Feedback (539 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your average FPS? (Press F9 during Gameplay)

  1. 0 - 10 (12 votes [2.25%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.25%

  2. 11 - 20 (48 votes [8.99%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.99%

  3. Voted 21 - 30 (104 votes [19.48%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.48%

  4. 31 - 40 (117 votes [21.91%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.91%

  5. 41 - 50 (94 votes [17.60%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 17.60%

  6. 50+ (159 votes [29.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.78%

How does your FPS compare with the current live version?

  1. Much Worse (29 votes [5.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.43%

  2. Voted Worse (169 votes [31.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.65%

  3. No Change (312 votes [58.43%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 58.43%

  4. Better (21 votes [3.93%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.93%

  5. Much Better (3 votes [0.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

Would you be OK with the performance of this version going live?

  1. Yes (396 votes [74.16%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 74.16%

  2. Voted No (138 votes [25.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 25.84%

What is your average Ping?

  1. 0 - 100 ms (227 votes [42.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.51%

  2. 101 - 200 ms (276 votes [51.69%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 51.69%

  3. Voted 201 - 300 ms (28 votes [5.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.24%

  4. 301 - 400 ms (3 votes [0.56%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

  5. 401+ ms (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

How does your Ping compare with the current live version?

  1. Much Worse (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. Worse (5 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

  3. No Change (68 votes [90.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 90.67%

  4. Better (2 votes [2.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.67%

  5. Much Better (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Would you be satisfied with the connectivity of this version going live?

  1. Voted Yes (486 votes [91.01%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 91.01%

  2. No (48 votes [8.99%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.99%

How stable (with regards to crashing/freezing) is this build for you?

  1. Extremely Stable (86 votes [16.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.10%

  2. Stable (202 votes [37.83%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.83%

  3. Voted Mostly Stable (179 votes [33.52%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 33.52%

  4. Unstable (58 votes [10.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.86%

  5. Very Unstable (9 votes [1.69%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.69%

How does your Stability compare with the current live version?

  1. Much Worse (21 votes [3.93%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.93%

  2. Voted Worse (126 votes [23.60%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.60%

  3. About the Same (367 votes [68.73%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 68.73%

  4. Better (18 votes [3.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.37%

  5. Much Better (2 votes [0.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.37%

Would you be satisfied with the stability of this version going live?

  1. Voted Yes (407 votes [76.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 76.22%

  2. No (127 votes [23.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.78%

How would you rate the hit detection in this build?

  1. >95% of valid shots connect (110 votes [20.60%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 20.60%

  2. 81-95% of valid shots connect (227 votes [42.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.51%

  3. 71-80% of valid shots connect (133 votes [24.91%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 24.91%

  4. 61-70% of valid shots connect (34 votes [6.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.37%

  5. Voted 51-60% of valid shots connect (24 votes [4.49%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.49%

  6. <50% of valid shots connect (6 votes [1.12%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.12%

How does your hit-detection compare with the current live version?

  1. Voted Much Worse (10 votes [1.87%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 1.87%

  2. Worse (102 votes [19.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.10%

  3. About the Same (369 votes [69.10%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 69.10%

  4. Better (48 votes [8.99%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.99%

  5. Much Better (5 votes [0.94%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.94%

Would you be satisfied with the hit detection of this version going live?

  1. Yes (364 votes [68.16%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 68.16%

  2. Voted No (170 votes [31.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.84%

Vote

#121 Zerberus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,488 posts
  • LocationUnder the floorboards looking for the Owner`s Manual

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

21:00, 2h of testing over. Admittedly drinking and somewhat "lit up". Butr that means I`m not looking for small flaws B)

Slight drop in fps (I usually have about 25-30 and had 20-25 with slightlly less cpu intensive settings)
1 Crash to mechlab
1 large lag (2-3 seconds) on IIRC canyon
Hit detection appeared fine, heat seemed the same for the most part.

Dropping as a 3 man, fights lasted significantly longer for the most part, and were also more fun in general. No real roflstomps, and a marked decrease in sniping, and overall felt more "tactical" as far as movement went. Lrm Usage seemed up, as did tagging by lights... for me and the 2 I was droping with, this "felt" remarkably close to the game that we feel most of us want.

Overall experience: For all I care, if a sizeable portion of hte active communits was testing, you can put this on live tomorrow and I would be pleased <_<

*Edit* CPU /GPU data as per Karls request:

Athlon X4 840
8GB RAM
Nvidia reference GF GTX560 w/ 3 GB RAM

Edited by Zerberus, 11 July 2013 - 11:31 AM.


#122 Kiu

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 40 posts
  • LocationEU

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

My good "old" machine doesnt like 12vs12 that much...
Prod. version is OK to play, but I had to switch down to 1400x? to play...
9800GT on AMD Phenom II (yes, old, I know, I think it will be replaced later this year)
Other tech things seems to be OK

Gameplay: A "Get more ammo" module would be nice for 12vs12 ;-) (for AMS?)

#123 Phorashi

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 34 posts
  • LocationKaetetôã

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

ATTENTION PGI:

12V12 is nearly unplayable. Many of the early maps are not big enough to provide cover for 12 mechs. The high alpha meta is completely unchanged by the heat penalties in the 12-man only queue and performance is slightly worse.

In addition, and I cannot stress this enough, IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT IN A NEW GAME MODE AND TEST IT, YOU SHOULD HAVE DEVELOPERS IN CHARGE OF BALANCE AND GAME DESIGN DROPPING IN THE SERIOUS BUSINESS QUEUE, NOT ONE GUY PLAYING WITH NGNG IN THE 4-MAN QUEUE.

Guess what dominates the 12-man queue? PPCs, Gauss, Jump sniping. Stalkers, Cataphracts, Highlanders. Your data are not going to give you the right idea about game balance unless you check out what people are doing for serious business groups. Pubbie 4 man groups and lone wolves running MGs and Flamers are not what the game should be balanced around.

#124 Doktor Totenkopf

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:05 AM

Whatever the intention of this exercise was...I had loads of fun! <_<

Thanks for the chance to finally do proper beta testing!

#125 Corbon Zackery

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:06 AM

Pretty much the same ping and frame rate.

Once your down by about 4 mechs you might as well end it with all the mass fire LRM's your going to be sweeped.

Garth if I'm escorting you your not suppose to run out into the middle of the field to take on 12 men solo.

Pretty much not ready to go yet not until you fix the issues with the matchmaker.

Extra C-bills are nice.

I'm 50/50 with the right weapon balance and matchmaker it would be fun.

Time for Subway sandwich.

#126 Dark DeLaurel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 579 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationWarShip Sleipnir, Spinward-Coreward Quadrant

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:06 AM

River Citty Night - Live build average 25-35 FPS, now I am getting 18-25 FPS with drops as low as 15 FPS
Canyon Network - Live build average 28-38 FPS, now I am getting 25-35 FPS with no noticeable drop in FPS
Forest Colony Snow - Live build average 35-45 FPS, now I am getting 28-38 FPS with no noticeable drop in FPS
Forest Colony - Same as Forest Colony Snow
Frozen City - Live build average 28-35 FPS, now I am getting 25-35 FPS with no noticable drop in FPS

Ping is roughly the same, no noticeable difference there, and lag seems roughly the same have not seen anything on that end. Although hit detection does seem to be off, can't quite say by how much but I could tell some shots were not hitting and they should have been.

#127 GraveHuey

    Member

  • Pip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 15 posts
  • Locationcomstar earth prime IL

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:06 AM

12 man drops are great, if they work... needs a bit more work overall, however ping was good FPS was not 3 and 2 fps not satisfactory... keep trying , keep trying....

Edited by GraveHuey, 11 July 2013 - 11:07 AM.


#128 Trev Firestorm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 1,240 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

12v12 was a blast, performance was exactly the same as usual: good fps, good ping, no crashes, hit detection still needs some work. On Alpine the blob seemed to work best that is to say the map still kinda sucks, small maps the blob just got in its own way (RC/N ForC/S) but thats hopefully something that everyone will adjust to and actually spread out. Had one game with only 2 mechs surviving, most others were sweeps without being outright rolls.

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 11 July 2013 - 11:15 AM.


#129 Alcatraz968

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • LocationBehind You!

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

Some Hit registry problems, but not to bad. The old maps are not designed for this many players, and become a cluster. Drop to mechlab issue is back. Can't give much weapons feedback do to value change. Unknown what they currently are.

Overall, still needs more work, as the current meta-game is functional in it. PPC's are popular and the only scout mech is the spider (Do to there broke hitbox. Kyle, i know you were using one and had 8 mechs hunting you!)

#130 DragonsFire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 655 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

View PostJman5, on 11 July 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

  • FPS: unchanged
  • Latency: Unchanged
  • Hit Registration: not noticeably changed, but this is a difficult thing to notice in the thick of battle. At the very least I never noticed any overt hit reg issues.
  • No crashing or freezing.




I was in the same boat as you, no real issues noticed during the course of gameplay around FPS or hit registration.

Edit: And I agree with a number of others on here, 12v12 was an entirely different beast, and quite a bit of fun to say the least. There were a few stomps but there were also some VERY close rounds as well.

Edited by DragonsFire, 11 July 2013 - 11:09 AM.


#131 Sprouticus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,781 posts
  • LocationChicago, Il, USA

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:07 AM

View PostTheCaptainJZ, on 11 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

I think the current selection of maps are ill-designed for 12 vs 12. The maps and strategies used on them is already very predictable. There are 2 or 3 routes on all the maps. Alpine and Desert are of sufficient size I think. However, Desert should be a "small" map for that many mechs and with the movement change and wide open areas, Alpine has only two paths to each base. Forget team coordination, all you have to do is keep everyone together in a large pack to dominate (This is already mostly true). The roles of lights is still not important. What would make gameplay longer and more tactical and more fun is if there were kilometer wide maps with several areas of combat and several distinct paths to them. Also there has to be a way to split up teams so you have to choose how many go to one location and how many go to another. With some tweaks the existing playmodes would work. Assault can be a free-for-all bash for those who want it and Conquest can have multiple objective-based gameplay. There should be more bases in conquest or you don't start with one at your starting location so you have to truely fight over 5 points.



I have to disagree. I am not trying to sayyou are wrong, I respect your opinion. Mine is just different


I fought only 5 drops, but all of them were terrific. Including the one on frozen and the 2 on canyons.

  • The 12v12 allows for stuff you didnt see on 8v8: battle line, flanking, sniping, etc
  • I found LESS blobbing, because with 12 you ended up not being able to maneuver
  • We had an entire LANCE flank in one drop (of pugs no less). The 4 of us were able to hit their missile boats from the side-rear and clean their clocks.
  • I was severely damaged by the counter attack to the flank, but I was able to fall back through our lines because the AC2 jagger was not able to follow me past 3 other mechs.(plus 2 others coming from our front lines)
  • out of the 5 matches, 3 were 12-3 or more. The multipliciative effect is tough. However 1 of them was 12-10, and the one we lost we were winning 5-2 and ended up losing because of positioning.
  • Short range mechs are more viable in this meta IMO.
  • LRM's are deadly. It is much harder to hide once lock is established, if you get caught in the open you wont last long.
  • Having scounts to prevent running into their battle lines or missile boats will be REALLY important now.


Capping will be a problem. You can cap REALLY fast with 4 lights.

Edited by Sprouticus, 11 July 2013 - 11:17 AM.


#132 Phaesphoros

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

My FPS depend on the map and situation, I don't think the single number in the poll is good to reflect that.

On Alpine, my FPS have never been high (in normal "MWO Beta", not this test, referring to as 8v8), but it's next to unplayable in 12v12: FPS drops in brawling or with 'Mechs and buildings to RED and 20 FPS. (Note however that I've no issues on testing grounds with FPS stable > 50.)

Canyon, where I played one match, is better, albeit not good.

Forest Colony... why do we even have this map on 12v12? I thought only the big maps would change from 8v8 to 12v12? It's really cramped.

I know you can collect statistics and will find out the effect on FPS, however I'd appreciate if you'd rather optimize 8v8 to a level where it's stable at > 40 fps for the so-called lower-end specs (my specs are still better than the minimum requirements).

Deactivating the HUD boosts FPS (not tried in 12v12 though) considerably, maybe you want to consider using a more effective way to render the HUD. It shouldn't result in such a FPS drop.

Edited by Phaesphoros, 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM.


#133 Ralgas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,628 posts
  • LocationThe Wonderful world of OZ

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

Had 2 drop to mechbay and lock my mech at the start of a match crashes, out of around 10-15 games. Very nice and a decent ~50 ping drop over current live. any hit registry problem i did have seem to be on the smaller lights.

Edited by Ralgas, 11 July 2013 - 11:10 AM.


#134 aniviron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,752 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

FPS about the same, had been running 60+ constant no problem for months but the last few patches have dropped me to 55-60 out of combat, and 40-50 in combat. Still getting 55-60 out of combat, closer to 55, but getting 30-50 in combat, it chugs noticeably.

Haven't crashed in the general game in months, crashed once today in test.

Generally ping between 60-100, no changes at all for me.

Hitreg has been pretty spotty for quite a while now, but it seemed particularly bad today. Had more than one instance of things just blatantly not hitting- 36srms on a stationary target for 0 damage a number of times, a lot of uac5 duds, and about the same number of ppc duds as normal (10-25%). Out of everything, srms seemed to reg the worst, felt like less than half of my shots were dealing damage at all- was rarely even getting red crosshair feedback for direct hits.

#135 Maxxinator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • LocationDefiance Industries, Hesperus II

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

View Post101011, on 11 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Huh, the test server has my account info...from yesterday. So all my 'Mech purchases are gone, and I have to regrind the C-Bills. Ugh.

Annoying, huh? Same happened to me, I was dropped 1.2 million Cbills.

#136 Verbrand

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 100 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

Minimap improvements are great, mech markers are much clearer.

I crashed 3 times during the one hour test, once going into a drop and the other 2 coming out of one.

12vs12 did feel a bit too crowded on Forest colony but that may just take some getting used to.

There is still the problem of missiles all hitting the center torso (even when you turn side on) rather than spreading around the mech but that problem is in the live version too.

#137 Gidonihah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 136 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:08 AM

Seemed fine, encountered Drop to Mechbay bug once. Lights are in even a worse spot.

An interesting side effect is that Conquest is a much better mode now, as it gets people to spread out.

#138 Inhibition

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:10 AM

View PostWales Grey, on 11 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

Relative to live, the full 12man team queue is dull, even duller than 8mans, because having 12v12 simply exasperates the issues of the 8v8 game.

The performance was fine though, only had two or three people in the group CTD during the three drops we did and I personally only had one CTD because of a mechbay error involving paints.


*exaggerate (not exasperate)

Framerate was consideraby lower..even dropping into high 20's, which never happened before.
Normally have 40-55

Edited by Inhibition, 11 July 2013 - 11:11 AM.


#139 Harney

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 56 posts
  • LocationWest Yorkshire

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:10 AM

I do like 12 v 12 but the problem is now my eyes hurt .......

#140 ApolloKaras

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,974 posts
  • LocationSeattle, Washington

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:11 AM

Too many PPCs.... It was unbelievable.

On to the feedback

System: Core i7 2600k @ 3.8ghz
GTX 670
8 GB DDR3 2100

I got almost all the maps with the exception of the night maps. My settings are very high for everything with the exception of Post Processing - lowest setting, and AA is set to none, Vsync of course is off. 1920x1080

Lowest FPS I had recorded was 37 Frames, this was on tourmaline, I took a screen shot right after, I had about 16 mechs in view with plenty of fire in the frame. The engine handled it very well. Average FPS for me was about the same - 69 FPS with these settings. Low - 37, Avg - 69, Max - 120.

Issues with the hit detection was about the same as the current client, PPCs seem to be about 90-95% of the time on larger chassis.

Pings are about the same 60 average, even during the heaviest of fighting.

Our group had during the first hour we had 1 12 man drop, where none of the pilots ever made it into the game - probably a server hiccup. Outside of that no other CTD's to speak of.

EDIT: I can submit a Dxdiag report if you need it.

Edited by Saxie, 11 July 2013 - 11:16 AM.






12 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users