37 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

KuruptU4Fun, on 16 July 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

How is PGI not creating an in game VC a fault? Especially since there are so many better ones available on the 3rd party market?

In game VC slows down in game data packets and ping times, this has been demonstrated time and time again in other games.

A- It's considered a standard feature for modern games.

B- In a teamwork heavy game you need to be able to talk to your team. What are you going to do in a PUG, tell everyone to stop while you work out the details to all get on TS together?

He's talking pugs, not premades.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Victor Morson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

A- It's considered a standard feature for modern games.

B- In a teamwork heavy game you need to be able to talk to your team. What are you going to do in a PUG, tell everyone to stop while you work out the details to all get on TS together?

He's talking pugs, not premades.

A standard feature that often times doesn't work properly.

If people think they can conquer the world alone time and time again in a team based game. Then by all means, the group I play with who communicates as a team and supports one another as best as possible will be more than happy to prove them wrong as much as possible.

Most pugs think for themselves and their survival, not the team as a whole.

[Victor Morson]

Voice chat is an important part to that. Some games can get away with it (Team Fortress 2) because they don't require as much coordination in public matches, just people knowing what they're supposed to do.

Other games (Left 4 Dead, and of course, MechWarrior) are made and broken on concepts like focusing your fire and moving as a group.

It wouldn't be enough to fix PUGs entirely but if even half the people listening focused fire, it'd be a massive shift to their effectiveness. This is really off topic, but VoIP is totally worth bringing up.

[jeffsw6]

Excellent diagrams. While the PGI guys may read them and feel ... ungrateful for the crucial feedback being provided by paying customers, I was very amused. I'm glad I am not the only person pointing out how added complexity is usually a mistake, especially when simple fixes have not yet been explored or tested.

Gregory Owen, on 16 July 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

they problem is when they fix something they do 2 things to it at once usually. and that doesn't allow testing to see if either actually worked effectively.

No, that's not really true. Every thing that they have changed since March has been individually bad, even if those changes were applied in their own, dedicated patches, with the exception of HSR for ballistics. HSR for ballistics wasn't bad, but it has unintended consequences (giving ride to PPC meta) that actually should have included MORE changes in that patch -- or soon thereafter -- adjustment to PPC heat. See also: Gauss Rifle.

It's not that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time. It's that they would trip over their own feet even if the only thing they had to do all day was walk, and the reason is because they don't analyze the cause of their fallsand realize that their process is flawed, so they keep making huge mistakes because they repeat the same process over and over.

PanchoTortilla, on 16 July 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

They should probably raise the damage per missile up to 2.0 to match regular SRMs now that they are hitting other parts like they're supposed to.

I'd like to see that on the public test server before it is deployed to all players. I would also like to see the test server, you know, running for more than 4 hours a week. I am not sure buffing up SRM damage a shitload is all that smart, but it does seem like the obvious and simple solution; and is certainly worth play-testing.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Victor Morson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

It wouldn't be enough to fix PUGs entirely but if even half the people listening focused fire, it'd be a massive shift to their effectiveness. This is really off topic, but VoIP is totally worth bringing up.

On this point I agree with you. But why spend time bashing PGI about a feature that they have planned but on the back burner.

Instead try to promote (and get PGI to help) support of a popular and well established 3rd party VoiP until PGI releases theirs?

Save the bitching and moaning, be proactive and help solve problems by LEADING the community.

[Victor Morson]

KuruptU4Fun, on 16 July 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

On this point I agree with you. But why spend time bashing PGI about a feature that they have planned but on the back burner.

I don't know, it wasn't the intent of the thread. I'd be happy if VoIP discussion dies with this post to focus on this patch specifically.

Wintersdark, on 16 July 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Instead try to promote (and get PGI to help) support of a popular and well established 3rd party VoiP until PGI releases theirs?

Because it's pointless to do so. Most of the good ones need a paid server host, and even then, it's only going to work for organized teams unless you count Outreach (NGNG TeamSpeak).

You just can't go into a PUG game and expect to get everyone on a VoIP program on the fly unless the game integrates it. Why they didn't, you know, incorporate that C3 voice system into the matches instead of lobbies, I will never know.

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 July 2013 - 04:27 PM.

[jeffsw6]

KuruptU4Fun, on 16 July 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

In game VC slows down in game data packets and ping times, this has been demonstrated time and time again in other games.

If you want to have a discussion about whether integrated VOIP "slows down in game data packets and ping times," I will first say:

• I'm an industry-leader in this subject matter, and unlike many who make such statements on the forum, I can refer you to papers I've written, presentation slide decks, etc. which effectively demonstrate my credentials
  
• The difference in latency and jitter induced by the addition of in-game VOIP is negligible unless you are playing from dial-up or bandwidth-constrained cellular data services, which perform very poorly for FPS games already
  
• Users could simply choose not to enable in-game VOIP, totally negating the downsides

In other words, I'm really smart when it comes to this issue, and I can assure you that your assertion is totally wrong.

[Victor Morson]

jeffsw6, on 16 July 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

If you want to have a discussion about whether integrated VOIP "slows down in game data packets and ping times," I will first say:

• I'm an industry-leader in this subject matter, and unlike many who make such statements on the forum, I can refer you to papers I've written, presentation slide decks, etc. which effectively demonstrate my credentials
  
• The difference in latency and jitter induced by the addition of in-game VOIP is negligible unless you are playing from dial-up or bandwidth-constrained cellular data services, which perform very poorly for FPS games already
  
• Users could simply choose not to enable in-game VOIP, totally negating the downsides

In other words, I'm really smart when it comes to this issue, and I can assure you that your assertion is totally wrong.

As someone that, while likely not nearly as qualified, has worked with VoIP integration before and talked to the programmers about it on multiple occasions, everything he said is 100% spot on.

I mean for crying out loud, Planetside 2 has VOIP in areas with 100+ people and it doesn't even cause a problem. Not the best example of integrated VoIP but still, it says a lot.

[Corvus Antaka]

PanchoTortilla, on 16 July 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

They should probably raise the damage per missile up to 2.0 to match regular SRMs now that they are hitting other parts like they're supposed to.

right, and then we get streak 6's and the screaming starts again.

[Victor Morson]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

right, and then we get streak 6's and the screaming starts again.

Not if every missile is flying off towards a different body part. Streaks would be awful in that case, even 6s.

I still think that buffing them to SRM missile strength, giving them CT homing back and then making them slow to recycle would be the best (and only viable) solution to making them useful without an overpowering Streak 6..

... if we ever see it at this rate. "Clans coming in 2017!*" will be the next announcement.

* The game will be dead long, long before then though. Oops!

Edited by Victor Morson, 16 July 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

jeffsw6, on 16 July 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

If you want to have a discussion about whether integrated VOIP "slows down in game data packets and ping times," I will first say:

• I'm an industry-leader in this subject matter, and unlike many who make such statements on the forum, I can refer you to papers I've written, presentation slide decks, etc. which effectively demonstrate my credentials
  
• The difference in latency and jitter induced by the addition of in-game VOIP is negligible unless you are playing from dial-up or bandwidth-constrained cellular data services, which perform very poorly for FPS games already
  
• Users could simply choose not to enable in-game VOIP, totally negating the downsides

In other words, I'm really smart when it comes to this issue, and I can assure you that your assertion is totally wrong.

I very well may be wrong and I'm willing to admit that if shown, most of the country has irregular bandwidth on their broadband connections. Companies like Verizon are simply not maintaining their phone line (copper line) based internet in favor of optical line internet. But are VERY selective about where they will dig up and install it for a communities' sake because it's costly to subscribe to. They won't put it in most apartment complexes or manufactured home communities because of that. BUT those two communities spend almost 75% of their disposable income on in home entertainment. Basically corporations believe it's not cost effective for them to do it, despite facts to the contrary.

On the human side of your statement. Games like BF and Halo do have in game VoiP. But most people simply ignore it or as you state turn it off. How do those actions support a team play style of gaming?

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 16 July 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Victor Morson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Not if every missile is flying off towards a different body part. Streaks would be awful in that case, even 6s.

I still think that buffing them to SRM missile strength, giving them CT homing back and then making them slow to recycle would be the best (and only viable) solution to making them useful without an overpowering Streak 6..

... if we ever see it at this rate. "Clans coming in 2017!*" will be the next announcement.

* The game will be dead long, long before then though. Oops!

Victor Morson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Not if every missile is flying off towards a different body part. Streaks would be awful in that case, even 6s.

I still think that buffing them to SRM missile strength, giving them CT homing back and then making them slow to recycle would be the best (and only viable) solution to making them useful without an overpowering Streak 6..

... if we ever see it at this rate. "Clans coming in 2017!*" will be the next announcement.

* The game will be dead long, long before then though. Oops!

The game may dead for you, but not for me.

I've been using the SSRM with various mechs, and it works great. yes, it struggles vs bigger mechs, but it is still great for using against lights. small lasers ALSO struggle vs big mechs, and for a similar reason the SSRM2 should.

you are being very fanatical and more than a little dramatic imho.

[Victor Morson]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

The game may dead for you, but not for me.

The way sales are going, it'll be dead for everyone.

[Tomman]

While the initial premise of this thread was a good idea Victor. I'll give you that; though at this point mostly it has turned into a laughable series of insults hurled at the developers. IMHO, the only thing that the patch does is force a little firing discipline. Which is a step forward. The streaks are no longer easy and guaranteed CT damage... Fine that is the way it was 5 patches ago before they broke them again by putting HSR on missiles. So, step forward. Nerfing weapons inside their actual firerate..... step back. So while the patch has some issues, overall it was a good day.

And please remember of my post and of your own....

Opinions are like a $$ holes everyone has one and they all STINK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Tomman, 16 July 2013 - 04:50 PM.

[New Day]

KuruptU4Fun, on 16 July 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

How is PGI not creating an in game VC a fault? Especially since there are so many better ones available on the 3rd party market?

In game VC slows down in game data packets and ping times, this has been demonstrated time and time again in other games.

Hawken has it and works pretty good. They also have a better UI and they both started development at the same time.
Anyway that's just a pathetic excuse. Almost every game has in-game comms, and having to install an additional program to be able to be good at a game is stupid. I'd also like to see evidence of those slower ping times, and even if it's true don't you get the same result from using an external program, not to mention lower FPS because of the higher load.

[Corvus Antaka]

Victor Morson, on 16 July 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

The way sales are going, it'll be dead for everyone.

really? you have sales numbers? everyone i know bought or is buying an overlord pack, cant be all that bad.

[Roadbeer]

Destined, on 16 July 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

You just took a step foward into K-Town. (Or would that be a step backwards?)

Well played...

Hi, i'm Roadbeer, I don't think we've met.

Edited by Roadbeer, 16 July 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[TurboChickenMan]

The OP is right, y'know...