190 replies to this topic

[TheMagician]

Lostdragon, on 07 August 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Please add SLI and Crossfire support ASAP. It is unfathomable to release a game in 2013 without supporting these configurations.

Ehh. Not really. Lots of AAA titles barely support it. It's not reallly their fault anyhow CryEngine does not offer good support for it. See: Crysis 2 and the total lack of support for CrossFire. At least on launch, it ran better with 1 card, than 2 using crossfire, not sure where the game is at, at the moment. Battlefield 3 also barely supported CrossFire (as well as most titles). As for SLI, I have less knowledge of game support for that, since I don't use it.

[SneakyNZ]

Thanks very much for the detail - it's greatly appreciated.

On the road to launch I'm trying to get some new players interested, sadly we're in the oceanic region which means we're getting a good 300m/s latency. Would love if we could get the registration issues looked at as a secondary priority to features if possible. Very hard to get people interested when we have problems hitting people in a fps game!

Kind regards

[MischiefSC]

Much better update.

I think the truth is that this sort of report, giving some details and setting expectations on specific features and changes in the game can do a lot to sooth the community. People repeat things because they didn't feel like they got heard the first time. This is part of what drives a lot of the churning topics on the forums. It can be easy to let that sort of thing turn into 'white noise' but generally it's based on legit issues or concerns.

It's alright to say 'this is never going to change because X. I realize that it's important to you because of Y, but at this point that's not something we expect to be working on.' It's not that you have to do everything people ask of you (obviously) but some sort of response periodically can help set proper expectations for people.

[IceSerpent]

Matthew Craig, on 07 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Technically the match maker will consider it a 'good' game if both teams were matched by having 1 high elo and 1 low elo player on both teams just as much as putting 2 average players on both teams.

The match maker can only work within the ranges given to it though and currently the ranges can be too large i.e. the matchmaker can drag in a high elo player to balance out a few low elo players, when we start to reduce the range what we should see is that the match maker will wait longer to create a 'good' game i.e it will have to wait for a player with a more average elo to show up (as the high elo player will be out of range). In the extreme case the match maker will simply give up and say it couldn't find a good game, this can potentially be seen as a good thing as you didn't want to play that game anyhow.

As mentioned we'll be monitoring carefully and we suspect we can tighten the ranges without having a dramatic impact on average wait times and failed matches, we can also adjust the timeout up from 2 minutes to compensate. Hopefully that answers your question.

Matt, would it be possible to create an checkbox or slider in the options along the lines of "I am willing to wait a while as long as I don't end up balancing low Elo players" <--> "I don't care about Elo as long as I get into the match quickly"? Pretty please?

Edited by IceSerpent, 07 August 2013 - 12:12 PM.

[Ryvucz]

Thanks for the update Matthew!

[NguTron]

Good job! Thanks for keeping us informed and letting us know whats upcoming.

[Jman5]

Have you guys noticed any sort of hit registration issue with mechs that are jump jetting? A spider for example should be relatively easy to hit when it's jump jetting along a predictable flight path, but it seems to absorb quite a lot of firepower.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

Ambiguous post is ambiguous. It is also very soft-cornered.

PGI, the lack of actual visible improvements has been obvious. Hit detection issues are not minor bugs, they are a gamebreaking problem that directly affects the outcome of every match.

The slight performance drops mentioned with the introduction of 12vs12? My FPS went from 18-22 at the last patch to 9-12 directly after. This is not minor.

The movement issues are are gamebreaking as HSR issues, getting your mech stuck in combat is a death sentence, so when it happens in the wide open flat areas between cover, on small rocks and invisible ditches... you get it.

In additon, when constant upgrades and streamlining still result in very poor performance in even "very good" machines, small changes to firing animations, and rendering in general, are not the issue, the issue is with the base-code and/or your server hosting. (Quantity, location, ISP choke/quality.)

This game comes out in a month and a week.

Get your **** together.

Edited by TheFlyingScotsman, 07 August 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[DaZur]

Matthew Craig, on 07 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Technically the match maker will consider it a 'good' game if both teams were matched by having 1 high elo and 1 low elo player on both teams just as much as putting 2 average players on both teams.

The match maker can only work within the ranges given to it though and currently the ranges can be too large i.e. the matchmaker can drag in a high elo player to balance out a few low elo players, when we start to reduce the range what we should see is that the match maker will wait longer to create a 'good' game i.e it will have to wait for a player with a more average elo to show up (as the high elo player will be out of range). In the extreme case the match maker will simply give up and say it couldn't find a good game, this can potentially be seen as a good thing as you didn't want to play that game anyhow.

As mentioned we'll be monitoring carefully and we suspect we can tighten the ranges without having a dramatic impact on average wait times and failed matches, we can also adjust the timeout up from 2 minutes to compensate. Hopefully that answers your question.

Matthew,

Would it be entirely implausible to add a tick option to apply either a "looser" Elo (Our present iteration) or a tighter as you've described being possible.

This way, those who demand a tighter match and are willing to accept longer wait-time can do so while others who appreciate a more expedient load-time might select the looser option?

While I can appreciate one queue might be saturated and the other sparse, it still does present options.

Just thinking aloud.

Damn... Ninja'd!

Edited by DaZur, 07 August 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[Bracchus]

The latest patch tanked my FPS hard, from 120ish fps down to 100-30fps. The real killer is that its never really stable. It jumps from 100ish down to 30ish and back all the time. Really making it hard to enjoy the game

Edited by Bracchus, 07 August 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[warp103]

ATi crossfire ARF works and triples performance just one issue. The flicker is so bad that i would make most go in to a fit.
Also thank you for the post. if this happens 3x a week i bet that PGI would not have toxin forms.
More news more input less bitching@ pgi will happen

'
Can you looking in to fps as not a avg but as a bell curve. When looking at it as a avg. the guys with the very high end skews the numbers for the rest.

Edit forgot. Hit reg is way off and can you explain the new 15% crit issue there are lot of Questions about it.

Also the decline in support tickets it not because off less bugs. It was because we felt as though we were not being taken seriously by support.

Edited by warp103, 07 August 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Lostdragon]

TheMagician, on 07 August 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

Ehh. Not really. Lots of AAA titles barely support it. It's not reallly their fault anyhow CryEngine does not offer good support for it. See: Crysis 2 and the total lack of support for CrossFire. At least on launch, it ran better with 1 card, than 2 using crossfire, not sure where the game is at, at the moment. Battlefield 3 also barely supported CrossFire (as well as most titles). As for SLI, I have less knowledge of game support for that, since I don't use it.

I heartily disagree with your assessment. Crysis 2 was released 2.5 years and multi-GPU setups have worked with it for quite some time now. Crysis 2 was also a cross platform release. I am sure a lot more time was spent optimizing it for consoles. I ran BF3 on an SLI setup from day 1 with minimal issues and it was also a cross platform game released 2 years ago.

MWO is a PC only game built on a very resource intensive engine. A significant portion of the crowd the game is aimed at uses SLI/Crossfire so failing to support these rigs by launch is like giving the finger to dedicated PC gamers who have built expensive rigs to run modern games. Stop making poor excuses for bad decisions. When the decision was made to use Cryengine the devs knew it meant the game would run poorly on less powerful hardware and multi-GPU support should have been a priority.

Edited by Lostdragon, 07 August 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

FuzzyLog1c, on 07 August 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

You're seeing a steady decline in the number of issues being reported because we're giving up on you and your team. The number of problems are increasing, not decreasing--both in severity and quantity.

really? Got hard data? I run with a large clan, and spend a lot of time with members of others, and for probably 95% of us, it's been slowly but consistently the opposite, with continuous improvements. In fact many members unable to play since OB launched have recently rejoined and been enjoying drops.

As with ANYTHING Computer related, there will certainly be outliers. If you are legitimately having MORE issues, those need to be reported to remove the outliers. But a problem affecting 1% of the playerbase cannot be given the same rush priority as a problem affecting 50% of the player base. That your personal issue was not instantly answered, or your hand held, is called life.

[Master Q]

Can you take a look at the heat scaling code? There's a bug in there somewhere causing machine guns to start generating excess heat if you fire them at the same time as other weapons (a real problem since MG's are designed to have to be fired for extended periods of time while brawling).

[Gallowglas]

Bracchus, on 07 August 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

The latest patch tanked my FPS hard, from 120ish fps down to 100-30fps. The real killer is that its never really stable. It jumps from 100ish down to 30ish and back all the time. Really making it hard to enjoy the game

Wow...120? I'd like to know what your setup is. I thought I was doing well peaking at 90 FPS and I have a pretty hefty rig.

[Bishop Steiner]

Master Q, on 07 August 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Can you take a look at the heat scaling code? There's a bug in there somewhere causing machine guns to start generating excess heat if you fire them at the same time as other weapons (a real problem since MG's are designed to have to be fired for extended periods of time while brawling).

wait! For real?

I was wondering, because my 4 MG 2 LB-10X Jager has turned into a furnace since the last patch!

(Although that doesn't explain my 2 AC10/2 Medium Laser Ilya having so much heat issue now, too)

[Bracchus]

Gallowglas, on 07 August 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Wow...120? I'd like to know what your setup is. I thought I was doing well peaking at 90 FPS and I have a pretty hefty rig.

Overclocked Intel i5 @ 3.6Ghz and a overclocked Nvidia GTX 570, running 1920x1080 and all settings except textures at low, 144hz screen.

[warp103]

Gallowglas, on 07 August 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

Wow...120? I'd like to know what your setup is. I thought I was doing well peaking at 90 FPS and I have a pretty hefty rig.

lol this is want I mean we need a bell curve not the adv fps.

[Bracchus]

Had below 30fps in the last game, slide show... Hope they fix this soon. Can't even fathom how horrible it is for those of you that have even worse computers than me.. or laptops

[focuspark]

Damocles, on 07 August 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

DX11 will not be a visual upgrade immediately?

Why would it be? If the assets do not change, the quality will not change. DX11 is not a magic bullet, it just allows for better things to be made; it does not make things better.