1911 replies to this topic

[ShinVector]

Karl Berg, on 25 July 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

Thanks for the reminder!

Yes, we do seem to have good news. While the issue is not completely resolved, there are some very focused fixes that should make it in for next patch that seem to provide a very noticeable improvement with respect to this issue.

Hi Karl,

Will this fix impact all at hit-scan (laser) weapons or just MGs ?

[Siriothrax]

Void Angel, on 25 July 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

Standard Deviation is a form of variance. I'm wondering what number he's actually asking for. Variance is kind of broad unless you specify type.

Also, standard deviation is related to the kind of numbers being actually given to us.

I was asking for whatever metric they had to measure it, and also trying to draw attention to the concept of variance being a lot more significant in match experience than simply matching the average. Yes, Standard Deviation would be most likely.

Edited by Siriothrax, 25 July 2014 - 09:37 PM.

[Siriothrax]

ShinVector, on 25 July 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

Hi Karl,

Will this fix impact all at hit-scan (laser) weapons or just MGs ?

It sounds like you're asking about this as a hit reg issue. To be clear, the issue is the server desyncing and the entire match lagging out - which is mostly caused by MGs and other hitscan weapons, because they generate so many checks with their ongoing ticks of damage. Not really a hit reg fix.

Here's an example: https://www.youtube....FUwHmDUM#t=2460

[ShinVector]

Siriothrax, on 25 July 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

It sounds like you're asking about this as a hit reg issue. To be clear, the issue is the server desyncing and the entire match lagging out - which is mostly caused by MGs and other hitscan weapons, because they generate so many checks with their ongoing ticks of damage. Not really a hit reg fix.

Here's an example: https://www.youtube....FUwHmDUM#t=2460

Ahhhhh.... Thanks... I was going though your post and couldn't find the related post. I guess someone else started it.
Can't be related to the new debug code that was added to lasers right ? I mean they haven't touch the hit-scan weapon code recently.

[Siriothrax]

ShinVector, on 25 July 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Ahhhhh.... Thanks... I was going though your post and couldn't find the related post. I guess someone else started it.
Can't be related to the new debug code that was added to lasers right ? I mean they haven't touch the hit-scan weapon code recently.

It's sort of an on-going discussion spanning multiple avenues of communication. It first got publicized when it happened in a couple of comp matches that were being streamed back in June - one of which was an IS vs Clan comparison/show match occuring on the Clan Preview Public Test. Since then, it's continued to be an issue, mostly in the lightweight drops of comp matches, which tend to be quick, hectic brawls with lots of collisions (an exacerbating factor - the movement code apparently taxes the server as much/more than the weapon fire).

Karl's been keeping in touch with comp teams, asking for details on when/how it happened so he can check the logs, getting volunteers to help repro, etc. Meanwhile, we've been gently but insistently prodding the rest of PGI (read: management) to draw attention to it, through Reddit, Twitter, forums, and especially during shoutcasts where the issue derails a match. If this fix works, then I'll be very happy. Fingers crossed, it is also somehow related to and fixes the slightly more random desyncs/lag spikes that have been happening since the July 15th patch. I don't think it is the same issue, unfortunately; however, I'm not PGI, so I can't say for sure.

In any case, this fix is a Good Thing™.

[One of Little Harmony]

Void Angel, on 25 July 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

Karl, could I get you to confirm something I'm having trouble sourcing from the forums - Do critical hits which do not have a valid target (e.g. empty side torsos, or equipment previously destroyed) still deal the 15% extra damage?


You mean the standard deviation from the team average?

Standard deviation is the square root of variance.

/econ



In statistics, variance is used because it's the square of the average difference from the mean, which means that one doesn't have to deal with pesky negative numbers. Then one can take the standard deviation to go back to the units that one was originally dealing with.
If one is trying to be tricky with one's statistics and one's aim is to make it seem like something is really varied and far from the mean, one would use variance because the numbers are squared by definition. So, if something has a standard deviation of 50, but that's not enough for someone to really convince the average reader there's a lot of difference, one could state the variance of 2500 instead because it is more likely to seem larger to readers who don't realize the SD = Var^.5

Edited by One of Little Harmony, 26 July 2014 - 10:46 PM.

[Void Angel]

Interesting; my research didn't turn all that up. Thanks!

[Mawai]

Hi Karl,

I am going to put the following question and comment here because I honestly think it is likely the only place I might get some sort of reasonable response.

What was the reasoning behind the revamp of the module system?

Here are some of the concerns ... all of which have been expressed on the forums by various people since the module revamp was first revealed in the developer vlog.

- arty and airstrikes are already overpowered in that a well placed strike against a bunched up opponent can cause enough damage to swing the balance in the match. Previously, only a fraction of people would have these equipped because other modules were more useful on a consistent basis. Now everyone is essentially forced to have two ... they might as well equip them since there is nothing else the slots can do ... and they WILL be used when the opportunity comes up.

- weapon modules are utterly useless. Mechs move at 100kph ... an extra 10m range on a weapon with a normal range of 450m is meaningless ... and that extra 10m costs in terms of extra heat generation for the weapon. The number of times that the fraction of 1 hp of damage gained from the module is NOT worth the heat added to EVERY shot at any range. Whoever designed the weapon modules was brain dead. (sorry that is the way I feel) ... consider the example of a 10m range increase on a LL. A large laser has a linear damage decay from 450 to 900. Adding the range module increases this to something like 460 to 920 ... but consider that the damage the laser would normally do at 460 is 440/450 * 9 = 8.8 compared to 9 with the module ... a whole difference of 0.2 damage points. Utterly ridiculous. ... and yet someone redesigns the game to force players to have module slots for useless weapon modules. Not only that but the module costs 3 million cbills and 500gxp just to unlock the first level. They are useless but now all mechs are equipped with 2 slots where nothing else can be fitted.

- some players have invested large amounts of cbills and gxp purchasing modules (I never buy more than one but others have several). These modules and gxp were purchased to work in combination with other modules. NOW ... some number of these modules are useless since you can only fit one ... possibly two once the mech is mastered ... never 3. There are a number of disgruntled players who literally feel PGI has essentially invalidated significant purchases on their part.


Other than relenting and allowing the slot for mastering the mech to be a mech slot instead of one of the useless ones ... PGI has completely ignored the community feedback and not commented on any of these issues.

Which leads to my second question ... WHY would PGI decide not to communicate with the community ... ignore concerns instead of discussing them ... and just essentially declare "it is our game ... we will do what we want" ... which then leaves it up to the players to do what they want including playing or not playing the game. Why give the players that choice when a bit of discussion could have made the whole process far less painful.

<sigh> /end rant


P.S. Also the only advantage the Jenner-K had over any other variant was the extra module slot. It had 4 when mastered rather than 3. Now the Jenner-K has the exact same module set as every other Jenner which make the D a complete superset of the K ... and thus makes owning both variants pointless.

Edited by Mawai, 29 July 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[Kyrie]

This thread continues to be so full of win. :-) A random note of thanks for all the great info, Karl!

[TheCaptainJZ]

Mawai, on 29 July 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

Other than relenting and allowing the slot for mastering the mech to be a mech slot instead of one of the useless ones ... PGI has completely ignored the community feedback and not commented on any of these issues.

They did change this part after all, or in a subsequent patch it will be either/or

InnerSphereNews, on 21 July 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

Changes to the Module Slot System

In Vlog #6 we stated, that the additional module you receive when mastering a Mech was a Weapon Module. We decided to change this module slot to a Mech Module slot for the launch of the feature.

In an upcoming patch (either the next patch or the one following): This Mech Module slot will be changed to a hybrid Weapon / Mech Module slot. This means you will be able to equip either a Weapon Module or a Mech Module. You can change this at any time based on your preference.

[Cimarb]

TheCaptainJZ, on 29 July 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

They did change this part after all, or in a subsequent patch it will be either/or

That was why he said, "other than". Reading comprehension FTW.

[DeathlyEyes]

Could the desyncing issue now being seen in games be caused by players reconnecting on virtual servers on the same physical server? Something like this. Server A starts a game and checks for a list of available ports on the physical server and assigns them to players connecting. Server B starts a game and generates its own list and assigns them. Player A from Server A disconnects and tries to reconnect. Since server A's available port data is no longer current it assigns a port that is actually used by player B in server B. Player B is desynced as the port is now having weird communication go through it. After a certain amount of time server B has some sorta automated script run that assigns the Player B a new port number and he is able to resync to the server.

I am not big into how UDP works but I suspect something like this could be occurring, especially with this issue coming to light with the introduction of the new reconnect feature.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 29 July 2014 - 09:44 PM.

[Wintersdark]

The server desync is happening due to a bug with machine guns and lasers (which are internally the same type of weapon)

[DeathlyEyes]

Wintersdark, on 29 July 2014 - 09:51 PM, said:

The server desync is happening due to a bug with machine guns and lasers (which are internally the same type of weapon)

I have personally lagged out well before anyone started shooting. I have also crashed the server with machine gun boat direwolves. When using the machine gun boat direwolves everyone lagged out whereas these random desyncs seem to be isolated to one player. I think they are two different issues, but I could be wrong.

[Void Angel]

Mawai, on 29 July 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

- arty and airstrikes are already overpowered in that a well placed strike against a bunched up opponent can cause enough damage to swing the balance in the match. Previously, only a fraction of people would have these equipped because other modules were more useful on a consistent basis. Now everyone is essentially forced to have two ... they might as well equip them since there is nothing else the slots can do ... and they WILL be used when the opportunity comes up.

People don't forgo strike consumables because the other modules are more useful - nothing is more useful than a strike. People forgo strike consumables because they were expensive, so while the module changes can be expected make strikes a bit more prevalent, they'll also make other modules more meaningful again. This is where the game needed to go with consumables; if strikes are too strong now that they don't take up a 'Mech module slot, they can simply be tweaked again - just as they have been already.

PS: "Not doing what I wanted you to do" does not have the same meaning as "totally ignoring feedback," and you should not abuse words that way. You also should not presume to speak for the entire community vis a vis "our" feedback.

Edited by Void Angel, 29 July 2014 - 11:08 PM.

[SnagaDance]

Hi Karl, with the changes to the module slots I've once again looked at the (previously completely sub-par) weapon modules and I noticed that weapons that had their long range changed from x3 to x2 (like autocannons) in the previous patch, still get triple distance added to their long range.

Is this now a typo or is this still correct?

[Cimarb]

SnagaDance, on 29 July 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

Hi Karl, with the changes to the module slots I've once again looked at the (previously completely sub-par) weapon modules and I noticed that weapons that had their long range changed from x3 to x2 (like autocannons) in the previous patch, still get triple distance added to their long range.

Is this now a typo or is this still correct?

Either way, they are still not worth the extra heat, unfortunately...

[Mawai]

Void Angel, on 29 July 2014 - 11:06 PM, said:

People don't forgo strike consumables because the other modules are more useful - nothing is more useful than a strike. People forgo strike consumables because they were expensive, so while the module changes can be expected make strikes a bit more prevalent, they'll also make other modules more meaningful again. This is where the game needed to go with consumables; if strikes are too strong now that they don't take up a 'Mech module slot, they can simply be tweaked again - just as they have been already.

PS: "Not doing what I wanted you to do" does not have the same meaning as "totally ignoring feedback," and you should not abuse words that way. You also should not presume to speak for the entire community vis a vis "our" feedback.

Hi,

Just a couple of clarifications ... I did not presume to speak for the entire community vis a vis "our" feedback ... the only "our" in my post referred to the fact that it is PGI's game and they can do whatever they wish.

As for "totally ignoring feedback" ... well 1) They did not make any changes except the master module slot and 2) They did not post anything on any forum I am aware of before or after the patch regarding any of these concerns raised by some members of the community ... that can be interpreted in two ways ... we read the feedback, disagreed and ignored it (since nothing was changed) or we never read it at all.

Regarding the change itself ... I think it is a good idea. Delineating module types and usage is a really good idea ... the really bad idea was assuming that the existing modules are compatible with this system. Existing arty and airstrike are overpowered if everyone has 2 while the weapon modules are so anemic it is laughable.

Also ... please be careful to speak for yourself rather than the community ...

"People don't forgo strike consumables because the other modules are more useful - nothing is more useful than a strike. "

I consider myself people and before this I've only equipped strikes 2 or 3 times since its use is situational ... if the situation comes up to use it ... it is awesome ... otherwise it is a waste of a module slot. Usually, I will equip zoom and radar deprivation and something else depending on how I plan to play the mech ... often a target info module since pinpoint damage to specific weak points is the best way to kill an opponent and the faster I get that information on a target the faster I can kill it.

Now, however, I will equip two strikes and two out of my usual choice of 3 modules. That is my perspective and I suspect that I am not alone ... as a result I expect a significant increase in the use of arty and airstrikes since more folks will have them equipped when the opportunity to use them effectively comes up.

[Void Angel]

There is a difference between "doing what I wanted," and "totally ignoring feedback," and you should not abuse words that way.

Also, pointing out the recognized fact that strike consumables are simply the best options for a module slot isn't "speaking for the community." It's citing fact. You can dispute the fact if you like, but citing it isn't presumptive.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 30 July 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

Also, pointing out the recognized fact that strike consumables are simply the best options for a module slot isn't &quot;speaking for the community.&quot; It's citing fact. You can dispute the fact if you like, but citing it isn't presumptive.

I happen to agree that strikes are the "best" option, as in they need to be nerfed into line with the other options, or more options need to be added like they have been teasing, but it is not actually citing fact by saying they are "the best option"; it is your opinion of what is best. As I said, I happen to agree with your opinion, but that does not make it an actual fact, as other modules have very different roles and effects which could make them "better" options for certain people.

As a disclaimer, I have used maybe a handful of strikes in the close to 5,000 matches I have played, so my opinion of them is almost completely based upon being on the receiving end...