1911 replies to this topic

[Karl Berg]

Wintersdark, on 05 October 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

Objection to solo players not on voice comms:
There are already players in the group queue not on voice comms at all, and players not on voice comms with everyone on the team (say, a 4/4/4 team, with 2 4 mans on separate comms and the third without comms at all).

Players who choose to Opt In to the group queue are going to do that because they want to cooperate. As such, they are _more likely_ to be cooperative than a random small group.

Hi Wintersdark,

Yup, not going to disagree with your points; they are valid.

Still, I anticipate the point being brought up by players, and Russ would likely want to gather a certain amount of community feedback on the topic, before asking me to implement the feature. For better or worse, emotions run very high where touching on the mixing of solo players, small groups, and large groups.

[Void Angel]

Karl Berg, on 05 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

500 ms actually. Beyond that, for performance reasons, we don't keep any further rewind history for entities. So if you *do* have more than 500 ms of latency, you would end up having to lead the target by that additional amount. 500 ms is an enormous amount of latency however. I really hope no user, anywhere in the world, is playing with that much latency..

Hope springs eternal - but I've seen it done. =)

[p4r4g0n]

Karl Berg, on 05 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

It might. How much it would help would depend on the number of solo players willing to opt-in using such a mechanic, and whether or not grouped players would object to having a solo players who is not on voice comms as part of their team.

It's an interesting idea however, and I'll keep it in mind as a suggestion for the next time we look into improving the matchmaker.

Karl, I'm pretty surprised that this sounds like a new idea to you as this has been mooted many many many times. Either whoever is compiling feedback is not passing on all that they should or it never reached you.

Worse case scenario, if it isn't a popular option, how much wasted time and resources are we talking about in terms of getting it done?

[Rebas Kradd]

Tekadept, on 05 October 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Played a few games the other night, first time in forever, Grouped up in a 5 man.. With the new matchmaker I had time to go and take a dump, and make a coffee and it still hadn't found a match, then we get matched with a 9man team. next match rinse and repeat. So not enough players playing between 1pm and 3Pm GMT0??

That's probably one of the worst possible time/group size combos, unless you're playing at 3AM.

[Cimarb]

Chronojam, on 04 October 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

At the very least, the information from here should be available somewhere more-public.

Helmer keeps track of them in his Developer Tracker.

Karl Berg, on 05 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

500 ms actually. Beyond that, for performance reasons, we don't keep any further rewind history for entities. So if you *do* have more than 500 ms of latency, you would end up having to lead the target by that additional amount. 500 ms is an enormous amount of latency however. I really hope no user, anywhere in the world, is playing with that much latency..

I am here in the central USA and can get that high of a ping if OBS is not cooperating with me. Think it was my graphics quality being up too high while streaming, but most definitely not very playable at that ping...

[Tekadept]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

That's probably one of the worst possible time/group size combos, unless you're playing at 3AM.

GMT+8 blows

[Dimento Graven]

So Karl, did the weapon/player handicap testing PGI was doing over this latest challenge pan out?

I only ask because as of 1:45am my time, or 11:45am pacific, my weapons started registering for full damage again, I no longer had as many registration issues, and instead of getting lucky to get above 200-300 damage range and a kill and a few assists, I'm killing 4 or more per match and getting 1000+ damage games.

My 'mechs no longer feel like they're made out of paper machete, shooting I no longer am required to fire 4 or more dual gauss rounds into an enemies dark red crit locations, once is enough now.

I have yet to have an enemy UAV survive a single dual gauss round, where as before I had to hit an enemy UAV with SIX gauss...

I can only assume there was some manipulation of the back end going on, experimenting with how player's damage is processed like if the Elo spread between target and shooter is above a certain range, the higher player would have his weapons weakened and if visa versa the weapons were buffed.

I can't think of anything else to reasonably explain the EXTREME difference...

Anyway I'm damn glad this challenge is over, and I hope to god PGI >>>>>>>>>>>>>NEVER<<<<<<<<<<<<< does another "solo" and "kills are worth most" based challenge again.

I have come so close to uninstalling this game so many times since Friday, it's ridiculous...

Anyway, the last hour it has been so nice to have my headshots actually count as headshots, be able to leg lights with a single blast of gauss and laser fire, have the game "feel" like it's working again...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 06 October 2014 - 11:46 PM.

[Cimarb]

Dimento Graven, on 06 October 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

So Karl, did the weapon/player handicap testing PGI was doing over this latest challenge pan out?

I only ask because as of 1:45am my time, or 11:45am pacific, my weapons started registering for full damage again, I no longer had as many registration issues, and instead of getting lucky to get above 200-300 damage range and a kill and a few assists, I'm killing 4 or more per match and getting 1000+ damage games.

My 'mechs no longer feel like they're made out of paper machete, shooting I no longer am required to fire 4 or more dual gauss rounds into an enemies dark red crit locations, once is enough now.

I have yet to have an enemy UAV survive a single dual gauss round, where as before I had to hit an enemy UAV with SIX gauss...

I can only assume there was some manipulation of the back end going on, experimenting with how player's damage is processed like if the Elo spread between target and shooter is above a certain range, the higher player would have his weapons weakened and if visa versa the weapons were buffed.

I can't think of anything else to reasonably explain the EXTREME difference...

I have to say that I noticed a difference on Sunday in my hit registration, but that may have just been luck being on my side (finally). I do know that this whole weekend has been filled with much higher pings overall. It is usually just a couple people over 100 ping across both teams, but this weekend I saw as many as 8 people on each team with mid-100s pings regularly, which is quite odd.

[Dimento Graven]

Cimarb, on 07 October 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

I have to say that I noticed a difference on Sunday in my hit registration, but that may have just been luck being on my side (finally). I do know that this whole weekend has been filled with much higher pings overall. It is usually just a couple people over 100 ping across both teams, but this weekend I saw as many as 8 people on each team with mid-100s pings regularly, which is quite odd.

Nah, for me the entire weekend sucked, including Sunday. It was only up until Monday early morning my time that the 'switch' was pulled and every thing went back to normal...

Yeah it was so bad I played WELL OVER 200 solo games over the period, but only had 10 'qualifying' rounds for the cbill bonus.

Not everyone experienced the same issue. I think one person in my unit had his 20 wins before the end of the day Friday, but for me it was like fighting with half my weapons tied behind my 'mech's back and with no 'mech pants on...

Seriously the difference was instantly noticeable, and night and day, I knew EXACTLY when things were back to normal with ONE game... The game prior: same ol' horrific crud I'd been experiencing, the next game -->BOOM<-- "hey something is very different"...

I took my Gausszilla out immediately after the noticing the 'switch' had been pulled and wasn't nearly instantly shredded by the enemy when I made contact with them, as had been the case EVERY time I brought it out since Friday.

I'll not be convinced something wasn't going on, the experience was just that extreme...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 07 October 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[Mawai]

Hi Karl,

Just curious, please don't take this the wrong way, but I was wondering how it was possible for the match score bug where all scores are reported as zeroes actually made it through testing and QA. It boggles my mind that something that obvious could be missed ...

[Mawai]

Statistics, statistics and more statistics

Dear Karl,

You have mentioned the collection of match telemetry information ... does this include game mode selection data for the past month?

I think using that data as a starting point for the discussions regarding voting for game mode would help with a lot of the angst going around. It is also probably the only way that you can get a handle on the preferences of the player base as a whole.

Just list the proportions of players in the last month who launched matches with the following game mode choices:

All
Conquest+Assault
Assault+skirmish
Skirmish+Conquest
Conquest
Assault
Skirmish

I am a bit surprised if this data wasn't collected and examined before the change but better late than never. Especially, since it appears that the change has had no significant affect on Elo spread in matches in the solo queue .. which completely undermines the stated justification for the change.

[Hoax415]

There is 0 chance that the vote change is staying in the solo queue and it looks like it'll be stripped from the group queue before people have a chance to settle down, quit crying and notice games have gotten a bit more even.

[Cimarb]

Mawai, on 07 October 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

Hi Karl,

Just curious, please don't take this the wrong way, but I was wondering how it was possible for the match score bug where all scores are reported as zeroes actually made it through testing and QA. It boggles my mind that something that obvious could be missed ...

Do not take this the wrong way, but you have obviously never done QA before. It was something that had to do with the reward display change, which has no direct connection to the end of match results. Not hard to miss when you are checking lots of other things, unfortunately.

For instance, I handle the websites for a large automotive group. I regularly get people contacting me saying, "there is a typo, how could you miss that?", or "this link is broke, how did that happen?" They do not realize that 24 websites have literally thousands of links and exponentially more words within the content. Seems glaringly obvious for the person on that page, but until you send me the link, the chance of finding a typo is quite low.

[Cimarb]

Mawai, on 08 October 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

Statistics, statistics and more statistics

Dear Karl,

You have mentioned the collection of match telemetry information ... does this include game mode selection data for the past month?

I think using that data as a starting point for the discussions regarding voting for game mode would help with a lot of the angst going around. It is also probably the only way that you can get a handle on the preferences of the player base as a whole.

Just list the proportions of players in the last month who launched matches with the following game mode choices:

All
Conquest+Assault
Assault+skirmish
Skirmish+Conquest
Conquest
Assault
Skirmish

I am a bit surprised if this data wasn't collected and examined before the change but better late than never. Especially, since it appears that the change has had no significant affect on Elo spread in matches in the solo queue .. which completely undermines the stated justification for the change.

Highly interested in this as well.

Also, the number of people that actually dropped a match in the first 30 seconds of loading in...think that as a comparison week-over-week would be pretty insightful. (Oh, and can we get a "get out of jail card" for TKing anyone that did that cowardly act?...jk...maybe...)

[Mawai]

Cimarb, on 08 October 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

Do not take this the wrong way, but you have obviously never done QA before. It was something that had to do with the reward display change, which has no direct connection to the end of match results. Not hard to miss when you are checking lots of other things, unfortunately.

For instance, I handle the websites for a large automotive group. I regularly get people contacting me saying, "there is a typo, how could you miss that?", or "this link is broke, how did that happen?" They do not realize that 24 websites have literally thousands of links and exponentially more words within the content. Seems glaringly obvious for the person on that page, but until you send me the link, the chance of finding a typo is quite low.

True ... but I would have though the end of match summary screen showing all zeroes would be quite noticeable ... on the other hand, maybe no one was looking at it as you suggest. If the changes made were not expected to affect that sub-system then QA/Testing may have not been looking there ... on the other hand, regression testing is usually a component of most test plans where they look for unexpected side effects to changes.

[TheCaptainJZ]

Maybe QA tended to quit matches before finishing them to look for the new messaging system.

[Cimarb]

TheCaptainJZ, on 08 October 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Maybe QA tended to quit matches before finishing them to look for the new messaging system.

Those cowards, FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN!!!

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Hi Karl,

I was wondering, currently we have four scores, one for each weight class tracking Elo, my question is could more scores be kept per player?

Such as the possibility of one Elo score per Mech Tonnage (should be 17 scores, like one for 20, 25, 30 and so on) or any possibility of having Elo tracked by chassis, or even by variant?

Thanks!

[Heffay]

Dear Mr Berg,

What is the average damage done (and standard deviation, if available) per arty and air strike used?

Also, what is the maximum damage done in any one arty or air strike?

Love,
Heffay

[wanderer]

Quote

Those two remaining components should be used for two more legs, if they ever introduce the quad mechs.

Quads simply replace "Left Arm" and "Right Arm" with "Front Left Leg" and "Front Right Leg".

(they do have better internal/max armor ratings than a biped- that is, they're truly legs, crit spaces included.)