77 replies to this topic

[Peiper]

NGNG #103: Summary of Bryan Ekman interview Part 1 aired 2/20/14

Original Podcast can be listened to here:
http://www.nogutsnog...hp?topic=1737.0

Disclaimer: I do not work for PGI or NGNG, and while I attempt to stay informed like the majority of you reading this, I may make mistakes in my interpretation (which is in parenthesis.) [Any words in brackets are my editorial notes, and not the words of PGI or NGNG and are signed. - Peiper] This is not a word for word transcript; it is a summary, paraphrased and the like for maximum information sharing with minimal reading. I transcribe this for the hearing impaired, or those who are reading this at work or whatever and can't put on a headset/broadcast the podcast. -Peiper

Duncan Fisher talks about why we love battlemechs so much.

4:30 Bryan 'truly loves' the Ember, and is glad to see lights are back in a fun way. The NGNG guys like it too. It's truly a love-fest over there at NGNG.

8:30 Any more changes to game modes before new game modes are introduced?
(short answer, no) PGI is watching. Assault and conquest are MORE PLAYED than skirmish right now. They are going to wait and see another week or so before they make any decisions based on their data. No data collated yet on what mechs weight-wise are preferred per match type.
9pm EST/6pm PST is often when the most competitive/organized people play this game

Phil coins a new word: Exspecially.

11:00 How have the queue buckets been affected by the new game mode? It slows down matchmaking because there are three game modes instead of too, but not too much, especially because many people like to drop on 'Any Mode.'

11:50 Will there be a toggle option for game modes (like drop in conquest and skirmish only)?
PGI is exploring that, but since they're so close to launch module, they're holding off working on it. Launch module is more important.

12:30 New game modes? All design team is working on the launch module, been working on it a month or two, then they're going to work on base-assault, which will be a community-warfare/planetary capture ONLY type game mode. [In private queues too? - Peiper]

UI 2.0 discussion

Initial thoughts? Are you happy? Yes, happy with what we achieved in 6 months, still early, still features missing, still bugs and optimizations but happy with the looks and overall reception from the community. Bryan still thinks they have to address their core audience, and in the next 60 days there will be some features that will address their concerns like smurphy and mech detail panes, things that were discussed/suggested from playtester feedback (test server feedback). All in all, very happy, bottleneck is now open, every patch they do is going to be new features, new content, whole studio excited now that the floodgates are open. [And now they know Microsoft extended their contract? LOL – Peiper]

18:00 Takes awhile to address feedback from test servers, which they have been working on through January and should be out in March. Bryan is super-happy, and super-excited.
Phil noted with the old UI, reloading the mechlab took many seconds, but now it's instantaneous. Social tab now takes forever if you have a massive friends list. [Phil had 1700 friends, and myself and my officers had several hundred. I had to remove at least 150 to get my social tab to function in a timely manner – just a heads up for those whose social tab takes forever to load. - Peiper]

19:45 Do you bring fresh/newb eyes into see the game during it's development to get neutral feedback as you create features? Yes, they do. The mandate for UI 2.0 was to create a mechlab for new users to understand every part of a mech and what they were doing. So yes, it takes many more clicks to trick out your mech, but every screen is contextual and you're only looking at one thing at a time. The problem for the 'expert' players is that they don't care about the mechs, they just want a spreadsheet and fill in the blanks, and that was always on their radar to be done after they had it set up to help the new users out first. (interpretation: Old users could adapt, new users don't have the tools/reference to know what they were doing to begin with with the old UI 1.5.)

21:00 How do you deal with having new and old players in designing mechlab? Well, they look at every screen individually and see if it serves a function for all users, but the old and new users will always be at odds over which version of the mechlab is better. They are designing screens specifically for the veteran player (mech overview/smurfy look) so that both new and old players will have the world that works best for them. (dual mode mechlab?)

22:20 It's not easy for the engineers to move parts of the mechlab around, it is Flash driven, UI 2.0 was dependent on rewriting the CryEngine in the first place. Bryan references this post: http://mwomercs.com/...history-lesson/ [PGI owns a version of the CryEngine, but did not elect to get support from the CryEngine company to help it evolve along with their work. Cheaper in the short run, but puts all the work on the engineers who both have to learn how to change/adapt the CryEngine AND progress MWO itself. -Peiper] Adapting and or changing mechlab is easier than it used to be, but still not easy. UI 2.0 has been built with the lowest (technical) common denominator in mind -1024 x 768 DPI screen resolution. That means 4:3 ratio screens, which means that all the stuff has to fit into a conventional/tube type monitor. However, they are working toward making the game have a second mode, which caters to wide-screen monitors, that would give more information on one screen. Bryan says that this is basically why there is so much unused space in the current mechlab for most players. [Perhaps why the font is so small too? - Peiper]
Daeron points out that website designers have the same hurdle.

Lessons from UI 2.0 moving forward?: The impact a live population has on the servers/game caused users to be kicked from the client, because SO MUCH information was being sent through the servers and it was overloading them on a per-client basis, so they had to shut off the dynamic pricing function for awhile until they can hot patch it. Always unanticipated stuff slips through, example: studio alarms and emails went off because SO many people were accessing their 'inventory' in the mechlab. They knew it would happen, but they didn't anticipate the scale by which it would. Advanced (video?) option problems were a Q & A process oversight (fixed last patch). Notes that PGI is only 60 people, not a big company like EA where their test department is a thousand people!

27:20 How big are the teams? Mech team (think he means MWO team) is 45-48. Live operations is 12 (Server team). Mech team is 12 (working on clan mechs), map team is 7.

28:00 More test server sessions in the future? Yes, many in the pipeline. (Phases include) Process tests happen in the studio, Stable tests happen online with mirror hardware. Stage tests happen last. [I think that's public test -Peiper]

29:55 Overall public test feeling? Some have lower turnouts [lack of advertizing? -Peiper] UI 2.0 tests had between 900 and 1500 testers which gives them a good baseline and metrics. PTS is here to stay, so they will be pushing any major features through the public test servers in the future. Setting up a PTS session takes about a week or so to put up, and the PTS is a mirror of what we have in the live servers, so it's a big expense. They have to weigh that expense against the data. All players like patches and to try out stuff before it comes out, but it's very costly to set those up and they aren't just for our preview entertainment. Even monitoring the stuff in the study for the 3 hour windows they've been using takes a lot of effort and work so they don't want to spend extra time in the servers if they can get the information they need more quickly than that. They also have to keep the live servers going on at the same time.

32:40 Cockpit glass is transparent Ferro-Fibrous armor, for the nerdy technobabblers out there. And info-moment from Phil and Dearon.

Part II should be out tomorrow (so, in a few hours of my transcription).

EDIT: I was mistaken regarding PGI's and Crytek's relationship, and 'struck through' my error. I was victim to an old rumor, one saying that PGI didn't work with Crytek, causing many developmental problems for them. Heffay asked me about it and in all my research, I couldn't find a reliable source. So, I asked Sean Cove, and he asked Matthew Craig to vindicate - or correct me - if needed. He corrected me in a post below, which I very much appreciate. I also edited the posts below to include an admission of falsehood, but left them up as an example of how a rumor can ripple out. In my case, I was victim to a rumor which changed my understanding of PGI and their practices, which then found it's way into an editorial comment I presented as fact. I don't mind apologizing for or admitting my mistakes, but I wouldn't have to if people were honest in the first place. Please don't spread rumors. They hurt good people.

Edited by Peiper, 21 February 2014 - 12:31 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

http://www.nogutsnog...t/podcasts.php-

[John MatriX82]

As usual thanks Peiper for the transcript

[Peiper]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 February 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

http://www.nogutsnog...t/podcasts.php-

9erRed, on 21 February 2014 - 02:11 AM, said:

Greetings all,

Blood Wolf, your link is broken.

Try this one:
http://www.nogutsnog...hp?topic=1737.0
or
http://www.nogutsnog...g13893#msg13893

9erRed

This link is at the top of my summary as I first typed it, why are you guys sharing it again? Am I missing something?

[Heffay]

Thanks for the breakdown, Pieper. Can you elaborate on this though:

Quote

[PGI owns a version of the CryEngine, but did not elect to get support from the CryEngine company to help it evolve along with their work. Cheaper in the short run, but puts all the work on the engineers who both have to learn how to change/adapt the CryEngine AND progress MWO itself. -Peiper]

[Peiper]

[PGI owns a version of the CryEngine, but did not elect to get support from the CryEngine company to help it evolve along with their work. Cheaper in the short run, but puts all the work on the engineers who both have to learn how to change/adapt the CryEngine AND progress MWO itself. -Peiper]

Heffay, on 21 February 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

Thanks for the breakdown, Pieper. Can you elaborate on this though:

The above, and following statements are based upon a falsehood; a rumor. I seek to help the community by typing up these summaries, and a rumor which I took as fact some time past made its way into my commentary. If Heffay didn't call me on it, EVERYONE who read my summary would have walked away with a falsehood in their mind about the game, and this could fuel further misunderstandings or cause undue grief in the future. The person who started the rumor made me a liar, and I don't appreciate that. I want to HELP, and you who created the rumor created a situation where I had to defend my integrity. I leave my words below to show how a simple rumor when presented as fact can color an entire understanding.

Okay, here we go. I don't have a source for this on hand, that is, I've heard what I'm about to repeat a few times and would like it if someone had a source to back me up to do so.

There are two ways a game company can develop a game with a game engine not produced by the same company. One is to partner with that company and develop the game along with ongoing direct support from that company. The coders from the game company work with coders from the game engine company to produce an evolving product. This also means that as the game engine is refined, the two companies can work together to update the game ALONG WITH the game engine. The second way is for the game company to buy the game engine, or the rights to use it, for a one time fee. The benefit to this cost savings as they don't have to pay to have support guys from that game engine company on call, and another is so they can tailor the game engine to fit directly with their needs without having to worry about the game engine being updated while they're trying to fix other things. The downside to this is that the game company then has no support from the game engine company and has to learn how to manipulate the engine on their own for their uses.

To compare: the Star Citizen guys have PARTNERED with CryTek to put out a game that evolves and is updated along side of one another. Chris Roberts has a coder/engineer assigned to him so that whenever they work on software, this guy can guide them along, repair code, etc... As CryTek brings out newer/better version of CryTek, they will ensure that Star Citizen is compatible with it. How can he do this? Well, he's rich! His supporters have pledged many more millions of dollars to support Star Citizen than we founders/MWO players have. From the mewling, sycophantic Star Citizen fanboys out there, they seem to think of him as the King Midas of gaming. All the pixels he manipulates turn to gold. IGP/PGI has not proven itself yet, and given their history, I expect that no one in PGI is rich. I suspect IGP/PGI is NOT rich. So, they took a gamble.

PGI BOUGHT the rights to use the CryEngine as it was when they started working on MWO. At that time, CryEngine had not been fully optimized for Dx11. It also had some major limitations that ended up bottlenecking MWO's development for quite some time. Not only that, but PGI didn't have CryTek engineers on call. They had to go into the Cryengine's code and alter the very heart of the game engine to allow for all the features they want for the game. This is also, from what I understand, the source of the reason why we lost and have not gotten collisions back in the game. Same with hit detection problems - which is what Host State Rewind is all about. The engine could not support the mechlab, social tab, store, and the game itself all at once how it is. This is why UI 2.0 had to be invented, to segregate all this stuff into compartments to allow mechlab to load quickly. The mechlab, future lobbies, community warfare maps/planetary updates, store, social tab are now all separate programs working together and checking with each other, where before they were one GIANT program. That's why patches and content took so damned long to be released before UI 2.0. If they made a change in the program, they had to rewrite TONS of code. Now, they just rewrite separate programs (flash programs) for all except the actual gameplay (Cryengine). At least, that's how I reckon it works from all the interviews I've listened to.

So, PGI OWNS the version of Cryengine they are using for the game, and that engine is not updated to keep up with the software as it would if they rented/leased and/or made a deal for consant support from CryTek. If they could pay the (probably very costly fees) to keep a CryTek engineer on retainer, things probably would have gone more smoothly for PGI. However, the engineers they have now probably have a very good understanding of how the CryEngine works, especially for this game, and as experts in their particular game-to-game engine relationship, coding new stuff for MWO should move along very smoothly from now on. If they brought in a CryTek engineer now to help, he probably would pull out his hair trying to figure out what in the world PGI did to his perfect CryEngine code. I'm not a programmer, but I would bet that going in and repairing code, cleaning up all the broken parts and artifacts, and adding the new code to a game that runs differently than what he's used to would be a daunting, costly, and very time consuming task. So, now, the only people that really understand the MWO-CryEngine relationship are PGI employees. The only long-range problem with that is that the game engine won't be updated over the years, and MWO will not keep up with the latest and greatest graphics and features that many future games will. I am not discouraged by this, as I played MW4 for a decade and I don't need the biggest, baddest, most perfect new thing on the market to keep me satisfied. I just need a game where my Devil Dogs and I can conquer Earth and rebuild the Star League, fulfilling Kerensky's dream of a peaceful human galaxy.

Many of the problems and struggles with the CryEngine are discussed here: http://mwomercs.com/...history-lesson/

The good news is: PGI's engineers probably know the CryEngine inside and out due to their having to rewrite so much of it to make MWO work. UI 2.0 is out, and the road is paved for many big, timely changes in the near future for MWO. Here's to optimism!

If someone else has a source that can prove my memory correct on the PGI/CryTek relationship I would appreciate it. I'd hate if all the stuff I wrote above is based upon heresay and that my sources or memory are faulty. Thank you.

Edited by Peiper, 21 February 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Heffay]

Peiper, on 21 February 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

To compare: the Star Citizen guys have PARTNERED with CryTek to put out a game that evolves and is updated along side of one another....

PGI BOUGHT the rights to use the CryEngine as it was when they started working on MWO. ...

If someone else has a source that can prove my memory correct on the PGI/CryTek relationship I would appreciate it. I'd hate if all the stuff I wrote above is based upon heresay and that my sources or memory are faulty. Thank you.

I know all about support contracts. Support contracts can be stupid expensive (our support contract for just a stupid monitoring tool is millions of dollars per year). I was asking what you basically said in the last part there. Where is the information that PGI doesn't have a support contract for Cryengine? It's rather difficult to believe that is the case, so something more than rumor (one that has been floated before) would be nice.

Edited by Heffay, 21 February 2014 - 07:20 AM.

[Peiper]

Heffay, on 21 February 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

I know all about support contracts. Support contracts can be stupid expensive (our support contract for just a stupid monitoring tool is millions of dollars per year). I was asking what you basically said in the last part there. Where is the information that PGI doesn't have a support contract for Cryengine? It's rather difficult to believe that is the case, so something more than rumor (one that has been floated before) would be nice.

The following has been confirmed as based on a rumor, after all.

If it IS a rumor, then I have fallen victim to it. I am digging around for an answer, but I may not find it. True or false, it might be information that PGI wouldn't release, and so impossible to verify. In this interview, Bryan says we may not get the full functionality of Dx11 because of bottlenecks within the CryEngine. This supports, albeit via conjecture, that they are not updating CryEngine along with MWO. If they were partnered with CryTek, I would presume they would evolve the two concurrently. It may be that in developing MWO, they've altered the CryEngine so much that it CAN'T evolve to embrace all of the Dx11 stuff available. Then again, maybe because they're building the game to run on the most ancient of machines that they can't evolve the CryEngine any further - as in, they've programmed themselves into a corner. If this is the case, no CryTek support contract will be able to help them.

Or maybe they have a support contract, but it only covers their older version of the CryEngine? Maybe, maybe, maybe. My guess is, if they've had to rewrite so much of the engine already, CryTek couldn't help them if PGI wanted them to. Not without going through really expensive, time consuming hoops as hypothesized above.

Edited by Peiper, 21 February 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[Heffay]

Peiper, on 21 February 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

If it IS a rumor, then I have fallen victim to it. I am digging around for an answer, but I may not find it.

I'm pretty sure it is a rumor, and a false one at that. One of the things that support contracts (depending on the type, yadda yadda) get you is upgrades to the latest version of their engines. And they did upgrade from 3.3 to 3.4 last year; if they didn't have a contract I doubt that upgrade would have happened. They would have had to completely relicense the game if so, and that isn't cheap. Especially if they are considering doing it again in the future.
Even with support contracts, that doesn't mean the company who made the software is responsible for fixing it. Especially if you're trying to do things outside of what it was designed to do. Hit detection (for fast moving mech-sized objects) and HSR aren't Cryengine abilities, so getting Crytek to "fix" something that doesn't exist wouldn't fall under a normal contract.

When we run into bugs with the software we use, the first order of business is to identify it as a bug, and not that we're a bunch of clueless noobs. *Then* we work with the software companies to get a fix in, and even with critical errors, it can take months. That is because the fix we need may break other components that other companies use, and that they may have coded around. Support contracts mainly mean there is someone on the phone you can yell at when things don't work right.

Edited by Heffay, 21 February 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[Matthew Craig]

Peiper, on 21 February 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

[PGI owns a version of the CryEngine, but did not elect to get support from the CryEngine company to help it evolve along with their work. Cheaper in the short run, but puts all the work on the engineers who both have to learn how to change/adapt the CryEngine AND progress MWO itself. -Peiper]

Not really we initially had CryTek engineers out on site for training purposes and we have ongoing support from them. The simple fact of life that alters our relationship with CryTek is the time zone difference from Germany to Vancouver. Often times it is faster for us to simply dig into the code than to wait for support ticket responses, this is something CryTek are working to address for their international partners with more global support offices.

When it comes to working closely along side them for certain systems this again is significantly hampered by the time difference so collaborating with their team is not as straight forward for us meaning that often the choice we make that may be different for some other team is to take ownership of systems ourselves and drive them forwards internally.

Also sometimes the reality is just that we're not on the same release schedule, CryTek determine their own release schedule and it doesn't always match up with what we want to do and our goals for MWO a good example is we knew 3.5 would have better DX11 support but didn't have a solid time frame (Soon^TM) on it so made the decision to go with 3.4 and fix up the DX11 support so that we can progress and get our users DX11 support (which is now entering final test for release on March 4th).

[Peiper]

Thank you very much for clearing this up, Matthew!

I have altered posts 1, 7 and 9 in this thread accordingly. I am glad you have corrected and clarified my misconception. I seek to help people understand, and having been a victim of rumors both now and in the past, I know the harm they can do. I feel my integrity has been kept, but a lot of effort went into helping to explain to Heffay a bunch of stuff that proved to be false, researching the forums to find the truth, and finally having to resort to contacting you to figure out the truth. I'm glad you were able to respond in a timely manner before too many people had read my summary. So, I sincerely thank you for your reply.

Edited by Peiper, 21 February 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Heffay]

Peiper, on 21 February 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Thank you very much for clearing this up, Matthew!

Can you edit your OP so that part is removed? No need to perpetuate that myth any longer.

[Corvus Antaka]

First off, thanks again for the summary Peiper.

Here's my comments & concerns:

No collisions/DFA mention. I'm worried it's pushed off another year, or maybe completely scrapped. This is an expected feature for myself and many others for years now, it's always been a huge part of the books & every previous game. I'm hopeful PGI will pull this together. Very dissappointed on this front right now. It's impactful to game balance too, especially the light swarms who will suffer greatly once it comes back, but are currently probably OP due to the lack of it, and underpowered due to the lack of DFA.

The resolution comments are confusing. in 2012 this article by techcrunch "According to Microsoft’s own statistics, only 1.2% of active Windows 7 users currently have screens with resolutions of less than 1024×768 and just under 5% still use 1024×768 screens."

Add to this the rig needed to run MWO is almost 100% likely to be able to exceed a 1024x768 resolution, this is cryengine ffs.

The article was also written 2 years ago. a long time with technology.

If indeed Bryans comments hold relevance I am failing to see them, and honestly to design for this resolution seems beyond bizarre.

The statement that the mechlab suits beginners is still confusing. the mech3 and mech4 mechlabs where like smurphy much more, esp mech4, and in all the years i played mech3/4 no one ever complained about the UI or mechlab, beginner or veteran.

So, 1) global population is so dumb they need a dumb UI as Bryan claims or 2) where are these beginners PGI is sampling because every newbie I talk to is like "omfg this mechlab burns my eyes"

I appreciate the effort. I have ongoing concerns on PGI's ability to deliver due to continued statements that seem in mis-alignment with certain facts.

Clarifying these statements would be helpful to furthering the clarity of vision & thought across this community. For myself, to many statements like "maps cost $250,000 to make" or "1024x768" is the core resolution seem heavily disconnected from the reality of the situation, and believablility, when other gaming companies are showing us much better results while faced with the same playerbases & challenges.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 21 February 2014 - 12:04 PM.

[Peiper]

Heffay, on 21 February 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Can you edit your OP so that part is removed? No need to perpetuate that myth any longer.

You didn't need to ask, but I did need a free minute to do so. I put in the quick thank you as a placeholder for a better one later!

I altered all three of my false statements to admit my error and added a plea to the community to stop spreading rumors.

[Heffay]

Peiper, on 21 February 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

You didn't need to ask, but I did need a free minute to do so. I put in the quick thank you as a placeholder for a better one later!

I altered all three of my false statements to admit my error and added a plea to the community to stop spreading rumors.

Thank you! Even though I don't always agree with your editorial points, I really appreciate the work you do to get this organized. It's a boon for the community, and you should be lauded for it.

... I hope lauded means what I think it does, and isn't a synonym for keelhauling...

[Peiper]

Heffay, on 21 February 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Thank you! Even though I don't always agree with your editorial points, I really appreciate the work you do to get this organized. It's a boon for the community, and you should be lauded for it.

... I hope lauded means what I think it does, and isn't a synonym for keelhauling...

You used the word correctly, as a praise. But who wants to be lauded, when they can be keelhauled. A person who lives through a good keelhauling has a REAL story to tell! (And a lot of skin grafts... /shudder)

[Infernus1986]

Matthew Craig, on 21 February 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

[/size]

Not really we initially had CryTek engineers out on site for training purposes and we have ongoing support from them. The simple fact of life that alters our relationship with CryTek is the time zone difference from Germany to Vancouver. Often times it is faster for us to simply dig into the code than to wait for support ticket responses, this is something CryTek are working to address for their international partners with more global support offices.

When it comes to working closely along side them for certain systems this again is significantly hampered by the time difference so collaborating with their team is not as straight forward for us meaning that often the choice we make that may be different for some other team is to take ownership of systems ourselves and drive them forwards internally.

Also sometimes the reality is just that we're not on the same release schedule, CryTek determine their own release schedule and it doesn't always match up with what we want to do and our goals for MWO a good example is we knew 3.5 would have better DX11 support but didn't have a solid time frame (Soon^TM) on it so made the decision to go with 3.4 and fix up the DX11 support so that we can progress and get our users DX11 support (which is now entering final test for release on March 4th).

"TIME ZONES" "DEEP ROOTED CRYENGINE ERRORS"
You guys are full of crap and you know it, stop lying to the people that keep your doors open.
I have asked other developers about this, these issues do not exist anywhere but at PGI.
There are no deep rooted cryengine errors only deep rooted developer ineptitude.

Instead of filling your reply's with nonsense why don't you tell use exactly what these issues are and your plans to remedy them.

Edited by Infernus1986, 21 February 2014 - 02:02 PM.

[Heffay]

Infernus1986, on 21 February 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

I have asked other developers about this

Nice work, detective! Ironclad proof! CASE SOLVED!

[Peiper]

Infernus1986, on 21 February 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

"TIME ZONES" "DEEP ROOTED CRYENGINE ERRORS"
You guys are full of crap and you know it, stop lying to the people that keep your doors open.
I have asked other developers about this, these issues do not exist anywhere but at PGI.
There are no deep rooted cryengine errors only deep rooted developer ineptitude.

Instead of filling your reply's with nonsense why don't you tell use exactly what these issues are and your plans to remedy them.

You know, the man was polite enough to take time out of his day to clear up a misconception on my part, when I'm sure his job description doesn't include having to hop on the forums to explain every little thing he does each day. If you'd like him to 'tell you exactly what these issues are and his plans to remedy them' you don't start out by insulting him and end it with a hostile meme. He simply explained that CryEngine updates don't run on the same calendar as MWO's development, and that some problems with the CryEngine take longer to work on that usual because Germany is on another continent, at least 6 hours different from the Pacific Coast. HOW could you possibly find fault with that statement? He's not telling us lines. What he's saying is perfectly reasonable.

Let me rework your final sentence, correcting spelling and punctuation errors along the way. "Instead of filling your replies with insults, why don't you tell us exactly what your issues are and which medication you plan to remedy them with?"

Next time, try a more civil, polite approach and you MIGHT get a civil, polite answer.

[Infernus1986]

Peiper, on 21 February 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

[/size]

You know, the man was polite enough to take time out of his day to clear up a misconception on my part, when I'm sure his job description doesn't include having to hop on the forums to explain every little thing he does each day. If you'd like him to 'tell you exactly what these issues are and his plans to remedy them' you don't start out by insulting him and end it with a hostile meme. He simply explained that CryEngine updates don't run on the same calendar as MWO's development, and that some problems with the CryEngine take longer to work on that usual because Germany is on another continent, at least 6 hours different from the Pacific Coast. HOW could you possibly find fault with that statement? He's not telling us lines. What he's saying is perfectly reasonable.

Let me rework your final sentence, correcting spelling and punctuation errors along the way. "Instead of filling your replies with insults, why don't you tell us exactly what your issues are and which medication you plan to remedy them with?"

Next time, try a more civil, polite approach and you MIGHT get a civil, polite answer.

Yea we tried civil, it went nowhere
There are no issues with the cryengine the issue is PGI does not know how to use it
The timezone thing is complete BS, a 6 hour time zone difference means exactly what ? last time I checked you can send and receive an email any time of the day.
So waiting for a day for a response from crytek means all work stops and nothing gets done ?

Heffay, on 21 February 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

Nice work, detective! Ironclad proof! CASE SOLVED!

I'm sorry that other developers are humble enough to admit they don't know how to make something work with the cryengine instead of saying that the cryengine is broken and hampering their development due to no fault of their own.