134 replies to this topic

[Toong]

Navid A1, on 09 April 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

So... third party programs use magic portals instead of bandwidth????
Also that "MANY" people you mentioned are not even 20% of the player base (according to PGI)...

many of those games you mentioned have the option to disable voip... you can use your own third party program.
also... the majority of the player base for this game are above a certain age... i think.

Much faster?
Not only talking is a faster way... it can be very specific at times. Command system can be an advanced version of the current battlegrid.

I'm referring to PGI's bandwidth, not yours. PGI doesn't have to pay if you use Teamspeak. From a money standpoint, sending a signal to play an audio clip is cheaper than sending audio.

Also, you mention that it's possible to disable VOIP if people are abusing it... which only further validates me when I say VOIP is overrated. You're acknowledging that there's a precedent for the need to disable VOIP, which I think shows it as an unattractive option.

Also also, yes, much faster. Well, a little faster. The much just sounds better. Truly, it's probably roughly the same amount of time to say "Attack Gamma" as it is to flag Gamma for attack with a menu, and even if one is faster than the other, the difference is probably negligible. This isn't Starcraft, fractions of a second aren't vitally important in Mechwarrior. You are, of course, correct in saying that voice is more specific. I doubt I'll be able to say "Gamma has an exposed back" using the command menu. But if you need specificity, that's when you use a third party service! I'm not arguing that a command menu is absolutely better than VOIP. Rather, I'm arguing that the command menu makes more sense for an in-game option. Why spend more money supporting a feature that's underutilized and abusable, when you can spend less money on a feature that may or may not be underutilized, but can't be abused?

[Dimento Graven]

Toong, on 11 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

...

Truly, it's probably roughly the same amount of time to say "Attack Gamma" as it is to flag Gamma for attack with a menu, and even if one is faster than the other, the difference is probably negligible. This isn't Starcraft, fractions of a second aren't vitally important in Mechwarrior.

[redacted] Either you're a REALLY bad player or, your don't play that much.

First off, to "flag" something like "Attack Gamma", how do you propose to do this? I have to assume you're talking clicking on something to do it, or pressing a key.

So, if you have to stop aiming at your target, to let others know they should also be attacking your target, that's bad.

Fractions of a second not mattering?!?!!? I take it you don't use the gauss rifle, or streaks, or LRMs, or play from far enough away you have to lead your targets for the slower moving AC and (ER)PPC rounds?

When I can setup a PTT button like LEFT-SHIFT press it and say, "Target Alpha - Spider, E3 headed to F4", and all the while I can still steer, aim and fire uninterrupted, it's LIGHT YEARS beyond a 'command rose' or macro keys that utilize in-game chat (which by the way if you use that while trying to pilot, you're F'd).

No, VOIP is a FAR superior solution for live in game communication, which you yourself admit, but let's get full disclosure here, there's no getting "close to it" in an RTS with any other means, period. NOTHING ELSE works OTHER THAN VOIP.

Quote

...Rather, I'm arguing that the command menu makes more sense for an in-game option. Why spend more money supporting a feature that's underutilized and abusable, when you can spend less money on a feature that may or may not be underutilized, but can't be abused?

Because the lack of an integrated VOIP has caused the degradation of the pre-made community.

BEFORE this last [redacted] set of numbers from PGI, we were told MOST players were playing pre-made. Their excuse for not putting in a VOIP was BECAUSE most people were playing as teams and were ALREADY using VOIP, so why bother putting one in, when the people stubbornly playing solo were most likely not going to use a VOIP solution, integrated or not?

THEN THEY CONTINUED TO [redacted] THE PRE-MADE POPULATION WITH MORE NERFS TO GROUP SIZES, CRAPTASTIC MM, INABILITY TO SELECT MAPS (and this shouldn't be limited to private matches, at the least we should be able to choose maps to EXCLUDE), BROKEN IN-GAME CHAT, CONSTANT DISCOS AND GAME CRASHES, INCOMPLETE (at best) LANCE/COMPANY COMMAND FEATURES, and on, and on, and on...

Some how those [redacted] are "surprised" that people have stopped bothering to form pre-made teams and the gaming population plays most of the time as PUGs. What they fail to bother mentioning (or maybe even finding out) is how often the population EVER groups up. Is it that 86% of the population has NEVER played in a pre-made? I seriously doubt that.

However, if on my TS server I see 4 channels of my fellow RRB members filled with 4 people each. I'll be in the LFG channel until someone drops out, or until someone else logs in, so I'll be playing as a PUG.

Trust me, I truly prefer to play in a pre-made.

It's potentially 3 less [redacted] I have to suffer, and to the benefit of the whole team there's a possible 4 people that can coordinate intelligently.

Do I come across as angry? Good. I am angry but more so frustrated.

This game which is based on IP I have loved since my early teens, and has had such great predecessors, and had such great potential, is being mediocritized all in the name of catering to the lowest common denominator, the PUG.

This game is SO MUCH MORE FUN when played with people that can coordinate their play. If PGI intends to maintain this [redacted] 2-4, 12 grouping limitation they better damn well add VOIP. Otherwise, no VOIP, get rid of the [redacted] group limitation, so that players can gather together at any size 2-12 to play. AND, by the way, NO it's [redacted] to only allow that via private matches that don't reward players for GOOD SKILLED play, so don't even bother mentioning it.

Edited by Egomane, 14 April 2014 - 07:15 AM.
insults / language

[Toong]

Dimento Graven, on 11 April 2014 - 11:50 PM, said:

First off, to "flag" something like "Attack Gamma", how do you propose to do this? I have to assume you're talking clicking on something to do it, or pressing a key.

So, if you have to stop aiming at your target, to let others know they should also be attacking your target, that's bad.

Fractions of a second not mattering?!?!!? I take it you don't use the gauss rifle, or streaks, or LRMs, or play from far enough away you have to lead your targets for the slower moving AC and (ER)PPC rounds?

When I can setup a PTT button like LEFT-SHIFT press it and say, "Target Alpha - Spider, E3 headed to F4", and all the while I can still steer, aim and fire uninterrupted, it's LIGHT YEARS beyond a 'command rose' or macro keys that utilize in-game chat (which by the way if you use that while trying to pilot, you're F'd).

No, VOIP is a FAR superior solution for live in game communication, which you yourself admit, but let's get full disclosure here, there's no getting "close to it" in an RTS with any other means, period. NOTHING ELSE works OTHER THAN VOIP.

Because the lack of an integrated VOIP has caused the degradation of the pre-made community.

BEFORE this last [redacted] set of numbers from PGI, we were told MOST players were playing pre-made. Their excuse for not putting in a VOIP was BECAUSE most people were playing as teams and were ALREADY using VOIP, so why bother putting one in, when the people stubbornly playing solo were most likely not going to use a VOIP solution, integrated or not?

THEN THEY CONTINUED TO [redacted] THE PRE-MADE POPULATION WITH MORE NERFS TO GROUP SIZES, CRAPTASTIC MM, INABILITY TO SELECT MAPS (and this shouldn't be limited to private matches, at the least we should be able to choose maps to EXCLUDE), BROKEN IN-GAME CHAT, CONSTANT DISCOS AND GAME CRASHES, INCOMPLETE (at best) LANCE/COMPANY COMMAND FEATURES, and on, and on, and on...

Some how those [redacted] are "surprised" that people have stopped bothering to form pre-made teams and the gaming population plays most of the time as PUGs. What they fail to bother mentioning (or maybe even finding out) is how often the population EVER groups up. Is it that 86% of the population has NEVER played in a pre-made? I seriously doubt that.

However, if on my TS server I see 4 channels of my fellow RRB members filled with 4 people each. I'll be in the LFG channel until someone drops out, or until someone else logs in, so I'll be playing as a PUG.

Trust me, I truly prefer to play in a pre-made.

It's potentially 3 less [redacted] I have to suffer, and to the benefit of the whole team there's a possible 4 people that can coordinate intelligently.

Do I come across as angry? Good. I am angry but more so frustrated.

This game which is based on IP I have loved since my early teens, and has had such great predecessors, and had such great potential, is being mediocritized all in the name of catering to the lowest common denominator, the PUG.

This game is SO MUCH MORE FUN when played with people that can coordinate their play. If PGI intends to maintain this [redacted] 2-4, 12 grouping limitation they better damn well add VOIP. Otherwise, no VOIP, get rid of the [redacted] group limitation, so that players can gather together at any size 2-12 to play. AND, by the way, NO it's [redacted] to only allow that via private matches that don't reward players for GOOD SKILLED play, so don't even bother mentioning it.

There is absolutely no need for your toxic attitude. Insults? Really? You can disagree with me if you wish, but where do you get off acting as if you're superior? I don't care how wrong you think I am or how right you think you are, you should learn to be civil. Also no, I am not a terrible player, and I play regularly.

I would like to gently correct you by pointing out I didn't say reaction time was unimportant; rather, I said it was not "vitally important." Of course reaction time is important; this is a realtime game. What I meant was, its importance is diminished from a game like Starcraft. Mechwarrior Online is a pretty forgiving game when it comes to small mistakes. Games are won by positioning and group tactics, not an individual's split second reaction time. Having a shot come a half second earlier or later will, for the most part, not affect the outcome of the game. If you decide to reply to this please note that I am saying usually, not always.

Also, the second half to your post seems biased, and driven by personal grievances. How can it be said that lack of in-game VOIP has destroyed 12-man groups when virtually every 12-man uses third party VOIP? You yourself use VOIP without the in-game option. The 12-man community has VOIP, so I don't understand how you can honestly say the lack of it has destroyed the game mode. Much more likely culprits are the lower overall population of 12-mans, the current premade meta (which, from my understanding, no one finds terribly fun, or at least not as fun as the old brawling meta from way back when), or tonnage mismatches.

In any case, this discussion has become moot! In NGNG podcast #108, Russ Bullock said they're adding a command wheel and VOIP, so we're getting the best of both worlds! I'm excited that they decided to do both because I prefer being inclusive, although I'm not looking forward to angry children screaming at me on their $20 microphones.


One last note: You should seriously consider doing some deep introspection, dude. You are way too angry about this video game, and it's making you think you can "bullshit" this and "f-ing" that to anyone who doesn't agree with you. I have done nothing to wrong you yet you insult me as a "noob." You collectively call PGI "idiots... f-ing fools" because they changed group sizes. You know, before the 2-4 and 12 system, this game was only fun for big groups. I remember playing on both sides of the fence. Limiting group sizes didn't destroy the game, it saved it. If you can't see the good matchmaking has done for the game (And I am by no means saying matchmaking is perfect; it needs work), then that tells me you can only enjoy this game if you're mercilessly crushing others into the dirt. You're acting like a bully. Try to work on that.

Edited by Egomane, 14 April 2014 - 07:16 AM.
quote clean up

[Dimento Graven]

Toong, on 12 April 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

There is absolutely no need for your toxic attitude. Insults? Really?

Yes, really. You're trying to subvert the whole argument by dismissing the ability to communicate quickly and clearly as "not vital", your words.

That's insulting to those of us who know better.

Quote

You can disagree with me if you wish, but where do you get off acting as if you're superior? I don't care how wrong you think I am or how right you think you are, you should learn to be civil. Also no, I am not a terrible player, and I play regularly.

Screw being civil. PGI lost the right to have a civil discussion after multiple years of lies to the community and failure to produce promised product.

You want us to be civil, PGI better get on the ball and start actually producing, and stop intentionally misleading us.

And yes, given the actual discontinuity between your opinion and actual in game experience, I can comfortably say that I have a "superior" view point on the subject than you do.

Quote

I would like to gently correct you by pointing out I didn't say reaction time was unimportant; rather, I said it was not "vitally important." Of course reaction time is important; this is a realtime game. What I meant was, its importance is diminished from a game like Starcraft. Mechwarrior Online is a pretty forgiving game when it comes to small mistakes. Games are won by positioning and group tactics, not an individual's split second reaction time. Having a shot come a half second earlier or later will, for the most part, not affect the outcome of the game. If you decide to reply to this please note that I am saying usually, not always.

And if you believe that, then you and I are playing at different levels. I can't think of a single game, that was comprised mostly of random pugs, where being able to communicate instantly and without having to completely stop what I was doing wouldn't have made SIGNIFICANT difference. Those games where there was one or more pre-mades per side, well... There you go, VOIP solution, limited to individual groups, but you can see the EXTREME difference it makes in strategy and reaction.

It's not just ONE untimely/incomplete communication that loses the game, no. It's the cumulative affect of MANY late/incomplete/UN-VOICED communications that causes a battle to be lost.

Quote

Also, the second half to your post seems biased, and driven by personal grievances. How can it be said that lack of in-game VOIP has destroyed 12-man groups when virtually every 12-man uses third party VOIP?

You yourself use VOIP without the in-game option. The 12-man community has VOIP, so I don't understand how you can honestly say the lack of it has destroyed the game mode. Much more likely culprits are the lower overall population of 12-mans, the current premade meta (which, from my understanding, no one finds terribly fun, or at least not as fun as the old brawling meta from way back when), or tonnage mismatches.

Please point out the sentence where I indicate that 12-man groups have been destroyed. [redacted] I stated that the lack of integrated VOIP has degraded the PRE-MADE community. That comprises MOSTLY groups of 2-4 (and before the bullshit limitations, 2-8). However, the degradation of the PRE-MADE community has had its adverse affects on the 12 man competitive scene too, as a matter of fact.

I don't know how often YOU play in 12 man groups, but when I actually get to do so, at least half the drop attempts fail to find a match, and that's during North American PRIME TIME hours.

How can you easily build up a group of 12 when the largest group you can field in random pug matches is 4? How can maintain interest in doing 12 man groups if you can only drop 4 at a time while waiting for the rest of the 12 man to fill out?

It's damned difficult, let me tell you.

Quote

In any case, this discussion has become moot! In NGNG podcast #108, Russ Bullock said they're adding a command wheel and VOIP, so we're getting the best of both worlds! I'm excited that they decided to do both because I prefer being inclusive, although I'm not looking forward to angry children screaming at me on their $20 microphones.

We'll see, we've had loads of promises from Russ Bullock that as of yet, haven't materialized.

I'll believe it when I see it, and in the mean time, I'll continue to stress the importance of having it, until it arrives.

Being so afraid of children with mics, and listing it as a reason against including VOIP I find silly.

Quote

One last note: You should seriously consider doing some deep introspection, dude. You are way too angry about this video game, and it's making you think you can "[redacted]" this and "[redacted]" that to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

No, I use those terms when the arguments are "[redacted]" and "[redacted]". They are extremely useful as expressive terms and provide no mistranslation of the point of view they employed with.

Quote

I have done nothing to wrong you yet you insult me as a "noob"

Your reasoning was invalid, and absolutely contrary to ACTUAL game experience. Either you just don't know, or you're intentionally ignoring what you see in the game.

[redacted]

Quote

You know, before the 2-4 and 12 system, this game was only fun for big groups. I remember playing on both sides of the fence. Limiting group sizes didn't destroy the game, it saved it.

[redacted] Maximum group size at the time was 8, for both sides, that meant you and up to 7 of your friends could drop together. According to PGI at the time, MOST PEOPLE DROPPING WERE DROPPING IN GROUPS. If you stubbornly refused to find yourself a group, in a game that was intended to be a TEAM BASED COMMUNITY warfare sim, well, in PGI's own words, [redacted].

ALSO, according to PGI's own words, 9 out of 10 "PUG STOMPS" (that thing that probably made it un-fun for you) were being meted out by PUGS, >>>NOT PRE-MADES<<<.

So if PGI wasn't lying to us at the time, the need for smaller groups WAS NOT THERE. Yet, they changed it.

[redacted]

Quote

If you can't see the good matchmaking has done for the game (And I am by no means saying matchmaking is perfect; it needs work),...then that tells me you can only enjoy this game if you're mercilessly crushing others into the dirt. You're acting like a bully. Try to work on that.

As soon as you show me some actual "good" matchmaking, I may concede that point, but EVEN NOW, the match maker is MAJOR LEAGUE MALFED.

Drop after drop after drop, when I PUG, I'm stuck with multiple people who are obviously VERY new to this game, playing in mechs with (C) in the name, playing in 3rd person view, launching LRMS at 1000+ meter targets, and -180meter targets. Trying to fire PPCs at targets under 90 meters. Unable to launch gauss rounds, not pressing R to target what they're firing at. Shooting the team member in front of them as soon as the match starts.

Or, the other side of that alternative, getting a team with people who are vets of the game, but at the end of the match we find we were playing with either 600 ton deficit or advantage vs. the other team.

SINCE ITS INCEPTION, the match maker and ELO system HAS NOT WORKED.

Historically, PGI blamed it on a small gaming population.

Perhaps... I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of players are required to make it work, but, be that as it may, it REALLY hasn't worked at all well.

It's the absolute MINORITY of matches that you find both teams are matched in mech weight AND actual skill.

So... Again, your point is wrong.

You just need to re-read the previous statement on that.

[redacted]

Sometimes the truth hurts, brutally.

I admit, I'm blunt to the point of vulgarity, and after I make my statements you have NO EXCUSE for misunderstanding what I've said, [redacted]

Edited by Egomane, 14 April 2014 - 07:22 AM.
insults / language

[Navid A1]

Toong, on 11 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

...

Also also, yes, much faster. Well, a little faster. The much just sounds better. Truly, it's probably roughly the same amount of time to say "Attack Gamma" as it is to flag Gamma for attack with a menu, and even if one is faster than the other, the difference is probably negligible. This isn't Starcraft, fractions of a second aren't vitally important in Mechwarrior. You are, of course, correct in saying that voice is more specific. I doubt I'll be able to say "Gamma has an exposed back" using the command menu. But if you need specificity, that's when you use a third party service! I'm not arguing that a command menu is absolutely better than VOIP. Rather, I'm arguing that the command menu makes more sense for an in-game option. Why spend more money supporting a feature that's underutilized and abusable, when you can spend less money on a feature that may or may not be underutilized, but can't be abused?

hmm...
how about i see red smoke right behind a shadowhawk and want to inform him to clear the danger zone fast?
He'll be toast by the time i can tell him by any means other than talking (yelling).

[Dimento Graven]

Oh and BY THE WAY... I've listened to that NGNG where Paul discusses VOIP and the command wheel.

And the exact words used were: "...seriously considering...".

It wasn't "We ARE going to put them in."

When discussing his timeline it came down to something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here because I didn't take notes on this part like I did for the other, so I grant there may be a bit of an interpretation of what I remember here): If PGI does implement those features, it will occur most likely after CW. PGI is focusing most of its resources on getting the clans out, then after that, CW (now that PGI has, theoretically, finally figured out how they want to do it), then maybe VOIP/command wheel'. It's POSSIBLE, though very unlikely, they could slip it in earlier between Clans and CW, if they can decide on how they want to implement it.

The thing that was stupid about the whole conversation was that Paul was mostly talking on it such that IF VOIP was actually implemented they would probably only make it work for pre-made groups. Which is utterly [redacted]. The NGNG guys, while not calling Paul on his [redacted] perspective of that, AT LEAST made suggestions of having COMMAND and LANCE channels.

One of the NGNG guys almost sent the interview spinning off into non-sense when stating his desire for a mute function for silencing specific individuals (a function I totally agree with), though the way he discussed seemed like more of stealth attempt at torpedoing the whole idea, rather than encouraging it. It came across to me as, "If it doesn't have the ability to mute an individual, I don't want it."

I can understand his fear, and again, this is where I'd call PGI on some of their past [redacted], PGI has a history of half-implementation. They put something in the game that's not complete and ends up not functioning properly causing all sorts of disproportioned problems. The problems being something that should have been easily predicted and avoided.

Implementing Artemis/TAG/NARC before implementing ECM comes to mind as an early example.
Cockpit glass as another.

Anyway the ultimate point is, there's a lot of crap said by PGI that takes advantage of our optimism and good will. Things PGI says that sounds like they ARE actually going to do, that they never do.

A few things I've been waiting on:
1. Color options for the color blind, especially the most common colorblindness among the male players of the game, Red/green.
2. Film grain removal, either all of it, or a settings option for it.
3. Cockpit glass slider/removal option in settings.

These 3 things PGI has made statements that could be interpreted as, "We're going to do it", yet here we are, in some cases YEARS later, and they've never come to fruition, and when you go back to review it, you find that the statements are, "Yes, we're looking into it." Not an actual commitment to do anything, just "look into it", much like politicians and they're "looking into" campaign finance reform, or "pay for play" lobbyists.

Anyway, after YEARS of this it's hard not to be cynical and frustrated.

Edited by Egomane, 14 April 2014 - 07:26 AM.
insults / language

[Heffay]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

2. Film grain removal, either all of it, or a settings option for it.
3. Cockpit glass slider/removal option in settings.

I believe those are coming with the Launch module patch at the end of the month.

[Dimento Graven]

Heffay, on 14 April 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

I believe those are coming with the Launch module patch at the end of the month.

Can you link me a quote on that?

[Heffay]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Can you link me a quote on that?

Oh man... umm... check the Developer Tracker? Or the Twitter Tracker. They'll be archived there.

[Dimento Graven]

Heffay, on 14 April 2014 - 06:59 AM, said:

Oh man... umm... check the Developer Tracker? Or the Twitter Tracker. They'll be archived there.

I've been searching since you mentioned it. The twitter tracker forum post in MWO didn't have anything but I found the following tweet elsewhere:

Quote

Bryan Ekman ‏@bryanekman · Apr 5
For those wondering about cockpit glass. We're adding a CVar and then a menu option to toggle.

This is good news, however, we're missing a key element: When.

Found the following, again, it's lacking a "WHEN":

Quote

More options will be added to the options screen that will allow players to customize their experience without having to edit a user.cfg file (which is talked about here in Matt Craig's technical update http://mwomercs.com/...ruary-feedback/ ). An example of this is the ability to toggle cockpit glass on and off as well as other visual effects.

I call [redacted] on the referenced content on this thread btw. Some things that PGI actually stated weren't cheating were removed/restricted, but only because of its potential affect on the sales of cockpit items (I get it from their perspective, why buy cockpit items if you disable drawing of the cockpit? So don't allow them to disable the cockpit.), and they've yet to resolve the 10-15fps drag the cockpit has on your GPU, but anyway, that's a whole other thread in of itself.

I'll continue searching, and update this post for things I find.

Edited by Egomane, 14 April 2014 - 07:27 AM.
language

[Roadbeer]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Can you link me a quote on that?

http://mwomercs.com/...april-feedback/

It's the last bit under visuals

[Dimento Graven]

Roadbeer, on 14 April 2014 - 07:11 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...april-feedback/

It's the last bit under visuals

I appreciate your linking this, I'd just found it actually.

However, here's a perfect example of the frustrations we've been having to deal with:

Quote

A couple of items users have been requesting options to toggle for some time are getting added currently and should be available by April 29th namely Film Grain and Cockpit Glass. It was also recently brought to our attention that some major objects are fading out too aggressively in low detail settings we are investigating this and will keep you updated.

The interjection of the words "should be" provide ambiguity as to whether or not they will ACTUALLY happen.

If they had instead stated it as such:
"A couple of items users have been requesting options to toggle for some time are getting added currently will be available by April 29th namely Film Grain and Cockpit Glass."

I'd feel a little bit better (not much, they've got a longer history of missing promised dates than actually meeting them at this point, though it has been getting better recently).

But anyway, you can see the difference right?

I won't be holding my breath, either way...

And them stating they are going to investigate something really doesn't fill me with any confidence.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 April 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[Heffay]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

If they had instead stated it as such:
"A couple of items users have been requesting options to toggle for some time are getting added currently will be available by April 29th namely Film Grain and Cockpit Glass."

I'd feel a little bit better (not much, they've got a longer history of missing promised dates than actually meeting them at this point, though it has been getting better recently).

Are you kidding me? And if that patch had to get delayed for 2 weeks due to some other completely unrelated issue, what do you think would happen then??

[Egomane]

I cleaned up several posts for language not fit for this forum or insults.

Please remember to treat every other user, including the developers, with the same respect you want to be treated with and that language of the gutter is not part of any constructive discussion.

[Ngamok]

Sybreed, on 04 March 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

yes, VOIP plz.

Now, unleash the white knights so they come and tell us why we don't need VOIP in a team online multiplayer game.

Pretty sure no white knight will tell you it's not needed.

[Dimento Graven]

Heffay, on 14 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Are you kidding me? And if that patch had to get delayed for 2 weeks due to some other completely unrelated issue, what do you think would happen then??

And if there was a 'completely unrelated' portion of the code, nothing to do with this particular film grain/cockpit glass code update, why should it cause those items to be delayed?

There are those of us playing this game that work in software development, if their code promotion process is up to modern standards, they can remove the portions of the update that aren't yet ready.

However, IF, something is 'broken' with the cockpit glass/film grain removal code itself, then communicate that, and be specific and provide the next resolution date: "When testing we found that removing film grain caused visual defects that caused enemy targets to be invisible, we will have this fixed by the next patch date."

Historically, we've haven't been getting this sort of communication from PGI.

[Heffay]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

And if there was a 'completely unrelated' portion of the code, nothing to do with this particular film grain/cockpit glass code update, why should it cause those items to be delayed?

Because you have a process to releasing software, and if in the week or two ahead of the planned release you find a game crashing bug, you don't release it. Unless you think they should rip out portions of the code, recompile and release without testing....

There is nothing wrong with how they communicated this. You're being overly nitpicky by saying they should have said "will" instead of "should", especially since "should" is the proper qualifier to be used in this case. It's an anticipated date, and they handled this exactly right.

Edited by Heffay, 14 April 2014 - 07:42 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Heffay, on 14 April 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Because you have a process to releasing software, and if in the week or two ahead of the planned release you find a game crashing bug, you don't release it. Unless you think they should rip out portions of the code, recompile and release without testing....

I'm very familiar with the process in releasing code updates.

In the process employed by the group where I work, on simple updates, a full regression test is not required. Each change is segmented, and can be pulled individually prior to release.

As a matter of fact, we have 4 environments:

DEV
SIT
UAT
PROD

Changes are coded and tested in DEV, once approved by developers and the app manager, are packaged and promoted to SIT, where the testing team can validate them. Any particular issue that is found kicks that particular change back to DEV and if not corrected soon enough is slated for the next promotion cycle. After passing SIT it's moved to UAT to be tested and approved by actual users, and again if any particular issue is found it's kicked back to DEV, and if it can't be addressed by the scheduled release date, is held back to the next one. After it's approved in UAT, all remaining passing changes are promoted to PROD.

Full regression testing is reserved for major releases, and that's the only time one problem can delay the fixing of completely unrelated code.

Quote

There is nothing wrong with how they communicated this. You're being overly nitpicky by saying they should have said "will" instead of "should", especially since "should" is the proper qualifier to be used in this case. It's an anticipated date, and they handled this exactly right.

Your opinion.

I don't like the ambiguity of "should". That's not a commitment and in my experience most consumers don't appreciate that sort of ambiguity.

I know I certainly don't.

If you miss a date, and are upfront about it, why it happened and provide reasonable level of explanation, and also give another specific date for the fix, they're much more appreciative than being strung along, "Well we did say "should", we never made an actual firm commitment to you..."

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 April 2014 - 07:53 AM.

[Heffay]

Dimento Graven, on 14 April 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

I don't like the ambiguity of "should". That's not a commitment and in my experience most consumers don't appreciate that sort of ambiguity.

I know I certainly don't.

If you miss a date, and are upfront about it, why it happened and provide reasonable level of explanation, and also give another specific date for the fix, they're much more appreciative than being strung along, "Well we did say "should", we never made an actual firm commitment to you..."

So if they said "tentatively scheduled for end of April" instead of "should", you'd have been happy??

[Dimento Graven]

Heffay, on 14 April 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

So if they said "tentatively scheduled for end of April" instead of "should", you'd have been happy??

No.

Because in the world where I've made my career, at the point they publicized the existence of this fix and their 'expected' release date, it should have already been through DEV and SIT testing, at the very least.

At that point it gets to the UAT environment and the USERS determine if there's a problem with fix.

If they're announcing dates for fixes they haven't even "alpha'd" in their own development system, right there is a problem with communication.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 April 2014 - 08:06 AM.