24 replies to this topic

[Paul Inouye]

Hey folks,

As I was confirming numbers for the patch today with QA, we found a discrepancy in the weapon file. The current value in the patch being released today has the IS ER-Large Laser duration set to 1.5. It is supposed to be set to 1.25 to separate it more from the IS Large Laser.

To fix this we would have to kick off an entire new build which would push the patch out 4+hrs plus redistributing the patch to the content servers. Instead, we will be pushing the fix into the patch coming up on Sept. 9th (This up coming Tuesday).

Sorry for the mistake!

-Paul

[Deathlike]

That didn't quite shock me, as that was the only change that was notably different than the rest.

[Mcgral18]

You mean the Small Pulse laser nerf wasn't at typo?

Oh...okay.


Any reason the MPL has 150% heat?

Edited by Mcgral18, 05 September 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[Ryvucz]

You also made typos on all of the energy weapon heat increases.

[Ultimax]

I sent a tweet about this last week, is there someone in QA I can send tweets to when I catch things like this?

[LT. HARDCASE]

I'm wondering why you guys are no longer making threads for patch notes, sales, and challenges. Any reason?

[AztecD]

^^ too much work

[Heffay]

Kevjack, on 05 September 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

I'm wondering why you guys are no longer making threads for patch notes, sales, and challenges. Any reason?

http://mwomercs.com/...ch-notes-13322/

Err....

[stjobe]

I'm simply stunned that you have to rebuild the whole patch just to change a number in Weapons.xml.

Stunned.

[Shredhead]

stjobe, on 05 September 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

I'm simply stunned that you have to rebuild the whole patch just to change a number in Weapons.xml.

Stunned.

If it'd be so easy, you could be a programmer as well.

[Deathlike]

Shredhead, on 05 September 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

If it'd be so easy, you could be a programmer as well.

Ironically, XML is just a text file. The entire process on patch day for just that file is to delete the file within the appropriate structure, add the new/modified file into said structure, and then that's it.... that'll probably have to require increment the patch #... but that's actually the base minimum for every patch.

Really, it's not as hard as people think it is. You can do that with your own zip archives... it's easy to do and practical.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[Catho Sharn]

Now if only the patch notes weren't from 10 days ago.

[Rebas Kradd]

Paul Inouye, on 05 September 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Hey folks,

As I was confirming numbers for the patch today with QA, we found a discrepancy in the weapon file. The current value in the patch being released today has the IS ER-Large Laser duration set to 1.5. It is supposed to be set to 1.25 to separate it more from the IS Large Laser.

To fix this we would have to kick off an entire new build...

Paul, I think it might be valuable here to produce an informational piece on just why changing a single number in a text file requires an entirely new build. I'm asking honestly, because I believe you given the amount of bureaucracy and laborious documentation that comes with smart programming practices. But a lot of people aren't aware of your internal processes, and might welcome the insight.

[Mal]

Rebas Kradd, on 05 September 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Paul, I think it might be valuable here to produce an informational piece on just why changing a single number in a text file requires an entirely new build. I'm asking honestly, because I believe you given the amount of bureaucracy and laborious documentation that comes with smart programming practices. But a lot of people aren't aware of your internal processes, and might welcome the insight.

I'd assume at least part of the reason, is to allow time for adequate QA testing, to make sure nothing else inadvertently gets overwritten/changed when updating that data.

[Rebas Kradd]

Mal, on 05 September 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

I'd assume at least part of the reason, is to allow time for adequate QA testing, to make sure nothing else inadvertently gets overwritten/changed when updating that data.

It seems to be as simple as changing one number. I am honestly struggling to see how complicated this is.

[Impyrium]

stjobe, on 05 September 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

I'm simply stunned that you have to rebuild the whole patch just to change a number in Weapons.xml.

Stunned.

Not to change it, to distribute it back to the servers. There is a difference.

[LT. HARDCASE]

Heffay, on 05 September 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ch-notes-13322/

Err....

I'm talking about threads posted to the Announcements section, in which the community could interact during the event, such as this, this, or this.

See the difference?

Edited by Kevjack, 05 September 2014 - 05:11 PM.

[cSand]

Rebas Kradd, on 05 September 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

It seems to be as simple as changing one number. I am honestly struggling to see how complicated this is.

It's not a good idea to make changes live (even if you can with this)... I'd think that the servers would have to be restarted to read the new weapon values... so bringing down all the servers then patching them then bringing them back up probably takes some time. I know with some of the servers I work with even bringing one down properly can take a little time

I dunno if that's the case here but it's possible

Edited by cSand, 05 September 2014 - 05:36 PM.

[Carrie Harder]

I think the Tuesday patch value is still a typo. 1.25s beam duration on the IS ERLL is clearly a typo for 1.0s.

Edited by Carrie Harder, 05 September 2014 - 05:50 PM.

[hercules1981]

Carrie Harder, on 05 September 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

I think the Tuesday patch value is still a typo. 1.25s beam duration on the IS ERLL is clearly a typo for 1.0s.

And if it's not a typo for 1.0 seconds then I'll just stick with the regular large laser with tier 5 module. 500 m out to 1000 m really isn't that bad now that all the other clan lasers r being pulled in a little bit.