I personally dont mind the wait between patches..
problem is, what if there is a major problem with the last release? is it gonna be just sit and wait>? or should perhaps they try and address any tech problems that arise before adding more content on top of a flawed previous patch...
WHere im coming from with this is the large up tick in CTD this past patch brought..
There were nice performance gains, but evidently something isnt stable at all with the new code.
I never had ctd, maybe one in 300 matches... Now its several in a night... Many others report the same problem,, all across the pc spectrum.. SO.. its all good with no content every week.. but I would hope they would address tech problems like these as they arise... Otherwise.. its a bit of a bummer, and imo, not exactly smart.?.?
0
Bi Weekly Patches For Content Is Fine. What About Hotfixes Thought?
Started by mekabuser, Feb 10 2013 06:12 PM
6 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- The Hammer
- 47,187 posts
ForumWarrior
- Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:21 PM
um, they did a hotfix either on Friday. I believe it was focused on the CTD.
#3
-
-
- 875 posts
Member
- LocationOmaha,NE
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:21 PM
Um, they already do hot fixes. I think they did two just this last week.
#4
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,576 posts
Member
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:22 PM
I would imagine that if a new patch has introduced that kind of instability, it may take the programmers some time to find out what is causing it...
It's not like they can just flip the "No CTD" switch built into the side of the servers...
It's not like they can just flip the "No CTD" switch built into the side of the servers...
#5
-
-
- 1,287 posts
Member
- LocationNorfolk VA
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:24 PM
They've been pretty good about hotfixes, provided 3 things. First, that the problem is on a scale that a hotfix is indeed necessary; second, that they can trace the source; and third, that the fix is fairly simple.
For an example, I'll refer you to the LRM rollback with Artemis, where some apparent legacy code got implemented in the LRM pathing, and had the LRMs coming nearly straight down. Cover meant very little and Artemis generally == dead mech in a volley or two. This situation was truly bad, had an easily traced source, and the fix was fairly simple (basically they had to go in and rework the LRM pathing again and build a patch specifically to change that). Forget how long it took to implement, but it was fairly short compared to a two-week patch cycle.
Dunno about this particular one though, I haven't had any more instability problems than usual. Restarting my client every six to ten matches has become fairly standard for me. Shouldn't NEED to, but back when I'd usually get the 4FPS bug around that number of games it got to be a habit.
For an example, I'll refer you to the LRM rollback with Artemis, where some apparent legacy code got implemented in the LRM pathing, and had the LRMs coming nearly straight down. Cover meant very little and Artemis generally == dead mech in a volley or two. This situation was truly bad, had an easily traced source, and the fix was fairly simple (basically they had to go in and rework the LRM pathing again and build a patch specifically to change that). Forget how long it took to implement, but it was fairly short compared to a two-week patch cycle.
Dunno about this particular one though, I haven't had any more instability problems than usual. Restarting my client every six to ten matches has become fairly standard for me. Shouldn't NEED to, but back when I'd usually get the 4FPS bug around that number of games it got to be a habit.
#6
-
-
- Bad Company
- 1,271 posts
Member
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:26 PM
Vapor Trail, on 10 February 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:
They've been pretty good about hotfixes, provided 3 things. First, that the problem is on a scale that a hotfix is indeed necessary; second, that they can trace the source; and third, that the fix is fairly simple.
For an example, I'll refer you to the LRM rollback with Artemis, where some apparent legacy code got implemented in the LRM pathing, and had the LRMs coming nearly straight down. Cover meant very little and Artemis generally == dead mech in a volley or two. This situation was truly bad, had an easily traced source, and the fix was fairly simple (basically they had to go in and rework the LRM pathing again and build a patch specifically to change that). Forget how long it took to implement, but it was fairly short compared to a two-week patch cycle.
Dunno about this particular one though, I haven't had any more instability problems than usual. Restarting my client every six to ten matches has become fairly standard for me. Shouldn't NEED to, but back when I'd usually get the 4FPS bug around that number of games it got to be a habit.
For an example, I'll refer you to the LRM rollback with Artemis, where some apparent legacy code got implemented in the LRM pathing, and had the LRMs coming nearly straight down. Cover meant very little and Artemis generally == dead mech in a volley or two. This situation was truly bad, had an easily traced source, and the fix was fairly simple (basically they had to go in and rework the LRM pathing again and build a patch specifically to change that). Forget how long it took to implement, but it was fairly short compared to a two-week patch cycle.
Dunno about this particular one though, I haven't had any more instability problems than usual. Restarting my client every six to ten matches has become fairly standard for me. Shouldn't NEED to, but back when I'd usually get the 4FPS bug around that number of games it got to be a habit.
Ahh, that first night of Artemis was glorious.
I flashback to it now and then, trembling slightly...
#7
-
-
- 1,287 posts
Member
- LocationNorfolk VA
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:31 PM
Not having an LRM boat, I decided to take that night off of MWO. Two matches where I got instagibbed by metric donkeyloads of incoming LRMs was enough.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
