I don’t know about you guys but I’m starting to get worried about the direction that the DB development is going.
I like to see a new merc just as much as the next person, but the amount of bugs, exploits and technical issues that keep stacking is making me wonder if someone shouldn’t stop and think of doing more bug smashing updates rather than adding further content with it’s load of additional issues.
What is your point of view?
@Lumi It used to be that the only patches were primarily content ones. While I would like to see more bug squashing going on, I do like the fine tuning patches which have been a huge improvement over a complete lack of bugfixing that was seen previously.
1.New Objective/Stopwatch focused maps
Some sort of individually different free merc rotation so the merc balance isnt completely off in pubs (ie. 6 vassilis on one team)
Reroll, downgrade or just plain deletion of loadouts we dont want (this bothers me SO much. So much that I opened a ticket today to ask that 10 of my 13 cobalts be deleted cause I just cant stand looking at them anymore)
Bugs and Balance can be dealt with one go if there is effort being done on code and netcode optimization. I can tell if the server is seriously overwhelmed by repetitive data that is too big and passed back and forth needlessly. The delay in processing is so long, the client makes actions that are around 1200milliseconds after an event takes place. Things like hit detection registration, quick chat audio processing, map level synchronization can get fixed in one go. It’ll take a team effort to go through this task and sometimes, although it’s no longer my line of work, for the love of the game, I wondered if it would help if I volunteered to do something.
[quote=“VerticallyObese;87087”]1. Bugs
2. Balance
3. Content[/quote]
It’s really as simple as that, but many devs don’t seem to have the developer’s golden rules book…
Bug fixes are still a secondary thing, with “tuning” being the primary changes, even the name of the updates reflect that. I just wish that more developers would be like Unknown Worlds with Natural Selection 2. They would add some content on a Monday, fix bugs in the following day or two, balance up until the end of the week, sometimes even still after and then only when the game was stable, bug free and according to expectations they would start working on new content. And finally repeat.
Right now, it seems like SD is getting overwhelmed by the juggling between adding mercs and fixing the ever growing list of issues. Red-Eye issues, like revive not working in a smoke, were only fixed in last fine tuning update, which is a long way from it’s release. Phoenix has also some issues, which most likely won’t be fixed for a month at least.
Things like the security violation error haven’t been addressed yet, the broken doors in Underground and OMG the secondary objective mission and throwables not appearing are still bugged to hell. Let’s not forget the mouse wheel firing exploit and other exploits.
I could go on with the list of things that have made this game worse since the launch of open beta, but I guess I made my point already. The impression I get is that somehow SD thinks that getting new mercs out is a priority and if issues occur that they can be fixed at a later time, UNLESS it’s a game exploit that accelerates your progress of course.
I just can’t help but notice now in every single game something that should be fixed or addressed and that is ruining the DB experience that there used to be. I really don’t care anymore for additional content, but rather I’d want all the frustrating things to be polished away and then I’d gladly welcome a new merc.
[quote=“TndY;87253”]ikr
Who cares about gun-inspection?[/quote]
Don’t think one can really fault that being included as being a waste of development time, the animators and artists aren’t the bug fixers.
Until SD confirms the size of their team I would seriously doubt they have multiple of anyone at any role based on the speed of meaningful updates. (Adding in mercs every few weeks that have been made for months if not years doesn’t count as meaningful, sorry.)
[quote=“TndY;87253”]ikr
Who cares about gun-inspection?[/quote]
The only reason I care about this being added is that it gives me the hope they’re going to add a meaningful skinning system for guns at some point. …Realistically, we’ll probably just get more cobalts added which will be annoying.
[quote=“BallisticDrama;87595”][quote=“TndY;87253”]ikr
Who cares about gun-inspection?[/quote]
Don’t think one can really fault that being included as being a waste of development time, the animators and artists aren’t the bug fixers.[/quote]
It’s not just the bugs, basic core problems from alpha are still pending.
[quote=“TndY;87918”][quote=“BallisticDrama;87595”][quote=“TndY;87253”]ikr
Who cares about gun-inspection?[/quote]
Don’t think one can really fault that being included as being a waste of development time, the animators and artists aren’t the bug fixers.[/quote]
It’s not just the bugs, basic core problems from alpha are still pending.[/quote]
Like what? I didn’t play the Alpha, so I wouldn’t know.
Even if SD upped the size of their dev team, I highly doubt that it will survive Overwatch with it’s entire playerbase intact. If DB wants to compete in the FPS market with the upcoming shooters, SD need to muscle up.
Stopping the “anti-cheat” from kicking legitimate players, and the servers from losing connection as the match starts.
Essentially the most basic stability for any game.
More modes (I’m partial to CTF and control points), more maps, more ways to play those maps.
Private servers (owned and operated by private parties, such as clans) that don’t count towards XP but can run game mods including custom maps, Mercs, and modified Abilities. And privately run servers for the hell of it.
Simplification and optimization of the game code itself, especially netcode. When freaking Kerbal Space Program runs better on my computer than Dirty Bomb, that’s a pretty big clue to me SD need to up their optimization game.
All of the above are basic requirements to compete in the FPS market.
And spectators no longer taking up player slots! That’s a sore spot for me.
More modes (I’m partial to CTF and control points), more maps, more ways to play those maps.
Private servers (owned and operated by private parties, such as clans) that don’t count towards XP but can run game mods including custom maps, Mercs, and modified Abilities. And privately run servers for the hell of it.
Simplification and optimization of the game code itself, especially netcode. When freaking Kerbal Space Program runs better on my computer than Dirty Bomb, that’s a pretty big clue to me SD need to up their optimization game.
All of the above are basic requirements to compete in the FPS market.
And spectators no longer taking up player slots! That’s a sore spot for me.[/quote]
This.
Sadly, I fear that new game modes (except cs-player magnet) are not planned for short-time future. Which also makes me think, there’s some maps, even though they’d feel quite big, where ctf would probably work quite nicely without extensive rework, like chapel or even underground.
Optimization on netcode is also a big concern to me. As I already explained in the past, there might be some basic improvements, if they take the direction of limiting ping tolerances a narrowing anti-lag effects. But these are only assumptions we can’t even test because we don’t have access to server tweaking… And by the way, I’ve to see another UE3 game where performance is so heavily impacted by numbers of players on a server. I’m running a rig which has a massive cpu bottleneck (I’m running a 2009 i5 750…), and I lose pretty much 20-30 fps between a server filled with 10 players and one with 14…
[quote=“B. Montiel;88121”]
Optimization on netcode is also a big concern to me. As I already explained in the past, there might be some basic improvements, if they take the direction of limiting ping tolerances a narrowing anti-lag effects. But these are only assumptions we can’t even test because we don’t have access to server tweaking… And by the way, I’ve to see another UE3 game where performance is so heavily impacted by numbers of players on a server. I’m running a rig which has a massive cpu bottleneck (I’m running a 2009 i5 750…), and I lose pretty much 20-30 fps between a server filled with 10 players and one with 14…[/quote]
You should try a suicide pile before a game starts, it’ll bring any CPU to it’s knees. I run 120 FPS on a i7 with GTX980 and I end up with 14FPS during those massive piles…