Can you guys please actually say something constructive??

Comments

  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1362 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Dude, respectfully to the OP, if they don't know what the problems are by now, nothing "constructive" to say is going to do anything. So now it seems folks have gone the next route, as to air frustration. It seems what they're doing is trying to placate a few folks on social media, while at the same time looking at sales numbers and playercounts, and trying to juggle them both, losing touch with the millions who did buy the game.

    I think it's a good sign they're doing surveys, but they're doing them in the wrong places. Folks do not post on forums or reddit about their games. They just don't. So surveys have to be sent to our emails at home, for those who bought the game, or played past BF titles.

    They would likely find, folks do not want to play as the British, or lesser known battles, or hardcore mode ttk, or eliminating spotting, etc etc. But if they do what the players want, they're faced with the wrath of their main advertisers, the hardcore you tubers and other social media who are not the majority of gamers.

    What would placate all involved in at least one way, would be more content, but then again, if folks aren't buying it, or playing it, and EA having to continually have it at half price, EA may just slow it down, or downright pull the plug. So, there i go again being 'constructive" in my opinions. But will that do any good????
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    705 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dude, respectfully to the OP, if they don't know what the problems are by now, nothing "constructive" to say is going to do anything. So now it seems folks have gone the next route, as to air frustration. It seems what they're doing is trying to placate a few folks on social media, while at the same time looking at sales numbers and playercounts, and trying to juggle them both, losing touch with the millions who did buy the game.

    I think it's a good sign they're doing surveys, but they're doing them in the wrong places. Folks do not post on forums or reddit about their games. They just don't. So surveys have to be sent to our emails at home, for those who bought the game, or played past BF titles.

    They would likely find, folks do not want to play as the British, or lesser known battles, or hardcore mode ttk, or eliminating spotting, etc etc. But if they do what the players want, they're faced with the wrath of their main advertisers, the hardcore you tubers and other social media who are not the majority of gamers.

    What would placate all involved in at least one way, would be more content, but then again, if folks aren't buying it, or playing it, and EA having to continually have it at half price, EA may just slow it down, or downright pull the plug. So, there i go again being 'constructive" in my opinions. But will that do any good????

    Every new patch comes with more issues. And the issues continue come in obscure and obvious. In some cases, they feel like it's fixed because they might not see it in their testing. In that case, a "THE GAME IS BROKE REEEEE" response from the forums doesn't help or explain anything. It's just doing NOTHING to the community except proving that the forums are a laughing stock of bad ideas and 0 meaningful feedback.
  • Redstripe101
    2466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question
  • xBCxSEALxTEAMx6
    1362 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Dude, respectfully to the OP, if they don't know what the problems are by now, nothing "constructive" to say is going to do anything. So now it seems folks have gone the next route, as to air frustration. It seems what they're doing is trying to placate a few folks on social media, while at the same time looking at sales numbers and playercounts, and trying to juggle them both, losing touch with the millions who did buy the game.

    I think it's a good sign they're doing surveys, but they're doing them in the wrong places. Folks do not post on forums or reddit about their games. They just don't. So surveys have to be sent to our emails at home, for those who bought the game, or played past BF titles.

    They would likely find, folks do not want to play as the British, or lesser known battles, or hardcore mode ttk, or eliminating spotting, etc etc. But if they do what the players want, they're faced with the wrath of their main advertisers, the hardcore you tubers and other social media who are not the majority of gamers.

    What would placate all involved in at least one way, would be more content, but then again, if folks aren't buying it, or playing it, and EA having to continually have it at half price, EA may just slow it down, or downright pull the plug. So, there i go again being 'constructive" in my opinions. But will that do any good????

    Every new patch comes with more issues. And the issues continue come in obscure and obvious. In some cases, they feel like it's fixed because they might not see it in their testing. In that case, a "THE GAME IS BROKE REEEEE" response from the forums doesn't help or explain anything. It's just doing NOTHING to the community except proving that the forums are a laughing stock of bad ideas and 0 meaningful feedback.

    Well, quite frankly, it was not these forums that cheerled DICE into this failure. It was reddit and the you tubers that did. And perhaps, if the devs listened more to what we were saying here, much rather than there, they would likely be in much better shape. I haven't been here much in the past few days, but i do find these forums at least much more contructive than other outlets.

    Probably because it's much better moderated, and folks having to post on gamertags, rather than made up numerous accounts, or afraid a mob will vote them down or ridicule them. That is not at all constructive either, and quite frankly, destructive, if DICE is looking for needed views, that are not being heard by voted down folks, who in fact, may make up a very large portion of what the real gripes are.

    It's far from the fact there are things broken as well.

    It's that the game is just not good. And there's different reasons for that, and we've been thru it here, ad nauseum.

    So, my views are, to eliminate social media altogether from the picture, and just have DICE get their criticism much more constructively thru very in depth surveys, emailed at home where it matters.
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    705 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Dude, respectfully to the OP, if they don't know what the problems are by now, nothing "constructive" to say is going to do anything. So now it seems folks have gone the next route, as to air frustration. It seems what they're doing is trying to placate a few folks on social media, while at the same time looking at sales numbers and playercounts, and trying to juggle them both, losing touch with the millions who did buy the game.

    I think it's a good sign they're doing surveys, but they're doing them in the wrong places. Folks do not post on forums or reddit about their games. They just don't. So surveys have to be sent to our emails at home, for those who bought the game, or played past BF titles.

    They would likely find, folks do not want to play as the British, or lesser known battles, or hardcore mode ttk, or eliminating spotting, etc etc. But if they do what the players want, they're faced with the wrath of their main advertisers, the hardcore you tubers and other social media who are not the majority of gamers.

    What would placate all involved in at least one way, would be more content, but then again, if folks aren't buying it, or playing it, and EA having to continually have it at half price, EA may just slow it down, or downright pull the plug. So, there i go again being 'constructive" in my opinions. But will that do any good????

    Every new patch comes with more issues. And the issues continue come in obscure and obvious. In some cases, they feel like it's fixed because they might not see it in their testing. In that case, a "THE GAME IS BROKE REEEEE" response from the forums doesn't help or explain anything. It's just doing NOTHING to the community except proving that the forums are a laughing stock of bad ideas and 0 meaningful feedback.

    Well, quite frankly, it was not these forums that cheerled DICE into this failure. It was reddit and the you tubers that did. And perhaps, if the devs listened more to what we were saying here, much rather than there, they would likely be in much better shape. I haven't been here much in the past few days, but i do find these forums at least much more contructive than other outlets.

    Probably because it's much better moderated, and folks having to post on gamertags, rather than made up numerous accounts, or afraid a mob will vote them down or ridicule them. That is not at all constructive either, and quite frankly, destructive, if DICE is looking for needed views, that are not being heard by voted down folks, who in fact, may make up a very large portion of what the real gripes are.

    It's far from the fact there are things broken as well.

    It's that the game is just not good. And there's different reasons for that, and we've been thru it here, ad nauseum.

    So, my views are, to eliminate social media altogether from the picture, and just have DICE get their criticism much more constructively thru very in depth surveys, emailed at home where it matters.

    Your point is that they should listen to us. My point is that they largely have and it's now turning into a situation where there's nothing to listen to because feedback is becoming so generic that nothing can be discerned from it. "Do you still play Boringfield V" is a trending post still. Lots of posts identical to that one. Nothing to even have a discussion on, let alone specific "this is the problem" constructiveness the developers need in order to do... well... anything.
  • olavafar
    1847 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I agree with your post here. One problem is that when one do, mostly that thread gets quickly buried in the generic whining threads and drops off the main/first page.

    I remember when the ToW stuff had bugs and did not track. I made a post to try to help people work around it. Post was read by some 50 guys before 'falling off' first page. No feedback what so ever. Did the workaround work for console users, or did it in fact NOT work at all? Never got to know... Why did it fall of then... 10 thread clones with angry users about the ToW not tracking and how hard those assignment were (well people do not write 'hard' here so often. They prefer to use the words 'boring', 'stupid' or 'ridiculous' if it is something they cannot do...).
  • Hawxxeye
    4114 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly
  • DingoKillr
    3324 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Dude, respectfully to the OP, if they don't know what the problems are by now, nothing "constructive" to say is going to do anything. So now it seems folks have gone the next route, as to air frustration. It seems what they're doing is trying to placate a few folks on social media, while at the same time looking at sales numbers and playercounts, and trying to juggle them both, losing touch with the millions who did buy the game.

    I think it's a good sign they're doing surveys, but they're doing them in the wrong places. Folks do not post on forums or reddit about their games. They just don't. So surveys have to be sent to our emails at home, for those who bought the game, or played past BF titles.

    They would likely find, folks do not want to play as the British, or lesser known battles, or hardcore mode ttk, or eliminating spotting, etc etc. But if they do what the players want, they're faced with the wrath of their main advertisers, the hardcore you tubers and other social media who are not the majority of gamers.

    What would placate all involved in at least one way, would be more content, but then again, if folks aren't buying it, or playing it, and EA having to continually have it at half price, EA may just slow it down, or downright pull the plug. So, there i go again being 'constructive" in my opinions. But will that do any good????

    Every new patch comes with more issues. And the issues continue come in obscure and obvious. In some cases, they feel like it's fixed because they might not see it in their testing. In that case, a "THE GAME IS BROKE REEEEE" response from the forums doesn't help or explain anything. It's just doing NOTHING to the community except proving that the forums are a laughing stock of bad ideas and 0 meaningful feedback.

    Well, quite frankly, it was not these forums that cheerled DICE into this failure. It was reddit and the you tubers that did. And perhaps, if the devs listened more to what we were saying here, much rather than there, they would likely be in much better shape. I haven't been here much in the past few days, but i do find these forums at least much more contructive than other outlets.

    Probably because it's much better moderated, and folks having to post on gamertags, rather than made up numerous accounts, or afraid a mob will vote them down or ridicule them. That is not at all constructive either, and quite frankly, destructive, if DICE is looking for needed views, that are not being heard by voted down folks, who in fact, may make up a very large portion of what the real gripes are.

    It's far from the fact there are things broken as well.

    It's that the game is just not good. And there's different reasons for that, and we've been thru it here, ad nauseum.

    So, my views are, to eliminate social media altogether from the picture, and just have DICE get their criticism much more constructively thru very in depth surveys, emailed at home where it matters.

    Your point is that they should listen to us. My point is that they largely have and it's now turning into a situation where there's nothing to listen to because feedback is becoming so generic that nothing can be discerned from it. "Do you still play Boringfield V" is a trending post still. Lots of posts identical to that one. Nothing to even have a discussion on, let alone specific "this is the problem" constructiveness the developers need in order to do... well... anything.

    No, his point was not listen to us, it was get a wider opinion then what they get currently. A good example is the elite or pickups. I saw posts that liked pickups and how new powerful content could be added without everyone running.
    Did the elites have problems, yes but a small group said it was unfair and they did not like. So they are gone.

    It is the yappers that DICE listened to as they supposedly been picked to represent the community. I admit I may be the minority on some topics, even solo at times. But that is where the bias is they where picked not the community listen too.

    I have no issue with attempts to write constructive criticism, but when things get reverted in days like the TTK by false information and memes the wider community takes that as sign of how to provide feedback. Whine loud and maybe the whinging will be heard.
  • MidriffUrchin0
    82 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Don't be surprised none of the complaints are new, unique or will ever change.

    Just go and look back at the forums of battlefield 3 at launch, within the first two or so pages are about 3 different posts asking how they can get a refund for the garbage broken game.

    Here we are nearly a decade later same old nonsense.
  • TropicPoison
    2168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.
  • Hawxxeye
    4114 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.

    Same here, due to that trauma I have the upgrade for the extra speed
  • TropicPoison
    2168 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.

    Same here, due to that trauma I have the upgrade for the extra speed

    Same here as well, I was like speed up damn it with everyone else retreating flying past me like the flash pretty much, it doesn't help that I would have made it if I had only had 2 more seconds.

    It's like DICE has noone at all to test vehicles out in a MP environment, or even any weapon for that matter.

    I feel this game should have been at least in development for 6 more months to a year.
  • Redstripe101
    2466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/181573/archer-tank-repair#latest

    400+ views, 13 replies

    I was the first to report it here, same day it came with the last update. The only official response, was on the EA forum where they stated they would ask developers if its working as intended. Now here we are a patch later .....

    but OP thinks if you complain then its all you do lol
  • aRrAyStArTaT0
    705 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/181573/archer-tank-repair#latest

    400+ views, 13 replies

    I was the first to report it here, same day it came with the last update. The only official response, was on the EA forum where they stated they would ask developers if its working as intended. Now here we are a patch later .....

    but OP thinks if you complain then its all you do lol

    Dude stop thinking stuff lol. I don't think that lmao. Again, I'm gonna repeat myself. If you complain, complain constructively. But if all you do is "REEE BORINGFIELD REEE" then you shouldn't be here as you're not helping.
    .
    Now, I'm not gonna repeat myself for the Nth time. Stop saying that I think things and that I believe things that I've objectively said I don't MULTIPLE times.
  • Trokey66
    7582 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 6
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/181573/archer-tank-repair#latest

    400+ views, 13 replies

    I was the first to report it here, same day it came with the last update. The only official response, was on the EA forum where they stated they would ask developers if its working as intended. Now here we are a patch later .....

    but OP thinks if you complain then its all you do lol

    Had a quick scan through the 'Bug Reports' section and can't seem to find your thread on it?

    https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/bd-p/battlefield-v-bug-reports-en

    In fact, it appears that no one has mentioned it there......
  • Redstripe101
    2466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Hard to say anything constructive when the game is buggy / broken (no damage glitches, falling through map, bouncing tanks) and obviously less content than previous games. Even half the weapons in the game currently are just copy-pasted from BF1.

    Even that is more constructive than lots of the posts I've seen recently. You gave exactly what wasn't fun about the game for you.

    However, I would like to provide a little insight, from a software developer's (and game development) standpoint.
    .
    It's very difficult to find out all of the test cases about why specific bugs happen. Why are you getting no damage or super bullets? Could the client not be sending information? Could the server not be receiving it? Is the User's network stealing packages? What about the server being down? Bandwidth being an issue on the server could also impact that. If X number of bullets hit at the exact same millisecond/packets, it might take another packet to reach the server to process the new damage values. In this example, lets say a packet is sent and recieved once every 10ms (to keep it simple). That packet contains your stats (health, ammo, gun, whether or not you have medpack, position, aim direction, whether or not you're moving, firing, etc), your position of bullets you fired, the enemy position of bullets fired, the enemy's same statistics, and probably a lot more information for redundancy and security. If that one packet gets lost, all of that information just disappears. The server sees there's a loss of packets and requests another. 10 more ms comes by and another packet is sent with repeated information. This happens for every player on every map at all times. Even Amazon (AWS is hosting DICE servers) has a bandwidth limit on their servers. Granted it is quite high but but it has a limit. Now if the differential values are high enough for the entire player count on a specific server, the server might be forced to reject packages (there's other reasons why this might happen but this is for simplicity sake). Once a package is verified, the client sees the information after it's processed. This results in super bullets or no damage being done depending on the circumstance.
    .
    Falling through the map is a bit more complex. Game engines run on things called "prefab" now a days. Unity, Unreal, even Monolith engine uses Prefabs. Prefabs are effectively like blueprints. Classes if you're into programming. These prefabs include all the information necessary for the object to do it's job. In this case, it's a physical object. Whether it's the ground, a bush, a tree, they all do the same thing. Now, what can happen is that sometimes, specifically curved edges, can be made of multiple prefabs and objects. These objects may not be perfectly aligned (see how you can move OVER rocks on Hamada while still being on the "ground") resulting in some cases where you can fall through the map. A game like BFV is made up mostly of curved edges. Curved edges also have a harder time processing as there's more objects, more collision boxes, etc. The networking also might lose a packet as well, resulting in the client still being able to move and another packet getting sent out. In the event of falling through the floor, the packet information is sent while the new packet isn't received. This results in some instances where you are going through walls and floors and objects entirely. Some games have preventive measures for this (see subnautica) where you just go back to a set position above where you fell. Other games don't.
    In addition, I'm suspecting that the developers put solid boxes around certain objects (bushes, rocks, things you can climb over) in order to decrease processing power. While you see a foliated bush, the server sees a box. That's why bullets can't go through them and you can go through them until you have to climb over them.
    .
    Bouncing tanks have sort of the same issue. When the world detects the position of the tank to be half below or half above, the game pushes them up. This is basic collision stuff at work. But I suspect something else is going on to where the packet gets lost or some other issue that the "push away" gets calculated for too long, resulting in a 3-20x calculation for something that should be easily done once.

    nobody needs your insight, complaints go up, not down and your "experience" is mute. they dont even test their patches on live versions of the game, and most issues are "trying to reproduce in-house" lip service. They cant even get CC right and they wanted to monetize it into a live service model lol. Your experience is void and you are merely just another poster on the forums. Go to reddit or twitter if you want engagement.

    Man you are just angry. You're literally complaining about me explaining why something like that would happen.
    .
    Let me ask you. Why are you still here? Are you here just to troll? To see where this thread goes? To try and derail it as much as possible? To make me out to be the entire reason that video games are in the state they're in?
    .
    You're doing nothing but attacking me as a person now. You're not even focusing on the issue that is nonconstructive comments (notice how I said "non constructive" and not "positive/negative").
    .
    You have no proof that they don't test their patches. You have 0 proof that. You have 0 proof of ANYTHING you're saying. Including the "insults" (if we can call them that) at me and other forum users. At this point, everything you've said is negative and off topic. If that's all you're going to do, please leave the thread. If you want to have an on topic constructive CONVERSATION about the issue I am bringing forth, then please stay. Otherwise, I won't engage with you further.

    They have stated in their own feedback posts that its not tested on live versions. hence why they need/ask for people to post their issues as they cannot reproduce them in-house. Go read the patch update threads from current to launch. Its stated multiple times

    It's not tested on live versions = we have our versions that deviate from live versions because they're not live.
    .
    Would you like them to rush it out on live versions without in-house testing? Because that's how you ruin a game.

    Rush out what? company coin has been an issue since beta, and they are still dealing with it in the latest patch. Black screens, balancing, anti cheat for PC, netcode, TTK, and etc.

    So they didnt rush out the MAA fix that made airplanes sky coffins? Surely they tested that thoroughly since they didnt conpensate for the 4 barrels and 2 seperate files in the coding department that implemented a sweeping values increase across all AA platforms, so the end result was an OP MAA that wasnt not working as intended. How long do you think they tested that before it was released and players just had to deal with it until the next one? It took usually the first enemy airplane to realize the MAA was completely broken. What did they test it on? lmao

    I'm sorry. Were you saying something? All I'm hearing is the exact same thing you've been saying all thread. "DICE bad. Me good."
    .
    Please. Atleast attempt to understand what is going on here. The live version is what we are playing on. The development version is what is actively having things tested on as well as new things implemented. It's not hard to understand why the live version =/= the development version. It seems like you're just trying to make a case out of thin air.
    you seem lost, you claimed they test stuff instead of rushing it out. If so, how much did they test the previous MAA update that made it a god gun? 1 plane? 2 planes? red planes? blue planes?

    its a basic question

    or the fact that the valentine archer tank cannot have its disabled engine fixed?
    All it takes is a round of playtesting where the tank operator gets enough damage to get disabled and survive to attempt to repair.
    If we had a CTE any demi decent tanker would had spotted this instantly

    I was wondering why it wouldn't fix after repeatedly trying to repair, it even caused me to get killed once the enemy took the sector, time ran out lol.

    https://forums.battlefield.com/en-us/discussion/181573/archer-tank-repair#latest

    400+ views, 13 replies

    I was the first to report it here, same day it came with the last update. The only official response, was on the EA forum where they stated they would ask developers if its working as intended. Now here we are a patch later .....

    but OP thinks if you complain then its all you do lol

    Had a quick scan through the 'Bug Reports' section and can't seem to find your thread on it?

    https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/bd-p/battlefield-v-bug-reports-en

    In fact, it appears that no one has mentioned it there......


    yea that is strange since an EA_Blueberry responded to it, in which I relayed that info to the post I made after the fact ..... really odd i guess. maybe try harder?

    https://answers.ea.com/t5/Bug-Reports/Archer-Tank-Can-t-Repair-Disabled-State/m-p/7543027/highlight/true#M11525
  • Redstripe101
    2466 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Thanks for allowing me to clear that up and waste your time trying to prove me wrong i guess? why would I make it up? lol

  • Trokey66
    7582 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Well there you go, I stand corrected.

    It's good to see they've acknowledged it though......

    "Received word that the Archer tank should be able to repair in a disabled state and it's being looked into. Thank you for the Intel!"

    But that's not good enough for you is it, perhaps the OP is right......
  • mrtwotimes
    588 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It becomes rather moot when the same point of dislike or complaint re-occurs over and over yet people can't simply move on.
  • disposalist
    8280 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    mrtwotimes wrote: »
    It becomes rather moot when the same point of dislike or complaint re-occurs over and over yet people can't simply move on.
    No it's not moot. Knowing the level of dislike is useful in addition to knowing what is disliked. It helps prioritise (or it should, though DICE appear to ignore a LOT of VERY unpopular bugs and features).
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!