Well, there they are. SplitThey're right there in that huge roadmap a few posts up.
Well, there they are. SplitThey're right there in that huge roadmap a few posts up.
Well, there they are. Split
Yes, because the content that we've received for Siege thus far has been amazing. We've had one or two good operators and 2 good maps in 18 months. New content isn't what's kept this game alive.
If they really dropped the Polish operators from Season 2, I'll try to get a refund for the season pass on Xbox.
It'll be hilarious if they design a new Main Menu for "Operation: Health" like they have for other operations.
Going by the Q&A, they seem pretty confident in Operation Health. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Even slight improvements at the end of the day plus tick rate increases is huge if done decently. Put hit-reg improvements on top and it could be something great.
But I want to see a detailed patch list first. I'm honestly a bit split as to what I want Ubi to tackle more, the in-game stuff or the out of game stuff.
Going by the Q&A, they seem pretty confident in Operation Health. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Even slight improvements at the end of the day plus tick rate increases is huge if done decently. Put hit-reg improvements on top and it could be something great.
But I want to see a detailed patch list first. I'm honestly a bit split as to what I want Ubi to tackle more, the in-game stuff or the out of game stuff.
In game stuff is for sure more important to me. I can deal with wait times and dodgy matchmaking if there's a fully competent game underneath. The net code problems have made me resent the game more and more over the past few months.
In game stuff is for sure more important to me. I can deal with wait times and dodgy matchmaking if there's a fully competent game underneath. The net code problems have made me resent the game more and more over the past few months.
Yea, I'm thinking the same. I'd love if the tick rate and hit-reg improvements are real and well-implemented. Not getting killed by a dude who fires into a wall as he strafes would immediately remove half the tilt I experience.
If they can fix the netcode/hit-reg/tick-rate, then they will make me happy. That is a pretty big IF. I am tired at being at a disadvantage for having a very low ping.
But if they fix the game, what am I going to blame my round losses on?
Rainbow Six |OT2| They can take away our content but they'll never take away our bugs.
lol
I wonder if were still getting alpha packs for this or are they pushing that back too
It's times like these that I appreciate the Jeff Kaplan Dev Updates for Overwatch. It's a shame that in relation, Ubisoft is such a faceless company.
We've just gotta sort of hope, haha.
Wait I'm a bit confused? What country operators were we meant to be getting this month? Are they ones pushed to August? And we're getting 3 operators in another one of the reinforcements?
Wait I'm a bit confused? What country operators were we meant to be getting this month? Are they ones pushed to August? And we're getting 3 operators in another one of the reinforcements?
I don't really care about that tbh.if I bought year2 id be pissed by this delay lol
since i didnt im not too upset, more time to grind renown
It's so infuriating when people kick you simply because you are the last person to be alive.
Was in a match where I was playing Jaeger, the map was consulate, location was garage and game mode bomb. I obviously can't cover every fuckin area with my ADS so why not just fuckin camp near my ADS if you wanna camp in a room that is open for fuze to bomb?
They all die in less than a minute and kill no one, its 1 v 4 (the enemy team kills one of their own by mistake) and I'm alone, I take a guy out and the 2nd guy gets a peekers advantage and kills me. Game over in 2 minutes and I get kicked.
Wtf? Not my fault you guys can't survive or kill for shit !
Don't waste the time trying to fix a game that is broken in the code base and releases next year a sequel.
I like all maps. It really depends where the container/bomb/hostage is.
also kind of neat they are investing so much time and resources in a game that old with probably not that many players. at least on ps4 I keep seeing a lot of same names day in day out. or maybe they just play at the same time as me.
Don't waste the time trying to fix a game that is broken in the code base and releases next year a sequel.
add some new modes.
Xavier Marquis: For the first pillar we are going to remove any part of the core that's still using peer-to-peer systems.
We have reworked all the hitboxes for every character, meaning you don't have moments where you shoot some operators that have bigger helmets and it registers as a hit - now the hits are registering purely on the human silhouette and not the whole silhouette of the operator. The second aspect is purely on hit registration. Basically, we're switching to faster servers, which is obviously going to have a direct impact on hit registration. It's going to be better and more reliable. To be very precise, [our] server was running at a tickrate of 50, and we're switching to servers with a tickrate of 60.
How is the player base split across PC and other platforms?
AR: It is almost 25% on PC, and 75% on console.
We want to turn the game into something thats scaleable for the future, so that the game will continue to deliver for years. Its an investment for the long-term.
PC player base is a surprise. Figured it would be significantly larger than console.
Well, they're definitely committet. Don't see a sequel any time soon. But Im still shaking my head with how they're using the test servers
I believe one of the Ubisoft fiscal reports basically indicated that you should see a Siege sequel around FY19 at the earliest and they plan on supporting the game until that launches.
Is increasing the tick rate by 10 really going to help
A single update of a game simulation is known as a tick. The rate at which the simulation is run on a server is referred often to as the server's tickrate; this is essentially the server equivalent of a client's frame rate, absent any rendering system.[4] Tickrate is limited by the length of time it takes to run the simulation, and is often intentionally limited further to reduce instability introduced by a fluctuating tickrate, and to reduce CPU and data transmission costs. A lower tickrate increases latency in the synchronization of the game simulation between the server and clients.[5] Tickrate for games like first-person shooters can vary from 60 ticks per seconds for games like Quake or Counter-Strike: Global Offensive in competitive mode to 30 ticks per seconds for games like Battlefield 4 and Titanfall.[citation needed] A lower tickrate also naturally reduces the precision of the simulation,[4] which itself might cause problems if taken too far, or if the client and server simulations are running at significantly different rates.
Games may limit the number of times per second that updates are sent to a particular client, and/or are sent about particular objects in the game's world. Because of limitations in the amount of bandwidth available, and the CPU time that's taken by network communication, some games prioritize certain critical communication while limiting the frequency and priority of less important information.[4][6] As with the tickrate, this effectively increases the synchronization latency. Game engines may also reduce the precision of some values sent over the network to help with bandwidth use;[6] this lack of precision may in some instances be noticeable.
Various simulation synchronization errors between machines can also fall under the "netcode issues" blanket. These may include bugs which cause the simulation to proceed differently on one machine than on another, or which cause some things to not be communicated when the user perceives that they ought to be.[1] Traditionally, real-time strategy games have used lock-step peer-to-peer networking models where it is assumed the simulation will run exactly the same on all clients; if, however, one client falls out of step for any reason, the desynchronization may compound and be unrecoverable.
Is increasing the tick rate by 10 really going to help
I don't find the PC vs console numbers surprising. Is there a track record I don't know about of shooters that are on both PC and console that have more players on PC?
BF1 has 29,000 24-peak PC players vs 145,500 for console. I expect that's the norm when comparing PC player bases against combined consoles. Siege isn't a particularly good looking game that benefits from a super expensive PC. Why did anybody expect Siege to be different? Pro league support? The cheaper starter version?
Just read the interview on PCGamesN (never heard of it before) but there is some good detail there.
Good stuff for the most part, not sure how much of a difference we are going to see from a 50 tickrate server to a 60 but we'll see.
I thought that PC player base number was going to be higher as well.
They said they had 3 Million people at peak at the launch of Year 2 Season 1 across all platforms.
https://pcgamesn.com/rainbow-six-si...peration-health-alexandre-remy-xavier-marquis