Jump to content

Ironingboard2000

Member
  • Content Count

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About Ironingboard2000

  • Rank
    Potato Aim

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ironingboard2000

    Why does it matter if I'm Grandmaster?

    I think it's clear that the ranking system needs to be revised. I am not overly concerned that this first iteration needs revision, especially as it appears that considerable revisions were made to the back-end ELO calculation. What is surprising to me, however, is the length of time it has taken to re-revise the ELO system. I acknowledge that it probably takes some time to generate a new data set to review, but I would have thought that it could at least be tweaked by now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
  2. Okay, now I'm confused: don't above contradict? On the one side, dev's upvote your post explaining server-side detection. On the other, the devs state via Fix PUBG that a hit registers if it's deemed successful from the attacker's side. The only way I see these two statements co-exist is if the explanation on the Fix PUBG site is incorrect as it omits the server-side verification?
  3. I thought I saw a thread by @Rev0verDrive that asked for a confirmation on whether this is the case. I wonder if that got a response (genuinely curious).
  4. Perhaps if the minimum required player count was lowered?
  5. So, to those that have an understanding of UE and development in general, how credible is the following belief: that the fundamental code of PUBG is likely so far gone (given that the initial build was more of a "alpha" proof-of-concept constructed largely via existing assets) that refactoring/code fixing will not help, and that the best solution would be to start over and release a PUBG 2? Is it possible to code something so that it is irreparable? Is it likely that building a new PUBG 2 is the "best" solution: from the perspective of achieving an optimal gameplay experience (and not necessarily from the perspective of ROI for PUBG Corp. - which I acknowledge is probably the driving factor) How long would it take to remake PUBG from the ground up?
  6. Ironingboard2000

    Event Mode: Public Beta - Flare Gun Stage 2

    Hang on, are you saying that there's a potential fix for the matchmaking woes in this public beta test? I didn't see any mention in the notes, unless I missed it.
  7. Ironingboard2000

    Event Mode: Public Beta - Flare Gun Stage 2

    I get that different development teams do different things, but I would have thought it better to hold on testing the new flare gun mechanic until after that the current global matchmaking/high ping issues are resolved. Player counts are down, and the increased instances of desync due to current matchmaking could negatively impact the beta test of the feature. Just my opinion.
  8. I get that different development teams do different things, but I would have thought it better to hold on testing the new flare gun mechanic until after that the current global matchmaking/high ping issues are resolved. Player counts are down, and the increased instances of desync due to current matchmaking could negatively impact the beta test of the feature. Just my opinion.
  9. Ironingboard2000

    Allow Sessions to Start with a Lower Player Count

    Exactly my point. Thanks for clarifying! I have been in sessions with sub-100 player count too, but only after long periods of queuing. Seems to be more of the (rare) exception than the rule. My proposal was more along the lines of lowering the requirement so that the count down will being as per usual, but at a lower player count. Again, even if the count down starts at 50 players, this still provides and additional minute to locate additional players that have reasonable ping (if any are available). As you state, "uncompromising vision" can be great (and has been in PUBG), but perhaps vision should begin to shape to the reality of player-base, geo-location, and available tech. It's not a failure, but a refinement of vision in response to lessons learned as the game matures. So, essentially, allow the staring circle phase to be dynamic according to the number of players joining. I think this is a good idea. Perhaps if the server can secure 80-100 players (or any other range that is found to be acceptable) the circles begin as usual. If it's less, then perhaps the first circle forms as per usual, but the subsequent transitions are faster to bring folks together. Something. The player-base can try out ideas, but the underlying request is the same: allow for regular sessions with lower player counts.
  10. PUBG Corp. appears to be wed to the concept of 100 player count sessions. In theory that sounds great; however, perhaps the issues of desync/high ping ultimately signal that 100 player count sessions may be unsustainable (for a number of reasons: player-base count, geography, game engine constraints, etc.). Perhaps if a session's count-down was allowed to begin with fewer than 100 players. For example, 70. If more players (with reasonable pings) are present then allow them to continue to join, pushing the count closer to 100. If not, begin the game with 70 players. Perhaps at peak times 100 players will be possible, maybe not. Either way, my preference is for stable/smooth/enjoyable game play, not necessarily 100 player count sessions.
  11. Is this true? At what point does ping begin to negatively impact game play. I know there's no bright line, but 100-150ms is pretty large. @Rev0verDrive
  12. Ironingboard2000

    New Ranking system

    While the visual ranks (bronze, gold, platinum, etc.) do appear to be layered over the older ELO system, it seems that the ELO system itself may have been tweaked. This was not mentioned in the patch notes, but various players have noted a perceived difference in ELO scoring/progression over previous seasons (especially at the higher-end of the ELO cap). If tweaks were made, perhaps the goal was to encourage players to play more to achieve the higher ranks. Maybe, however, "grind" has been over accounted for, and PUBG needs to reevaluate the ELO scoring. It may take some time for the data to be obtained and the balance achieved.
  13. Ironingboard2000

    Turn on the West coast NA servers

    Didn't PUBG just switch their EU server management to a third party? Maybe that will help? As for NA, could it be a case of cost vs. user base? Not saying it's right, but perhaps in PUBG Corps.' opinion the user base of western NA/Canada is not sufficient to justify the expense of a second US server location. The US player base is a % (and western US an even lower %) when compared to the larger numbers of the PUBG player-base worldwide. I have no idea how the AWS pricing structure works. Also, I think this is a relatively new conversation. Not desync/latency (been going on forever), but the need for western US servers. Only really since the network stats were activated and the player base could see their ping. Maybe it takes time to negotiate access to another AWS location.
  14. Ironingboard2000

    Server Location Identification .. How To

    Going off things I've read like the below. True that it may have changed since patch #22.
  15. Ironingboard2000

    Server Location Identification .. How To

    Connecting five times via Quick Join > solo > FPP: ec2-52-67-188-78.sa-east-1.compute.amazonaws.com = Sao Paulo, Brazil, ~150ms ping ec2-18-212-246-177.compute-1.amazonaws.com = Ashburn, Virginia, ~20ms ping ec2-54-91-209-39.compute-1.amazonaws.com = Ashburn, Virginia, ~ 20ms ping ec2-107-23-183-73.compute-1.amazonaws.com = Ashburn, Virginia, ~ 20ms ping ec2-52-205-153-253.compute-1.amazonaws.com = Ashburn, Virginia, ~ 20ms ping So, looks like they may be running out of VA, in addition to OH. Who knows how I got to Brazil.
×