PR v0.86 Stress Test - General Thread

[CareBear]

Originally Posted by BabylonCome

Having played this new version for several days now, I can agree that this automatic sniper is spoiling the gameplay - it's way to powerful a weapon and can make things very one sided. 1 guy pined my squad down for nearly the whole match at one point and was beginning to get very annoying and almost made me quit the game after 6 deaths in a row with little chance of getting him down.

Please please please do something about this new addition.....

^
that is what would happen in reality, not o look a LMG is shooting at us, lets just stand up and pop him in the head, which happens way to often atm,
and if that same guy killed u 6 times in a row, your doing something wrong..... cover is available for a reason dont leave it

[Jagular]

and what about those glitched buildings on Ejod/Raminel & Asad ?
(reported in 0.7 btw)

[PFunk]

Originally Posted by M.Warren

To be honest, I've been on and off the forums and it was somewhat short notice for myself. I actually had a 4 day weekend from Saturday to Tuesday which was coincidentally when the stress test was being announced. I could have helped test for bugs in the build sooner (assuming that the files were available), but I was simply unaware.

Agreed. I had no idea it was happening til someone else told me who was in the middle of testing it. There simply wasn't enough notice.

I don't read the PR forums as much as I used to since I joined the PRT, and now that its inbetween campaigns I'm taking time to do stuff non-PR related so I'm not as active on here able to see the second its posted. I'd have noticed a PM for sure, or an email.

I was annoyed at how little time I had for this cause I had already made my plans. A little warning and I'd have secured more time. Nothing more exciting than testing the new build, just... hard to fit it in when real life is already knocking at your door when you realize it. I was literally going out the door when I found out. barely enough time to start the patch download. :P

[[R-MOD]BabylonCome]

Yep I kinda agree now that I have sobered up a bit....

In the situation I mentioned above, I should of laid down smoke and moved my squad away from the AR, I guess my head was still thinking in terms of 0.856 where the AR was pants. I know in the 'real' world the AR kit is very effective in the right hands, my quibble is that with a scope it is way to accurate and a 1 man army can almost stop a match in its tracks for a while...

[M.Warren]

Originally Posted by PFunk

I was annoyed at how little time I had for this cause I had already made my plans. A little warning and I'd have secured more time. Nothing more exciting than testing the new build, just... hard to fit it in when real life is already knocking at your door when you realize it. I was literally going out the door when I found out. barely enough time to start the patch download. :P

Indeed.

I've found a handful of potential bugs in my casual testing on a local server as I actually don't have to worry about the complications for being online. Those complications are usually a result of people connecting to a Stress Test server and spending an excessive amount of time playing the new build as if it's there simply for the fact of getting a glimpse at the new release.

I see the relevance in playing a round to check for certain bugs to a certain degree. But honestly, 2 hours on a single map? I can't afford to spend so much time on a single map. After all, how many maps does PR have? There are quite a few to be checked, and I think most issues that take place in PR are ones that are generally detected within a few minutes of operation checks between kits and vehicles. To dig around for flaws in the maps is far too time consuming.

Sadly, it seems that the v0.866 server has been shut down and I am at a loss for comparing and contrasting of what I had found on a local server and a dedicated server. I'm simply disappointed at how little time we're truly given in regards to thoroughly testing a build.

One of the bugs I had found was quite simple. The British HVM Stormer Anti-Aircraft Vehicle does not have the newly implemented single gunner restriction. This means any player can still drive the vehicle out to an area and simply switch to the gunner seat and fire away AA Missiles.

Thing is, I could send in a bug report (and I would if I could at this time). But why bother? I haven't tested to see if it still exists on the Dedicated server, which is one of the most important factors at this point.

Like I said, I'm just disappointed. We had short notice, stress tested in the middle of the week, and the server is already down for the weekend. Simply not a wise decision in my eyes... I give PR a lot of credit when it comes to the initial design, animation, development and realistic accuracy to true military standards as I simply cannot dispute that. However, my biggest source of concern stems from the usual habits of rushed concepts and insufficient testing.

Like I explained before in particular about SAW (Squad Automatic Weapons), we now have a "laser-beam-bullet-stream" weapon that already handles like a HAT when entering and exiting a prone position.

My concept was to allow the weapon to have a certain level of deviation and recoil, so that it would have to be used more in a manner of controlled bursts of 3-6 round intervals for optimum results. Automatic fire would be only practical in close to medium ranges if a gunner was to theoretically engage an enemy insurgent car in order to disable/destroy it. (Which is one of it's prime purposes; to offer a high volume of fire upon high priority targets such as a technical for example. It wasn't designed to engage infantry alone.)

To further expand upon the idea on the proper use of a SAW was to utilize the "suppression effect" to enhance it's capabilities. This would be to double it's effect diameter/radius from 1.5x - 2.5x the normal amount of an Assault Rifle. This means that the weapon would have it's deadliness reduced to a practical level so it wouldn't be so "laser-beam-bullet-stream" kill capable. This is to emphasize the important use of controlled bursts to increase it's combat longevity and leverage the highlight of the "suppression effect" to a whole new level that is specifically unique to belt-fed volume of fire weaponry.

Of course, this detail has already been acknowledged and was deemed too time consuming between the point of suggestion and the immediate release of the new patch. So it appears, we'll have to make due for now with the configuration of the SAW's we have now.

[hx.bjoffe]

Originally Posted by M.Warren

and the server is already down for the weekend. Simply not a wise decision in my eyes...

Server's up, been all weekend.

[Rudd]

We've been trying to get the server up for hours now, and it was half full. Then either a game crash (server didn't crash, only the clients did) or a script kiddie doing his fail scripts left less than a quarter of the max pop, despite that we wanted to try and confirm it wasn't an ingame problem causing the crashes.

We'd very much appreciate an admin putting on a skirmish map, kozelsk is too big for 14 peeps

[Harrod200]

Originally Posted by M.Warren

I've found a handful of potential bugs in my casual testing on a local server as I actually don't have to worry about the complications for being online. Those complications are usually a result of people connecting to a Stress Test server and spending an excessive amount of time playing the new build as if it's there simply for the fact of getting a glimpse at the new release.

That is exactly what stress testing is; playing as you would normally, testing the build's ability to handle the norman situation it's expected to. Focused, organised testing is done by beta testing, this is a stage up, whereby people play the game normally, reporting anything abnormal that could be missed by focused testing, but mostly just providing the server with activity.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

I see the relevance in playing a round to check for certain bugs to a certain degree. But honestly, 2 hours on a single map? I can't afford to spend so much time on a single map. After all, how many maps does PR have? There are quite a few to be checked, and I think most issues that take place in PR are ones that are generally detected within a few minutes of operation checks between kits and vehicles. To dig around for flaws in the maps is far too time consuming.

Again, you're talking about the testing as if it were an organised beta test. It's not. The server runs a normal rotation, because upon public release, that's what servers will be doing. Beta testing has already been done.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

One of the bugs I had found was quite simple. The British HVM Stormer Anti-Aircraft Vehicle does not have the newly implemented single gunner restriction. This means any player can still drive the vehicle out to an area and simply switch to the gunner seat and fire away AA Missiles.

Though it's not as I first thought listed in the changelog, AAVs are intentionally exempt from the new lock. Src; DB on IRC.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

Like I said, I'm just disappointed. We had short notice, stress tested in the middle of the week, and the server is already down for the weekend. Simply not a wise decision in my eyes... I give PR a lot of credit when it comes to the initial design, animation, development and realistic accuracy to true military standards as I simply cannot dispute that. However, my biggest source of concern stems from the usual habits of rushed concepts and insufficient testing.

True testing has already been done. We're not beta testers, and though we may occasionally stop playing to do some specific tests, that's not our job.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

Like I explained before in particular about SAW (Squad Automatic Weapons), we now have a "laser-beam-bullet-stream" weapon that already handles like a HAT when entering and exiting a prone position.

My concept was to allow the weapon to have a certain level of deviation and recoil, so that it would have to be used more in a manner of controlled bursts of 3-6 round intervals for optimum results. Automatic fire would be only practical in close to medium ranges if a gunner was to theoretically engage an enemy insurgent car in order to disable/destroy it. (Which is one of it's prime purposes; to offer a high volume of fire upon high priority targets such as a technical for example. It wasn't designed to engage infantry alone.)

To further expand upon the idea on the proper use of a SAW was to utilize the "suppression effect" to enhance it's capabilities. This would be to double it's effect diameter/radius from 1.5x - 2.5x the normal amount of an Assault Rifle. This means that the weapon would have it's deadliness reduced to a practical level so it wouldn't be so "laser-beam-bullet-stream" kill capable. This is to emphasize the important use of controlled bursts to increase it's combat longevity and leverage the highlight of the "suppression effect" to a whole new level that is specifically unique to belt-fed volume of fire weaponry.

Of course, this detail has already been acknowledged and was deemed too time consuming between the point of suggestion and the immediate release of the new patch. So it appears, we'll have to make due for now with the configuration of the SAW's we have now.

Given the overwhelmingly negative response from all of us on the LMGs, I'd certainly hope that something is done about them. Increased minimum spread, whatever. Something needs to be done about them.

[[R-DEV]Chuc]

wrt the LMGs, could people try these deviation and recoil values out? Just go into any machine gun (deployed mode) and copy/paste these values into the respective modifer.

ObjectTemplate.deviation.setFireDev .002 .002 .0006

ObjectTemplate.createComponent SoldierBasedRecoilComp
ObjectTemplate.recoil.hasRecoilForce 1
ObjectTemplate.recoil.recoilForceUp CRD_UNIFORM/7/-2/0
ObjectTemplate.recoil.recoilForceLeftRight CRD_UNIFORM/-4/4/0
ObjectTemplate.recoil.zoomModifier 0.07
ObjectTemplate.recoil.goBackOnRecoil 1

[M.Warren]

Originally Posted by Harrod200

That is exactly what stress testing is; playing as you would normally, testing the build's ability to handle the norman situation it's expected to. Focused, organised testing is done by beta testing, this is a stage up, whereby people play the game normally, reporting anything abnormal that could be missed by focused testing, but mostly just providing the server with activity.

Again, you're talking about the testing as if it were an organised beta test. It's not. The server runs a normal rotation, because upon public release, that's what servers will be doing. Beta testing has already been done.

True testing has already been done. We're not beta testers, and though we may occasionally stop playing to do some specific tests, that's not our job.

What can I say? Seems I take this more seriously than whats expected of the norm? There truly is no reason to simply stop testing under the assumption that all bugs have been identified. And I had managed to find bugs in the past that managed to slip through from other builds which is still an entirely possible situation. It can happen from time to time.

Although ironically enough at times, despite being Stress Testers it still appears there is a straining effort to try and lock the server consistently. So it seems our primary purpose is still unable to be achieved in the first place.

I do sympathize with the Developers on this matter as it's been tough times in both the past and in the present to get a full server.

Originally Posted by Harrod200

Though it's not as I first thought listed in the changelog, AAVs are intentionally exempt from the new lock. Src; DB on IRC.

Shame. Can't say that is something I exactly agree with as I firmly belive that even a single Anti-Aircraft Vehicle poses a great threat to any aircraft. A 1,300 meter detection radius situated in a proper location can strike alot of fear into enemy aircraft. You can see how effective they are in Kashan Training; you fly anywhere other than where you should be, you're dead.

I feel that even if two people were sacrificed to properly crew this vehicle, it still would be worth it. Matter of fact I feel it's far too overpowered to have two different players one-manning and controlling two different AAV's. The amount of manpower lost, to the amount of deadly defensive anti-air ability gained is something that is already highly effective as is.

Originally Posted by Harrod200

Given the overwhelmingly negative response from all of us on the LMGs, I'd certainly hope that something is done about them. Increased minimum spread, whatever. Something needs to be done about them.

I'm glad our good man Chuc is spending time and effort to try and come to a conclusion for our SAW weapons.