PUBG - PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds

PUBG - PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds Dev Tracker




24 Mar

Post

https://preview.redd.it/j4nhgv3saap81.jpg?width=1168&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e14238d9da088ac1f2a42d119e34bbc18226f26

Hello Players!

First of all, a very happy 5th Anniversary to you all! We’re both excited and humbled to ring in this milestone, even though we can hardly believe it has been that long already! Through the years, you all have stood with us as a constant reminder of how fortunate we have been in our successes but also a humbling reminder that there is always work to do. Many companies say it, but we hope you believe us when we say we’re truly in this together. Your joys, triumphs, milestones, and of course, your feedback, are revered throughout our studios and fuel us to keep...

Read more External link →

23 Mar


22 Mar

Originally posted by djfr94

I don't like pretty much any small map, but I can see the big picture and think about the life of the game and what "I" want. That's why I can't ask for map selection.

What I would like to change is that PUBG could implement a shorter rotations. IMO it's not ok to don't play vikendi for 3 months. Rotation could be for e.g. every 3 hours map change or even every 2 days or 1 week.

Thanks, yeah that is understandable. I'm a Vikendi fan as well. The current rotation plan is not set in stone either. Rotation has been reduced from 2 to 1 Month but the team behind the system is open to suggestions and if there is enough demand for shorter rotations, we can look into improving that further.

Originally posted by n1tn4t

Implemented correctly, such a system would not lead to any longer waiting times. The point is to give players the opportunity to tell the game which maps they prefer. So that the game can make better map selection decisions based on this data, when the player pool is large. There is no downside in knowing which maps players prefer to play. Even with a small player pool, it doesn't make sense to force players to play maps they don't want to play, as is currently happening.

Currently, map selection is determined by a dice, which seems fair at first. In practice, however, players are leaving the lobbies of unpopular maps en masse, contributing to those lobbies staying open much longer. In other words, the more unpopular a map is, the more often it appears. It doesn't take a genius to realize that this system is crap, because it's the simplest form of implementing a random map distribution.

Many players currently spend a lot of time leaving and restarting lobbies to get...

Read more

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with your points and like the suggestion.

Originally posted by n1tn4t

As noted above, such a system, if implemented correctly, would not lead to any longer waiting times, as player pools are not split further.

A simplified example:

Suppose the game knows, based on map preferences, that Erangel is currently preferred by 80% of players and Sanhok is preferred by 20% of players. Then the map distribution should bring 80% Erangel and 20% Sanhok (and not 50% each, as it currently happens). This would lead to more players being able to play the map they prefer without splitting playerpools. That's what it's all about.

Only if there is a large enough player pool, it could be further split according to map preferences.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

Love it when this happens. So good!

Originally posted by djfr94

Problem with people is that they don't understand the "I prefer" meaning.

Before you start to downvote me like shit, I also prefer to wait a few minutes and not play those small shit maps, but majority of players would quit the game if they add these long queues.

tbh current system might be the best to please everyone even tho I miss Vikendi and will always hate Sahnok,

Exactly this. People do not want to wait. This was seen in NA, EU, any other region that had map selection over the past years.

The current system eliminates waiting as much as it possibly can. There are still factors that play a role in matchmaking / lobby creation like: "Is this player a new player?", "Is this player a regular?", "Are there enough players in this gamemode queue at this time to split these two types of players or not".

There are still a lot of other things that contribute to this: The amount of choices players have to play the game, solo, duo, squad, fpp and tpp.

Introducing systems that will further split the players into smaller matchmaking pools will end up raising queue times, cause less popular map queues to stop working, cause the most popular queue(s) to eventually be the only one(s) working which then causes the players to stop playing the game, which then begins to impact the only working queues etc... it's a snowball effect. Th...

Read more

Originally posted by Rev0verDrive

If the map you just played is “locked” aka “not voted for” if we are comparing it to map voting, then you won’t get that map. This query only happens if the game recognizes you played the map (at least jumped out the plane). So you are put in another pool of players who just played the map you did, and they won’t get the same map either.

This requires MM to create multiple arrays of sorting. You just played X map so you go into an array that won't allow for X map as a choice. Fine and dandy.

This doesn't mean that every player you just played with will be added to that new array. Only if they queue up again for the same perspective and mode. You might be sitting for a few minutes until enough are added to your queue pool array.

Peak times and prime modes/perspectives might not be too bad. But what about other queues with lower populations and off peak times?

Solution has to work for all modes and perspective combinations. I...

Read more

As rev already explained in detail, a system like this would cause long waiting queues in our regions. These map veto systems, map preference systems are but different names for map selection.

The system cannot be made to cater to every player and their map preference, as it would end up sorting players based on their map preference in additional pools which would keep splitting the queues and end up with the same effect that we've seen in the later stage of map select in EU where only erangel and sanhok queues were working because the queue times were the shortest and the playerbase gravitated towards the shortest queue time options.

Players do not want to wait. As much as I appreciate everyone here who says "I would wait" - this is not the case for 99% of the players out there. This was seen in NA, it was seen in EU, every region that has had the map selection. And systems that increase waiting times are going to end up being self destructive.


21 Mar

Comment

Originally posted by Bubbles_012

Dave curd recently mentioned he wants to try and push a lot of these new gimmicks into ranked mode but he is facing resistance because the ranked playerbase is very conservative.

The man needs to realize that there is no point to having a ranked mode if he plans to make all modes act and play the same.

Why even have a ranked mode..

And how are we even suppose to enjoy a competitive version of Pubg anymore.. I suppose we need to go pro and actually join esports?

Ranked mode needs some new stuff but it should be done with a lens that is focused purely on the competitive side. Reducing RNG and improving skill based stuff

Hi Bubbles, actually, I did not say that. I mentioned on Twitter:

"I'd love to see that stuff work it's way into Ranked, tbh, we are more conservative in that environment. I think everyone is waiting to see how it's evolving the meta. Our approach is always "debut in Live, then Ranked, then Esports". Thanks!"

Meaning, for sure, one day it would be great to see Tactical Gear get into Ranked, if that's what the community desires. It's not that the community is "too conservative", it's not that we are "facing resistance", it's that we like to wait and see what the community is wanting in Ranked versus Standard. Different audiences, different desires.

Community engagement/sentiment is the decider on content moving into Ranked, and eventually into Esports. If people love the stuff, it advances, and if people don't connect with the content, it's balanced/adjusted/phased out.

Standard/Normal is where we innovate, and offer players new tactical ch...

Read more

20 Mar


19 Mar


18 Mar


17 Mar


16 Mar

Thanks OP for sharing your experience. Please do continue to share your feedback!

I can't wait to see what tactics emerge in the community that involve the tac pac and how they are executed.