Woah! Any more details to share?
Was hoping to share some information in the next livestream, and in a separate post later. Threads like this become too much of a circlejerk to have proper discussions in. Just wanted to chime in early so folks know that vehicles haven't been forgotten about.
Memes aside, vehicle related changes are coming toward the end of 2019, and aim to address a number of the concerns vehicle players have brought up over the last year.
This is fixed in the next update or hotfix.
They didn't change anything. They just released implants that are better. BH isn't bad but it's not competitive with other options.
They didn't change anything.
Incorrect. I heavily modified screen shake values at some point last year. Nothing (outside of an Orbital Strike) shakes the screen as hard as it used to.
We'll get a hotfix in for this. What we did was change it so that new players don't see "Create an Outfit" button as their first UI option, but it's currently doing the same for players in an outfit as well.
Thanks for the reply Wrel.
If I may ask has decreasing the size of the model been considered? The version I’ve seen on PTS is taller than the whole of the tank. Seeing as how this is way taller than any supporting infantrymen and the shared health pool means full coverage doesn’t matter could it maybe be lowered to end where the turret meets the chassis?
Obviously not this patch but some point in the future.
Could be. It's an easy enough change to make, and we can probably find a happy medium, but deploying on even small downward slopes renders a lot of the protection for infantry moot if the shield is too small. Additionally, the added height helps protect allied vehicles, like Repair Sunderers and other vehicles.
It’s got to be that coding doesn’t allow them to do that or something right? I can’t think of any other reason they’d share a health pool
Yarr.
Ideally it would have a separate health pool, and you'd be able to see that separate health pool in the form of energy on the UI, similar to NC's Aegis Shield. Unfortunately, Aegis was coded to be very specific (and relies on animation work to make the shield appear [also part of the reason why it's so jank]), so it wouldn't work with Prowler. Also tried spawning and despawning a separate NPC, but getting it to tether to the vehicle, and adhere to deploy/undeploy in a way that doesn't feel buggy, slow, and would depend on server latency was an issue. I tried a variety of other methods to achieve something similar, and they always ended up a little bit off. So for now, this is what we're going with.
PS:A did some work that we're going to bring over in the future that gives us some more control over deploy/undeploy, and be able to more easily trigger and track effects from that, so it's possible that this ability changes again somewhere down the line.
It...
Read morePC servers will be taken offline on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 6:30am PT for maintenance. Downtime is expected to last up to 3 hours.
Server transfers are now available both to and from Connery <-> Soltech for a limited time. This window of availability ends September 30, 2019, at 11:59pm Pacific.
Aerial Anomalies
This even...
Read more External link →If I found repro steps, where should I send them?
You can post them here, or in /bug, or message me if you don't feel comfortable doing either of those.
So, the interpolation changes have been done and sitting on Live for some time now, but they've been toggled off for a couple of reasons.
First is that we need to do a test run before we decide (and *if * we decide) to turn them on for good, and we've been handling much higher priority issues post DX11, much (but not all) of which is thankfully resolved now.
Second, and the main point of concern internally, is that it significantly increases our bandwidth usage. This means it costs us more money and may come with performance implications (the opposite of what we want.)
We'll need to schedule some time to do testing with proper metrics on how the change is performing Live, which is the most challenging part. Feedback about hit registration, framerates, and performance in general tends to be a broad spectrum of feels with evidence rarely coming alongside it. When we see video of an issue like in the OP, it tends to be of a situation that's an edge cas...
Read moreI'm just interested about what happens when you die to a mine, and the mine owner is on the other side of a continent. Do you get a loading screen? What about placing c4 somewhere and flying away beyond render range? What if I fire a decimator and redeploy before it hits someone?
I eagerly await all the wonderful bugs and problems that will come because of this. The basic feature is cool too.
If your killer isn't in proximity, or leaves proximity while it's tracking you, it'll refocus the camera on your corpse. We've found a handful of bugs so far (for example, killing someone from a vehicle, then leaving the vehicle will show the wrong highlight color,) but it's been pretty solid in our testing.
Thank you wrel! Even tho implants are likely are huge part of your revenue, its steps like these that show the devs really care about what the players want.
Definitely. We've been moving that direction from the start, just slower than folks would like. I'm not a huge fan of lootbox mechanics, personally, but it's undeniable that they've been extremely valuable as a monetization system.
For most of the game's life, the economy has mainly revolved around certs. Prior to the implant system, Weapons were a big revenue generator for us. Unfortunately it got to the point where dropping 1000 certs on a new weapon was chump change for the average veteran, meaning those weapons no longer monetized as well as they should have, which meant there was less incentive to create them in the first place (remember back when every new weapon was NS?); and since new weapons are considered a form of content for a lot of players, being tieing into directive chase and leaderboards and such, it was depriving the playerbase of a form of content they enjoyed.
We never wanted to increased the cost of weapons, though we have been increasing cert g...
Read moreMain takeaways from the video.
Both of these are being resolved later this year.
I realize you probably made this video a while back, but we've already said both of these things are happening, sooooo...
Oh, but it does. If the mandates and vendors are time based then the time players spend logged in will go up. Therefore servers will in theory be in better shape population wise. While this type of tactic is often used by companies in really scummy ways to force players to feel like they have to play an excessive amount, PS2 is a game where exit points are really difficult to naturally find outside of alerts. Something like this could provide shorter term goals that can be completed in a single session that are personal to a player. The player will stay engaged with the game longer because they are striving to complete that goal. Think of it as a mini-directive.
Nailed it.
Okay, so then what does "support the long-term development of the game" mean? Legitimately curious.
It's good to hear it's not going to be primarily monetization focused like implants.
The sandbox nature of the game has always made it a bit difficult to deliver rewards that feel substantive to players. Certs are essentially a dead currency for long-term players (and an easily exploitable one,) while new players continue to see it as a hurdle. Time-based objectives allow us to offer rewards in chunks, instead of being something that you can sit in a corner on Esamir stat padding your way to.
Full disclosure is that you're going to see new currencies coming to PlanetSide 2 when Sanctuary drops, and a do-over on alert rewards in their entirety. That's where the vendors come in, among other things. Alerts are one of the few time-based mechanics we have that can throttle how often rewards are given out, and we've been too meager with the drop tables to make it feel good.
A reliable, objective based reward system that encourages the right kinds of participation will give each session more of a purpose; make it easier for us to set up weekly, seasonal, a...
Read morehopes that those new players are excited to come back, and stick around long enough
...to leave again once they get tired of the same things making the game less fun than it was the day before.
While it isn’t time to reveal all our long-term goals for [sanctuary]
Because the majority of them probably won't be met and the rest don't really matter anyway.
Like much of what we’re working toward now, [the mandate system] is a system that will support the long-term development of the game
So it's going to be monetized to shit? We know how that typically works out. Otherwise, this system could've been kind of interesting."It's not a monetization system." Now I'm more interested.
Tutorials are cool, too bad it's been so long.
...
So it's going to be monetized
It's not a monetization system.
Got a fix for this (finally.) Unsure of whether it made it into this hotfix though, will need to double check tomorrow.
We're looking to get an update out early next week that addresses this issue and others.
Don't think this is due to Maximum Pressure specifically, but more in line with the 0:00:00 bug players will get. When the event doesn't properly clear on the UI when it ends, it'll get into a frozen state that mimics past alerts regardless of which one is currently playing.
We haven't been able to repro this, but we've been putting out speculative fixes every now and again. We're currently working on another one for the August update.
The actual questions is: Will people risk their lives for a transit or will they just stay safely with their dominating air zerg next to the enemy Buoys for easy kill farming?
Your faction technically just needs one more Tempest than the others to win the alert. So, no need for transits anymore after having enough Tempest. From then on, the other two factions won’t even get close to their turn-in Buoy, if the dominating air zerg ball is around it („critical mass of units in the same area“ / Why „hunt down“ them, if they have to come to you?). This way the current problem just shifts from the Aerial Anomaly to the centralized Buoys. Sounds very „one-sided“ to me again…
If the Tempest within the Buoy would decay, that would be another story: It would force at least some of your factions air to transit again. Other ideas would be that there are several Buoys at different locations, or that your turn-in location would be your actual Warpgate.
Definitely the right question to ask, and the truth is that we'll have to see how it unfolds. If one faction is truly camping the buoys without any recourse, that means that you're giving the other faction time to gather forces uncontested in the anomaly, which would ultimately mean another big clash in the middle.
At any rate, the changes are certainly going to be better than it is on Live currently, if for no other reason than the center of the map being much more accessible than the far reaches, for all factions at all times.
devtrackers.gg