Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.

sign uplog in
Coming soon
0 points · 3 days ago

Everything looks great except for the consecutive matches bonus. There's a reason that 99% of players leave immediately after the game: lots of people either don't ready up, or take forever to ready up. It's simply faster to get back in game by re-queuing. I'm not looking forward to sitting around for 60 seconds every other game in order to preserve my completion bonus.

It's 60 seconds go take a piss, grab a water, or deal with it while I do.

see more

That's not really the point. Either I can wait for you, or you can re-queue and wait for someone else. The question is, why is one better than the other? I think it's better to let people leave (after the game) without penalty, because:

  1. Matchmaking is fast, while people often aren't. You'll lose much less of your time than I will.
  2. Judging by the number of people who immediately leave after a game is finished (90+% in my anecdotal experience), it appears that the majority of the population wants this.
  3. The current group of players is not necessarily any better than the next random group. Maybe you have a great match and you want people to stay, but it's just as likely you'll hit a squad of toxic smurfs. It seems to me that indiscriminately incentivizing people to stick around won't necessarily improve anyone's experience. "We know nothing about these people, but you should play more with them" doesn't make sense.
2 points · 2 days ago

Sure, now imagine if Psyonix gave everyone unlimited boost. Pressure becomes unimportant. Boost control strats disappear. Positioning in general becomes significantly less meaningful. Efficiency no longer matters. In short, the game would lose most of its strategic depth.

There's a reason that resource management is such a key component to almost every genre of video game. Most games are quite literally designed around that concept. In order to make it interesting, though, you can't have infinite resources, and that's the position Fortnite was in a while back. You are supposed to be uncomfortable with your level of materials. Being under pressure forces you to make difficult choices and alter your play. You have to start worrying about not just getting the kill, but how you get it.

Now, maybe mat gain does need some tweaking. I'm not sure exactly what the right level is, but it's never going to be what you guys want, because running out must be a frequent threat. Battle Royale is all about careful strategic management. Infinite mats are just as bad for the game as having orange weapons in every house, or regenerating health/shield. Limitations are painful, but without them you have no challenge.

Should be on the fucking top.

see more
2 points · 2 days ago

Appreciate it. Wasn't sure if I should bother responding to such an old thread, but it was still fairly high up the list, so I gave it a shot. I completely understand why people want to have more mats, but it's the same reason they want to have more gold in an RPG, lives in a platformer, actions in a 4X, etc. Having all you want is fun for a while, but ultimately ruins the game.

I've had 37 orders so far from Amazon this year. This works out to be $3.24 in shipping costs per order. That's $3.24 for same day to two-day shipping. It's not bad at all. It's even better when you factor in Prime video and the other services Amazon offers.

see more
18 points · 3 days ago

The question isn't how much it costs, though, it's how much it would have cost without Prime. How many of your orders were over $35? All of those would have shipped for free. How many of your orders arrived via ground/standard delivery services? All of those would have arrived on the same day.

Prime definitely has a lot of value if you use many of the available services, but most of the people using it primarily for shipping would be better off without.

-13 points · 3 days ago · edited 3 days ago

I'm not trying to paint anyone as innocent and I'm sure as hell not a Tfue fan. Take your passive aggressive shit elsewhere.

I'm just pointing out that outright banning a popular streamer for using bugs instead of fixing them isn't a good look. Should have given him a warning or something and then thanked him for doing a better job than their QA testers.

Look at all the downvotes hahaha. Am I wrong? Nope. That dude is the reason these glitches are probably being worked on right now at Epic.

see more
2 points · 3 days ago

You're not wrong, but you're making the case that what he did is having a positive effect, which is not necessarily the case. Developer hours are zero-sum. If Epic is working on Tfue's exploits, that means the work they previously thought was more important is now being delayed. That could be a good thing if they were working on something dumb, but Epic has generally done a good job managing features and fixes important to the community; it's highly likely that something critical is being delayed in order to fight the fire Tfue helped create. To put it another way, we're not getting Tfue-fixes PLUS, we're getting them INSTEAD. Since we don't know what we're getting them instead of, we probably shouldn't be saying what a wonderful thing it is to have the devs cleaning up Tfue's mess.

My issue is the battlepass is advirtized as 75-150 hours of gameplay to get everything involved in it, i bought it under that pretence. Now its bullshit that imma get to level 80 with 75-150 hours of gameplay, that is BLATANT false advertising

Edit: on top of that people who have done the math found that getting from level 55-80 should take roughly another 200 hours of gameplay

see more
1 point · 4 days ago

That's a very different argument than you brought up before, but if that's your main concern, we can talk about it. I think it's a huge stretch to accuse Epic of "blatant false advertising." They never say that getting the battlepass unlocks "everything involved in it." You may have assumed that, but they never use that language. You can look in-game to see what you get with the battlepass, and the final tier shows an armor-less Omega and a book of challenges. You do in fact get both of those things within the promised time frame. Additionally, when you look at the battle pass page in the store, it always uses the phrase "access to" in regards to challenges. You are never actually promised the rewards from those challenges, merely access to those challenges.

Now, to be fair, I do think they could make it more clear that those challenges take a lot of time. Hopefully the language will improve over time. To call it false advertising, though. . .I don't see it.

1 point · 4 days ago · edited 3 days ago

Okay fine, at least they should advertise what was in the final challenges, maybe it was my fault for not looking up what they were in the first place but I legitimately bought the battlepass because of omega, mans looks like black panther meets iron man and i wanted that shit, i looked at the battlepass "oh tier 100, shouldnt be too hard" and knowing the challenges from last season for john wick i figured getting the armour shouldnt be too big a deal, so i bought it. Now knowing that its absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for me to get it at this state unless all i do for the next 20 days is play fortnite im kinda sad about it, i paid for something that i wanted and im not going to get it. I just think epic should be more clear with what you will actually have to do, i dont think the final battlepass should be a "mystery" if you arent tier 100 i feel misled and thats why im pissed about the situation

see more
1 point · 4 days ago

I guess I'm not sure how I feel about that. I do like clarity, but I think a bit of mystery is fun, too. There's no way to have both, unfortunately. I think they're probably striking a healthy balance right now by showing people the vast majority of content (and thus justifying the purchase for most players) but keeping a couple little secrets in reserve. I'd be very surprised if many of the folks complaining about not being able to get level 80 actually regret purchasing the pass.

Load more comments

-3 points · 4 days ago

Perhaps half a second. 20 ms (roughly the difference between tac and pump equip times) is an expected difference between the latency of many players.

A player with 20 ping should edit-pump as fast as a player with 40 ping edit-tacs.

see more
1 point · 4 days ago

You sure you're thinking in the right units, here? 20ms is one fiftieth of a second. 1/50. I'm not sure where to find a hard-data source for equip time, but since there's an obvious visual difference between pump and tac, the actual amount is certainly greater than 20ms.

11 points · 6 days ago · edited 6 days ago


Although I would say fortunately they don’t listen to the mob rule that posts on here. No doubt, this place puts out a million gripes per day about the game. Fix this, fix that, Epic sucks. Fortnite = Paragon Epic will ruin the game, blah blah blah. With a million gripes per day at least one of the comments is bound to be one of the things Epic planned to do anyway.

Then their PR guys jump in and say “we listen to the community and did xxx” so that the Reddit people can pat themselves on the back and say “see we did it.” It’s actually brilliant on their part.

But no, the vast majority of asinine comments about changing the nature of the game are rightfully ignored by the company which has developed the single most popular game of all time that has broken social barriers beyond anything anyone could have imagined.

So yeah, fellas, keep on telling Epic what to do. They clearly need your opinions.

see more
2 points · 6 days ago

Epic obviously can't be a community-driven democracy. I'm not sure why you think they never listen, though. What better source for ideas than a crowd-sourced popularity contest administrated by your game's biggest fans? I'd be shocked if community feedback wasn't an important part of their decision making process. It won't be the only part, but to say that they just troll for things already in progress and ignore new ideas does not seem likely to me. I'm a software developer (though not in the game industry) and my company pays a lot of money to figure out what kind of features people want. Epic has that handed to them on a silver platter. No way do they take that for granted.

I dont see it that way, these guys are all freinds and have probably already told eachother this information. I don't see it as Insol demanding that Rizzokeeps his secrets but as two friends just talking to eachother, where one is aware that everything they say is being broadcasted to the public and the other does not.

I also don't see how informing people that you are streaming as compromising your own self interests. Insol did not put Rizzo in a situation where Rizzo had to protect Insol's interests, but rather Rizzo put himself in that situation by not telling people that he is streaming.

see more
0 points · 9 days ago

where one is aware that everything they say is being broadcasted to the public and the other does not.

Again, though, even if one party isn't aware of the recording, they should certainly know that the other person could be overheard. It's reasonable not to realize that the other person is streaming, but it's not reasonable to assume that they're in a perfectly private environment.

I also don't see how informing people that you are streaming as compromising your own self interests.

Nah, it isn't. I'm saying that the info being shared possibly could. For example, as an unlikely hypothetical, what if G2 would benefit from intentionally leaking Insol's roster move to the public? If Insol just casually tells Rizzo about it, Rizzo is put in the position of having to decide between helping his org and protecting his friend. That's not fair. If you're going to give someone sensitive information without condition, it's up to them to decide what to do with it. Since that's true, "no strings attached" info should always be thought of as less than completely private.

i have no idea what you are even arguing at this point.

When people stream 6mans they usually put "streaming" in their discord name or they tell their teammates they're streaming. It's just common courtesy, because what players talk about privately together isn't always allowed to be said on stream.

see more
0 points · 9 days ago

i have no idea what you are even arguing at this point.

Honestly, or are you just being snarky because you disagree? I can summarize as: casual conversations should not be assumed to be perfectly private. I agree that it's nice to help others remain private, but only as a favor, not an obligation. I very much disagree with blaming someone else for leaking information that you took no steps to protect.

Load more comments

For real, what fucks are downvoting a question?

see more

I didn't downvote him, but keep in mind that downvotes are intended for comments that people don't think add value to a discussion. It's pretty easy to see why very basic questions might not be seen as interesting topics. No one is entitled to any particular comment score; if you want votes, your comment needs to give something to the community, not simply take information from it.

Also, remember that downvotes are not personal attacks, they're just a way to steer the discussion. They don't mean "you suck," they mean "let's talk about something else."

Sure, that's what downvotes were intended for, but that is rarely why people actually downvote, most downvotes on Reddit are given due to dislike/disagreement.

see more

Probably true, but I don't think it's fair to complain about reasonable votes under the assumption that people are giving them for the wrong reason. The answer to "who would downvote that" is "redditors who know the rules."

Literally everything there was pointless if it worked the way it did. What's the point in having so many people, so many views at all times if you don't switch when it matters? This entire team is shit if that much technology and manpower produced what we saw. This honestly makes them look worse, not better.

see more
15 points · 11 days ago

Not pointless as long as they learned from the experience. You don't have to produce a perfect product on your first attempt. They look bad, yeah, but at least this shows they're taking it seriously.

Original Poster8 points · 11 days ago

No. Although far less players were utilizing building as much as they are now.

see more
3 points · 11 days ago

Pretty sure that was before the increases to server tick rate and client update rate, too.

Definitely. Clingers/c4 aren't even that common towards end game in solos since most people don't sacrifice a slot for them. My only things is clingers are better in almost every scenario than regular grenades. There should be a way to balance them out somehow.

see more
23 points · 11 days ago

Clingers are green while grenades are gray. We can certainly debate the exact balance, but higher rarities are supposed to be better.

62 is half way to 80

see more
3 points · 11 days ago

From an XP standpoint, yes, but not from a playtime perspective. The farther you are the more battlepass boosts you'll have, you'll get XP for future challenges after maxing the battlepass, there's a good chance we'll have a double XP weekend at some point, etc. At half of the required XP you're more than halfway through the number of games you'll need to play.

Fuck. That. Ill fucking grind my head into dust before i give up on a dream that means more to me as a hobby than my own career. Sure, I dont get all the viewers. Sure im not partnered. But fuck. I aint a quitter, and ill be damned if i stop because of self doubt. Thats the shit that makes me mad. But fine. Give up. Move on. More space for this glorious bastard

see more
2 points · 12 days ago

It's weird that we treat "quit" as a dirty word, yet words like "agility" "disruption" and "pivot" are damn near holy. Pursuing the wrong thing is just as bad as not pursuing anything. The fastest path to success is a logical time-boxed plan with measurable milestones, not dogmatic determination. The cultural fetishization of "dreams" leads to a lot of wasted lives, we just don't hear about them due to survivorship bias.

Anyway, I don't mean this as an attack; I'm sure you have great reasons behind what you do. I just think it's important to focus on those is all, rather than one's grit and gumption. "I'll never give up on my dream" is stupid Disney fantasy. "My numbers look good, so I'm going to do x, y and z for three months, and measure progress via a, b and c" is a smarter way to move forward.

Well, the road to success is paved with failure. I keep an eye on numbers. But i dont let it discourage me. I reevaluate and keep trucking. Id like to make it big. My dream i speak so fondly sbout is gathering s big enough following that i can pull games from the bottom of the chartd to a higher spot hoping to keep people coming to it. I was heart broken when i found out "The Amazing eternals" was cancelled because of timing, and a lack of fanbase to support it. So im just building to that dream.

see more
2 points · 12 days ago

Well, the road to success is paved with failure.

Right, but it's not the failure itself that helps, it's moving on with new knowledge. All I'm saying is not to pour all of your energy into one thing, year after year after year, for no other reason than not wanting to "give up." When conditions are good, determination will help you capitalize. When conditions are bad, determination will keep you from getting to a better place. Set specific goals and deadlines for yourself rather than relying on open-ended hope.

Good luck, though, I hope you make it. :)

Hey guys, read the rules, still have one question: how does the MLD community feel about the occasional (communicated) non-emergency cancellation without a lot of notice? In other words, is there any flexibility for real-life priorities, or do you want people to show up barring anything short of catastrophe? I think I'd be a good fit in a lot of ways, but I'm not sure I could promise to put RL over a spontaneous night out with friends or whatever. Thanks in advance!

To say that taking a 10-second break between a goal and the next kickoff is “at the expense of someone else” is a bit of a stretch.

see more
-15 points · 13 days ago

Is it, though? Obviously it's not the end of the world, but little stuff matters to people. Human beings are simply wired that way. If the time you're gaining by not skipping the replay is valuable to you, why shouldn't it be valuable to someone else? People seem to want to have it both ways. "For me this is meaningful, for you it's trivial."

Is it unreasonable to expect that people playing Rocket League can wait for 5-10 seconds before the nect kickoff? Those little breaks in the middle of an otherwise intense game are a blessing. I can change the song I have on the background, take a sip, etc. without affecting the gameplay. Hell yes everyone can take that 5-10 second break. If you can't, don't play. It's a part of the game.

see more
-3 points · 13 days ago

Is it unreasonable to expect that people playing Rocket League can wait for 5-10 seconds before the nect kickoff?

I think what's reasonable is to do what the majority want rather than what one player is able to force. Take a look at the votes in your next few games. Despite the downvotes I'm getting, I think you'll find that in most games, most people skip every goal. The prevailing community behavior is definitely to skip, not wait. If you're in a group that wants to take breaks, though, then by all means do that. I just don't think you'll end up in many of those, is all.

If you can't, don't play. It's a part of the game.

I can, of course, I'd just prefer not to. Please keep in mind that all sorts of BM behavior is "part of the game." Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ok. Be someone pleasant to play with, not just someone who won't get banned. :\

Load more comments

28 points · 14 days ago

Mats aren't the problem, it's the effectiveness of building that's the issue. A good player is nearly invincible when they have mats, so the result of a fight tends to come down to who runs out first. That won't change no matter what the average mat count is.

In my opinion, we need a way to reduce the effectiveness of defensive building. Force players to shoot back if they want to survive an engagement. It shouldn't be possible to just sit and block three Scars concentrating fire on you. The reason shotguns get so many kills isn't because they're OP, it's because phasing and replacing are the only reliable ways to break someone's guard.

A good player is nearly invincible when they have mats, so the result of a fight tends to come down to who runs out first.

I agree with the beginning part, but build fights don't always end in whoever runs out. In a perfect world, with two equally skilled players this may be true, or if both players are playing very well but in reality, someone will out build the other and take shots. Also there are other factors in a build fight that will yield a different result aka another person enters the fight, grenades or someone messing up and falling to their death.

EDIT: i just want to add that i think build fights would end sooner if people played more aggressively and tried to take shots more during the build fight. But people choose to play more passive and defensive (which I totally understand)

see more
2 points · 14 days ago

In a perfect world, with two equally skilled players

The future of the competitive scene is probably not in pub stomping. Some sort of ranking system, whether it's Epic's or the community's, should result in very similar levels of skill between opponents.

but in reality, someone will out build the other and take shots

Sometimes, yeah. An awful lot of times they just go crazy until someone runs out, though. The ability to instantly block any angle results in very little damage taken. Even when someone does manage to get the kill, it invariably happens after using a huge amount of mats. Defensive play is just too strong right now.

Also there are other factors in a build fight that will yield a different result aka another person enters the fight, grenades or someone messing up and falling to their death.

For sure, but I don't like the idea of relying on external factors to resolve fights. I think making it easier to damage other players and/or force them into different positions would help ensure that fights are resolved more quickly, with fewer mats used, and in favor of the one with the most skill.

But people choose to play more passive and defensive (which I totally understand)

In a lot of shooters, passive and aggressive playstyles will both work and are mostly a matter of choice. The reason that's true, though, is that most shooters have health regen. In Battle Royale games it's not enough to win a gun battle, you have to win it without losing much health. Defensive play is objectively superior by a long shot. We can't just say that the solution to turtling is a more aggressive playstyle, because that's not the best way to play, and every good player knows that.

Load more comments

He's a solid player, but never really feels like he is "on".

see more
8 points · 14 days ago

He seems to lack that top gear that the very best players have. Back in the days when people made mistakes, "solid" was enough to be top tier. Now that no one does, having a player who can't make something out of nothing is a handicap. Don't get me wrong, he's still easily RLCS caliber, he's just not a superstar. That's not a problem. . .until you have to play a team with three of them. NRG is definitely good enough to take series' from Dig, but they need Squishy or JKnaps to be on the same level, talent-wise.

25 points · 15 days ago

You can spoof the harddrive, the biggest problem is their IP, they would need some sort of fast proxy that isnt identified as proxy, which is pretty hard, all VPNs get detected as VPNs, all proxies do too, there are ways to get stolen proxies that are "clean" but thats more for people who do thigns way worse than just cheating and those proxies last like a day tops and are slow as fuck

IP bans are pretty succesful.

see more
9 points · 15 days ago

IP bans aren't a good solution. The vast majority of ISPs use dynamic IP addresses that are leased for a certain amount of time. They get reused, reassigned, etc, on a fairly regular basis. Consequently, an IP ban doesn't last very long for the affected player. Worse, though, is that if the IP gets reused before the ban runs out, some other innocent serves the remainder of the time. There's no way for a game company to effectively target only the intended player.

maybe so. But i'd imagine they'd take an OCE team as a warmup over an EU favorite as a warmup in this instance.

see more
2 points · 16 days ago

Definitely, but that's a tournament for you. Seeding doesn't always reflect reality, some teams get easier brackets than others, upsets can give advantage in a later round, etc. There's a lot of luck involved in any short tournament.

a #1 seed shouldn't be at a disadvantage for their first game by being forced to come in cold to a team that's already warm and basically just got done playing imo.

see more
2 points · 15 days ago

Well, the question is whether it's a disadvantage overall. They've got a disadvantage in warm vs cold, but that's balanced by a significant advantage in getting to play OCE / EU seed 4. In my opinion, overall, that's still the easiest path.

The problem isn't the format, it's the seeding. I doubt anyone thinks that EU's league play number 2 and RLCS runner-up deserved a number four seed. If a four isn't a four, then the advantage of being a number one is wiped out. For the fairest bracket possible, we're probably going to need human seeding of some sort. At a minimum, league play results need to be more important than they are. As long as one bad day can invert months of results, there's going to be a lot of luck involved in RLCS seeding.

Load more comments

3 points · 18 days ago

I do think kills need to be incentivized, but more importantly, I think turtling needs to be nerfed. In particular, I'd like to see a nerf to rapid same-square building. Forts should provide a strong advantage, but right now they make you nearly invincible. There's absolutely no reason to shoot at someone in a fort unless they're so high up that you can drop them for fall damage.

I'm not sure what the best way to make this happen would be, but I think something like destroying a wall in the same square three times within 60 seconds should make that wall transparent to bullets for the next 60 seconds. It would still function as structural support, but you couldn't hide behind it. There could be a visual indication that the square was "spent," such as some broken beams (or even simple transparency), and an animation similar to repairing could indicate progress towards being whole.

Something like this would give teams a reason to engage from distance: attackers could flush out defenders, and defenders would have to put pressure on attackers in order to maintain their advantageous position. It would also encourage different building geometries and force people to decide whether they really wanted to commit to a particular spot (4x4? 8x2?) or conserve mats for a more temporary advantage (1x1).

Anyway, I'm not saying my particular implementation is perfect, but I do think we need some way to make ranged attacks on buildings an actual threat. The shotgun rush / wall replace / edit meta should not be the only way to catch a rat.

in a certain niche

That "certain niche" in the case of double pump being pretty much the entire fucking game at higher skill levels.

see more
0 points · 18 days ago

It's a large niche, for sure, which is why double-pump is OP. It's hardly the entire game, though. Good players still get sniped, 'sploded, etc. Even when fights do end up close-range (which obviously many do), it's not like double pump is the only helpful item. Jetpacks give you more high ground, minis give you extra health, rockets give you angles, etc.

Once again, just to be absolutely clear, I'm not arguing that double-pump is fine as-is. I just don't think it's fair to claim that there's no trade-off to that loadout.

Idk man, I think that a pro with max mats and two pumps has a better, more lethal loadout than another pro with any other loadout in the game including gold everything, besides double pump + other shit. Maybe that's exaggerating but I really don't think so.

see more

All I'm saying is that taking double pump means not taking some other very good item. Burst damage is awesome, but so is being able to heal 100+ health in a fight, take down enemy forts with no risk, instantly get high ground over someone who started building before you did, etc. Even if burst is too strong (it is), taking it still requires some sacrifice. You can't just claim that there's no downside.

Load more comments

You need to narrow down the problem. Try viewing his NDI stream on your computer without streaming or playing a game on your end. You can either use the OBS preview or an external NDI viewer program.

If the video is smooth, the problem is on your end. Try using a faster CPU encoding profile, reducing frame or bit rate, or using NVENC instead of h264.

If the video isn't smooth, the problem is either the network or your friend's computer. Test the network by copying a large file from your friend's computer to yours. If speed is over a couple hundred megabits / couple dozen megabytes, the network is fine. If not, you either need to fix something or upgrade to gigabit gear. Test your friend's computer by streaming video (YouTube or something) over NDI instead of a game. Should require very little power.

If the video is smooth, your friend's computer is at fault. Try turning all in game options as long as they'll go, then turning them up bit by bit to find a balance between performance and stream quality.

If the video is STILL choppy, then the problem is related to NDI or desktop capture in some way. Try using NDI's high frame rate option. Try having your friend run his game locked to a multiple of the frame rate you're streaming at (streaming at 60fps means gaming at 60 or 120, etc).

Original Poster1 point · 18 days ago

Thanks a ton for your help! We did a lot of testing last night and I think it is on his PC, mostly his CPU. We tested the connection between our two PCs and it should be way faster than what we should need to pull it off, and my CPU and GPU aren't under much stress, so we think the problem is on his PC, particularly his CPU.

We were able to get certain games or areas to work quite well modifying FPS and bitrate settings, but as soon as he added anything else running or got to a more demanding part of the game, his CPU was maxing out and while the game ran fine, the NDI output would again get really choppy. He's gonna work on upgrading his CPU and hopefully that should help.

Thank you again!

see more

Glad you've made progress! As a heads up, the NDI output on your friend's computer will be unaffected by bitrate settings; the two are completely separate things. Unless he's streaming/recording at the same time (why?) you don't need to modify any OBS settings on his computer. As far as CPU usage goes, CPU is not usually the bottleneck. Most of the time while gaming, you should have plenty of headroom to do NDI behind the scenes. If running the game alone is putting the CPU so close to maxing out that NDI pushes it over the top, your friend should be having problems running other things in the background while playing, like Discord, music apps, etc.

Basically, I'm suspicious of the conclusion that the CPU isn't good enough. :) If it's a dual core or very old, that might be the case. If it's a quad core made in the last 5-7 years or so, you can probably get it working fine by turning down settings in game. Lower render distance, turn off all checkboxes, etc.

Anyway, sounds like you've got a handle on things. Happy streaming!

Here is a good read on the differences between condenser and dynamic mics since you dont want to take my word on it.

In short Condenser mics are more sensitive and accurate out of the box before any processing (Post-processing will effect any mic). This is why you see condenser located with in enclosed studios and broadcast soundproof broths. Where in most outside noisy windy environments you find them using Dynamic mics. So yes if you can get your streaming environment quite enough and willingness and knowledge to do all the post-processing, go for the condenser. But, for price and simplicity the dynamic work just fine if not better for the circumstances.

see more

Thanks for the article, but I'm not sure which part contradicts what I said. I obviously agree that condenser mics are more sensitive out of the box because I said as much in my post. :) Out of the box performance is irrelevant as long as you can easily adjust to the same level of sensitivity, though, which you can. Moderate amounts of gain adjustment happens in every audio production, regardless of mic type, and does not negatively impact the final product. There should be no concern whatsoever in turning down a condenser a little bit to match the sensitivity of a dynamic, and once you've done so, pickup of background noise will be exactly the same.

As far as usage goes, condenser mics are used in studios because they often have a wider frequency response. This is mostly irrelevant if you have a decent dynamic mic (range is well outside of what human voices can produce, human ears can hear, etc), but still, in a studio setting, you might as well capture everything you can. Dynamics are used in outdoor environments not because of noise reduction, but because of cost and durability. A $100 dynamic will, generally speaking, sound better than a $100 condenser, and will survive more drops, shocks, etc.

For what it's worth, I have a Dynamic mic. I agree with you that they're the better streaming choice, but it's not because they have any inherent advantage in noise reduction (they don't). Rather, it's because they tend to offer more value for your money.

it's not because they have any inherent advantage in noise reduction (they don't)

Not to further the pedantry, but dynamic microphones really do have an advantage in noise rejection. The heavier diaphragm in a dynamic mic is just physically less susceptible to softer/farther sounds than what's in a condenser, it's how they are designed. In untreated rooms this roughly translates to less reverb and less sound from behind a dynamic microphone (e.g. a keyboard) compared to a condenser, but it's subtle.

TL;DR at around the same price:

Condenser = Rich detailed sound, includes more ambience in the recording

Dynamic = Focused sound, includes less ambience and detail

see more

The heavier diaphragm in a dynamic mic is just physically less susceptible to softer/farther sounds than what's in a condenser

Sure, that's what the sensitivity value tells you. For the same input you get a smaller output with a dynamic than you do a condenser. There may be sounds low enough in intensity that a dynamic can't pick them up at all while a condenser can, but those are well below the noise floor in anyone's house. If you crank your gain up high enough that a human would be able to hear those imperceptible sounds, they'd be completely drowned out by the cacophony of everyday background noise. It's not a relevant factor. Tuned sensitivity is all that matters for typical applications.

In untreated rooms this roughly translates to less reverb and less sound from behind a dynamic microphone (e.g. a keyboard) compared to a condenser, but it's subtle.

I don't understand how that could be true. If both mics are registering input, sensitivity is law: x produces y. If you tune both mics to the same sensitivity, you get the exact same output. If the dynamic mic is physically unable to register certain sounds that are hitting it, those sounds will be far beneath the room's noise level, and thus meaningless.

TL;DR at around the same price:

In my opinion, the summaries here are generalizations that people base on out-of-the-box performance. The only meaningful technical specs that differ between dynamic and condenser are sensitivity and frequency range. The former is trivial to tune, while the latter is only different for frequencies at the very edge of human hearing; frequencies which are usually chopped off for voice work anyway.

Now, I'll once again reiterate that I'm not an expert and am open to correction. I've just done a lot of reading is all, and haven't found any technical explanation for the common wisdom that "dynamics pick up less noise." As far as I can tell, it's just a myth based on default sensitivity.

Load more comments

Original Poster1 point · 20 days ago

does a viewer influence the stabilty of the connection or is it only on my side? Because if it's the latter I cannot explain it, I seriously have 0 problems when I'm alone on the stream, sometimes if a viewer joins, bam, there's the drop and red square... twitch inspector says I had only 1 unstable event but 4 different episodes of frame rate drop (not bitrate drop tho) in 2 hours of stream

see more
2 points · 20 days ago

The viewer shouldn't directly affect your connection in any meaningful way. Frame drops without a bitrate drop means that your upload is probably fine, it's your CPU usage that is the problem. Try using NVENC instead of h.264.

Dropped frames in OBS can be caused by your CPU...? Thought that was skipped or lagged frames.

see more

Yes, that's true, sorry for the confusion; "frame drop" is kind of an overloaded term. If OP is actually seeing "frame drops" being reported in OBS, that's a network issue. Since Twitch was apparently not reporting the same thing, though, I assumed that OP was using the term "frame drop" in a more general sense. The basic idea here is that if Twitch says you're good then it's a local problem, most commonly related to CPU usage. There are probably exceptions to that idea, but if so, I don't know what they might be. :)

Original Poster1 point · 24 days ago

To be fair, nothing I've listed here are new ideas. Many of them I've made posts about, or comments about, in the past, some as far back as a year and a half ago. I've had these same feelings for a very long time. It's just recently that the more patient member of the community are starting to really get annoyed by it.

Psyonix made a great game and I agree that they are above average in most categories, but the reason the game has been such a huge success is a testament to the foundation they built with regards to the core gameplay. But being average or better than average doesn't necessarily work when they've relatively gone down hill. They used to seem passionate and engaging and when they stopped doing that, it became a let down. They deserve their success, but much of what they've become is really a just a shame.

You make a great point in your last paragraph, though. But I do think that there are certain features that could boost RL in the right direction, which is why I made this post. I could be wrong, but the bigger issue to me is that I don't feel Psyonix is willing to try new things and especially communicate better. They've become overwhelmed with success and having really been able to keep up with it, which was once understandable. They certainly can't compete with Fortnite's team, but they can do more to communicate and to get the community involved, which is what I think it really needs. The community doesn't really interact much relative to a lot of successful games and I think that their team could benefit from getting them involved in whatever each possible, such as the events I've described.

But you do make a great point.

see more
0 points · 24 days ago

It's just recently that the more patient member of the community are starting to really get annoyed by it.

Right, and I think that's because it's only recently that other games have proven that more is possible. No one wants to wait months for features and bug fixes, but that's a completely normal timeframe in the software development industry (faster than normal, really). People grumbled, but there was nothing better, so they stuck with RL. Nowadays, though, there is something better (development-wise, anyway) so people are less apt to put up with the lesser experience.

But being average or better than average doesn't necessarily work when they've relatively gone down hill.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, here. I've been around since very near the beginning, and I don't see a decline. I think people might be wearing some rose-colored glasses. :)

But I do think that there are certain features that could boost RL in the right direction, which is why I made this post.

I agree, and I don't mean to imply that there's no value in making suggestions (you had some good ones). I just think that everyone is going to have a different opinion on what those features are, and that even the ideal backlog won't be enough if it's not executed quickly. If you look at what Psyonix has shipped in comparison with what other companies have done in the same time period, I think you'll find a pretty huge discrepancy. By the time Psyonix finishes implementing your 10 ideal features, some other company will have pushed 50, many of which will be just as good.

I could be wrong, but the bigger issue to me is that I don't feel Psyonix is willing to try new things

This I agree with. I feel like after the failure of non-standard maps (Psyonix' fault, in my opinion) they've been afraid of messing with their core game. That's reasonable to an extent; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the other hand, though, if you don't disrupt your own business, someone else will do it for you, and I think that's exactly what's happened.

and especially communicate better.

You've lost me here, I'm afraid. We get detailed patch notes, quarterly road maps, an official comment in most large threads, and regular knowledge-bombs on the game's internals from Corey. I've spent some time on the subreddits of the games that I think are beating RL overall, and communication is one of the few areas I think Psyonix is keeping pace in. I've been pretty happy with the level of interaction they've had with the community.

But you do make a great point.

Thanks, I appreciate your comment and the effort you put into this thread. I still think RL has the best gameplay of any game I've ever played and hope it sees continued success, I'm just not sure it can maintain its place in the face of what some of the bigger studios are doing these days.

Cake day
December 21, 2009

Trophy Case (3)

Eight-Year Club

Alpha Tester

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.