Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

I tried this test multiple times because that would make the most logical sense. However, I point out that the Distilling (8hr) can bring you 150 of a resource where the Titan (4hr) seems to only bring 275+. That means, the Distilling, even over a long period of time where you limit yourself to only deploying them every 8 hours would still result in the Titan coming out far ahead.

see more
3 points · 19 days ago

I don't have any Distilling (new-ish player), but I can't find any source to support the idea that Titans return more resources per run. The wiki claims that all extractors return 4 pickups worth of resources. I can't even find another forum post disputing this, let alone anything official. Just as it does in missions, though, the exact amount of a "pickup" has some RNG associated with it. Are you sure that your 150 vs 275+ test isn't the result of random variation over a small sample size?

Unless there is some undocumented difference in the pickup amounts, Distilling is definitely better for uncommon and rare. Extraction time is 2x while amounts returned are 3x and 2.5x, respectively. They've also got the efficiency bonus of easier management, not losing 4 hours per night while you sleep, etc.

Are you sure that your 150 vs 275+ test isn't the result of random variation over a small sample size?

It is probably exactly this. When I first started using the app, I built two Distiling because I was only able to send out two at a time. However, I cannot recall them ever returning with Mutagen Samples or Orokin Cells. After a couple weeks with them, I read the wiki, saw the miniscule extra chance they have over the Titans and built myself 4 Titans. Since then, I have given the 8hrs a couple more shots. But, as I stated earlier, they let me down again this weekend and I have sworn them off for good. Next time I remember to do so, I will be selling them for Credits so I can have a smaller list when selecting my Titans. It may be that they are suposed to return more. However, they only ever seem to let me down. As for efficiency, since I sleep about 6 hours per night, the 4 hour Titans still allow me to get that extra chance.

see more

It may be that they are suposed to return more. However, they only ever seem to let me down.

That's RNG for you. :) A period of bad luck doesn't mean they're the wrong choice, though. For me personally I have so many common resources, even as a new player, that it's unlikely I'll ever be short. 5% chance at rare vs 4% (two runs) is a small benefit, but it's better than continuing to stockpile more of something I don't need. I'll get around to building Distilling eventually.

1 point · 19 days ago · edited 19 days ago

were we not meant to be getting items dropping for each of the levels we went up? i went from 75-120 so was there no benefit to going up the levels? i have been playing for years and almost expected to get way past level 120 or at least 45 common items if they were not going to give me my legit level if all the levels are meant to be the same xp anyway whether its level 10 or level 400 what was the point in the cap?

This update is just adding more avenues for micro-transactions, like the new icon borders etc and then changing how the game plays ( even though the change feels better to me,although i have only played a few games so far so im sure there are many people not liking it) at the same time but release it anyways because it sets the foundations for the Rocket pass where you get stupid items like xp boosts, icon boarders, next it will be banner boarders or different fonts for your name, Its essentially giving people that pay money faster ways to level up and get more items.

see more
12 points · 19 days ago

Item drops aren't new, they've happened throughout your career. You've already received the items for your past playtime.

Look, I get that it's the official line, but it's just bullshit. People who've invested more time should be rewarded more, and random drops are not a reward. I could have gotten fewer random drops with 11,000 matches played than someone else got with only 2,000 matches played. It's just bullshit. No one cares about random drops.

see more

He edited his post. When I initially replied he had nothing about levels or rewards, he was only complaining about the item drops. I agree that capping the level transfer was a bad choice on Psyonix' part.

7 points · 19 days ago

Nope. As a general rule of thumb, though, if you have more than a couple of them, they're not worth anything.

human driving will be limited according to safety statistics

So much for freedom. I'm surprised by how many people consider it OK to ban humans from driving. Are you going to ban motorcycles and sports cars also? I don't envision a big market for self driving motorcycles.

see more
2 points · 20 days ago

Why are you surprised? Have you looked at the numbers? Your lifetime odds of dying in a car crash are something like 1 in 100 (and the odds of being injured are much higher). The yearly economic cost of car crashes is over 800 billion. Banning human drivers would prevent an enormous amount of suffering and create fantastic wealth at the cost of nothing more than a bit of personal enjoyment. You don't have to give up any of the freedoms associated with travel (in fact you get more, since you can now travel while drunk, asleep, etc), just the freedom to physically operate the machine. In my opinion, giving up one hobby in order to realize all of the benefits of SDC tech is a fantastic deal.

create fantastic wealth at the cost of nothing more than a bit of personal enjoyment

So I would be forced to give my money to make someone else fantastically wealthy and have to give up my car. No thanks.

see more
2 points · 20 days ago

Firstly, you'd share in the wealth. Obvious things like insurance, repairs, local taxes, medical bills, delivery and shipping costs would all drop. Less obvious things like mortgages and rent would also drop as more land becomes available within the same commute times to employers. I could go on, but I've already listed plenty of examples to illustrate the point: you could save a lot of money.

Secondly, there's still the point about decreased personal risk. Driving is extremely dangerous. If you're young-ish, it's your single most likely cause of death. If you're older it's still pretty far up there. For all age groups it's your most likely cause of serious injury. Do you really see no value in reducing that risk to near zero? I have a hard time understanding that.

2 points · 21 days ago

Does that work off of data?

see more
2 points · 21 days ago

Nope! During initial setup the website will generate a unique code which you enter into the app. That code is used as a starting point from which to generate 2FA codes that are only valid during specific (and short) time windows. Both website and app will independently generate the same codes at the same time, and if the two match, the user is allowed to log in.

tl;dr: No data, just math. EZPZ.

2 points · 21 days ago

Ahhhhe that's dope!

I can still see an issue if you don't have your phone on you though. There are often times I leave my phone at my hotel.

see more

That's very true, but is also why it's more secure. The idea is that logging in requires "something you know" (your password) and also "something you have" (your phone). Passwords can be compromised in a lot of stupid ways; it's much more difficult to simultaneously gain access to a separate, physical device.

One tip: most 2FA systems allow you to generate one-time-use backup codes. You can print a couple of those and keep them in your wallet, or leave them with a trusted friend that you could contact if you forget your phone, etc. This is a bit less secure since those codes don't expire as the app codes do, but still follows the "something you have" guideline. Those codes can also be revoked at any time via a password/app login if you think someone has gotten access to them.

Ultimately, though, all of these schemes are a compromise between convenience and security, and you have to find a balance that you're comfortable with. No one can make that call for you, but I would point out that as a public figure who regularly interacts with tens of thousands of intelligent nerds, you're probably at higher risk than the average joe. Think of the 2FA annoyance as an investment in your career. :)

Load more comments

I mean, that's what is to be expected?

DE doesn't know your intention with Cheat Engine. You're saying that you didn't want to use it in any way on Warframe and while that might be true, there is no proof for that.

Giving you a perma ban is exactly what an anti-cheat software should do.

see more
5 points · 22 days ago

DE doesn't know your intention with Cheat Engine. You're saying that you didn't want to use it in any way on Warframe and while that might be true, there is no proof for that.

This logic applies to most general purpose software. Text editors, IDEs and command line shells can be used to "hack." Chat apps can be used to share cheating information. Browsers can be used to download exploits. Windows itself is one giant cheating sandbox. DE doesn't know your intention with any of those tools, nor can there be proof that you didn't use them illegitimately.

Legally speaking, I have no idea what DE is allowed to do or not do. Ethically speaking, it should not be acceptable to get permabanned for running software just because it has the capability of interfering with Warframe.

4 points · 22 days ago

Legally speaking they write their ToS and EULA and can permaban you for whatever they want. It's the same whenever you use service-based software and to expect otherwise is to be both naïve and entitled.

see more
2 points · 21 days ago

Legally speaking those documents aren't law, they're contracts, the enforceability of which depends on a huge number of factors. Just because it's written down doesn't make it so. Many provisions exist only because no one has bothered to challenge them yet, or challenge them within a particular set of circumstances, etc.

Regardless, I don't particularly care about the legalities. Ultimately every company is subject to the court of public opinion, and if enough people are unhappy with DE for their practices, they won't be able to continue them. I don't expect anyone to become a full-time activist, but at the very least it makes sense to express your displeasure when something like this comes up. People should not be banned arbitrarily for something they didn't do, even if that's legal.

4 points · 22 days ago

It’s the way of the game, it’ll never change and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, win your battles

see more
-1 points · 22 days ago

I wonder if people would be open to an LTM that made it more difficult to kill downed opponents. Maybe downing an opponent could immediately drop their loot, but they couldn't be completely killed while a teammate remained within 10 meters (or whatever). If that was too OP then we could limit the number of revives per game, or increase the amount of time it takes to revive, or require all living players to cooperate on a revive, etc.

I dunno, it would just be nice if there were a mode that was more friendly to casual groups of friends, even if the primary game doesn't go in that direction. As it currently stands my group quits more matches than we actually lose, and that's not a very fun experience.

Original Poster-4 points · 26 days ago

Sitting in the naughty chair does not make me a better person, it only teaches me to never touch region chat again.

see more
5 points · 26 days ago

For the purposes of chat enforcement, that's good enough. DE cares about their game, not what kind of person you are. If you're only willing to participate in a way that they feel hurts Warframe, then having you withdraw permanently would likely be considered a positive outcome. I'm sure in a perfect world they'd love to reform instead of ban, but it's unrealistic to think that a chat bot could change a person's nature.

For the record: I don't care what you say in chat and am not trying to shame or anything. :) I'm just trying to explain the likely rationale behind banning you from all channels rather than just one.

Original Poster1 point · 26 days ago

really good point.

I wonder what their stance is on clan chats. It's common sense that clans and their leaders enforce what they do and don't allow.

I do think that other squad members have to be notified though. For instance in Heroes of the Storm you get an icon with a tooltip that explains he's been naughty and can only whisper and not use team chat(don't have a screenshot sadly).

see more

Thanks! And yeah, some kind of "muted" indication for others would be helpful.

Load more comments

What? Yes you should. The WHOLE POINT of bettering yourself in a video game is to do better than other players. For example if player 1 = best player in game, player 2+3 = top 5 and 10, respectively(let's assume by a high enough amount that he can, with work, kill both) he should, with skill, be able to kill both of them. Are you asking games to cater to bad players to the point that it doesn't matter who the two across from you are, you should lose to them by sheer number strength? I'm honestly really hoping that was a typo in there.

Personally, I don't see a problem with splodes. Rpg/gl have a relatively low ammo capacity now. C4 had its radius and max total nerfed, clingers are only really super efficient against turtlers.

Smg, however, do need a look over. They break buildings too fast. I don't mind the damage they do to players, it makes them viable.. But since they break building so fast it encourages no skill spray metas.

see more

Are you asking games to cater to bad players to the point that it doesn't matter who the two across from you are, you should lose to them by sheer number strength?

Within reason that's pretty much a requirement for team modes to have any meaning. If your alpha player can beat any team that doesn't have someone similarly skilled, the rest of your squad might as well stay home. There's just no way to give lesser players value without also allowing them to kill much better players when given a numbers advantage.

Fasho , believe it or not I have debated this enough so I concede , you win. Downvote if you'd like.

see more

No downvotes, don't care about winning, just trying to help. You sound like you still don't believe me so I'd suggest posing this question to someone you trust in real life. Maybe they can explain it better than I can.

Hypothetical: if there's 10 atoms in an entire atmosphere, and 20% are oxygen just like in Earth's atmosphere, there's 2 oxygen atoms in the entire atmosphere, correct? Even if this atmosphere I'm speaking of only exists around a singular human being they would not encounter enough oxygen atoms to survive, but the percentage is similar to that of Earth's atmosphere. if we expanded that same ratio to the Earth's actual atmosphere , which is relatively accurate (21% oxygen, I believe) the shear number of atoms is the only thing allowing you and I and everyone else to continue to respirate. Call it 1,000,000,000 atoms to keep it to a number we can conprehend, that 21% oxygen means there's 210,000,000 oxygen atoms in this given example. We would encounter far more oxygen atoms in the situation with 1B total atoms, if the percentages were the same, no? If there's 100 people on the entire interstate and 10% (10 persons) are bad drivers, you're probably not going to encounter them. If you're in LA in a traffic jam of 50,000 people and there's 10% bad drivers (same percentage) that's 5000 bad drivers. you have a higher likelihood to run into one (or many) of the 5000 than you are to run into any of the 10 bad drivers in the hypothetical with only 100 total drivers. I've given two examples of how my logic is sound in hypothetical but halfway realistic situations. It's fairly simple. Sorry to sound fed up but I'm tired of defending my logic to keyboard warriors on Reddit, you seem like a nice person who just wants to have a conversation I wish you were the first who came along on this topic, lol, I'd have much more patience.

see more

We would encounter far more oxygen atoms in the situation with 1B total atoms, if the percentages were the same, no?

Yes, that's completely right, but it doesn't apply to Fortnite. In your example you're scaling not just the total number of atoms in the atmosphere, but also the number of atoms someone actually encounters. In Fortnite, however, more players in the pool does not mean an increase in encounters. A 10X larger population on East does not mean that you'll face 10X as many opponents. A game on east is exactly like a game on west: 100 players. If the game used a percentage of the total pool for each game, then your example would be accurate: larger pool, more opponents per game, more total bots encountered. Since opponents per game is a fixed number, though, that's not the correct model.

Load more comments

-9 points · 1 month ago

I very much know how 'bugs' appear out of no where, ive worked on semi large scale projects, and the bigger and more complex they get, the chances of unforeseeable things happening, increases.

You assume a video game is something simple like a car. Where if you replace the engine, there is should be no engine related issues in the car. Or if you put new wheels on, they surely should not change the way the lights on the car function etc.

Computer programming, and even more so video game programming, is a million times more complex than 'simple' things you are trying to compare it to in your mind.

Also, they dont 'fix' something and that results in something else breaking, that simply isnt how it works. They are constantly optimizing and reworking things to function better all the time, and in doing so, can easily miss things or create a new issue that will be needed to be dealt with later, but its worth it because the work done made everything function better in the long run.

see more
12 points · 1 month ago

I think you're interpreting him wrong. He's putting himself in the shoes of the Epic programmer, not addressing "you" the Redditor. He's agreeing with you.

interesting, i felt it conveyed that it likely a simple solution; not a whole lot of complex whiz-bangery. (of course that's not to suggest WINE itself is not complex.)

see more
7 points · 1 month ago

interesting, i felt it conveyed that it likely a simple solution

It does, which is the (admittedly small) problem. The harder something is to do, the more impressive and important people assume it to be. To simplify an accomplishment is to diminish it, socially speaking.

Man come on guys, we all know double pump was not broken in season 4. It was already nerfted to hell, the damage and headshot multiplier was nerfted. The damage to structures was nerfted, the ammo was nerfted, the pull out delay. Double pump was in a good state in season 4, it was just broken in season 2. In season 4 i never heard anyone complain about double Pump, not even ninja and my god that man hated it in season 2. The double pump was perfectly balanced in season 4, I don't understand why people talk down on it. But they NEVER talk about how op double heavy was, that was way more consistent and better to use than two pumps. With all due respect where's the logic at Here? The double pump was in a great state in season 4. I hated double pump in season 2, it was broken. But I had no problem with it in season 4.

see more
3 points · 1 month ago

People didn't complain about double heavy because it was rare to actually get that loadout. You can usually get double pump in your first house.

I love Archwing but I still haven't even bothered using potato's on anything... Imperator starter gun, starter melee, all 5 Archwings built.

But no issue at all soloing Archwing missions or alerts (cant quite solo Neptune Alerts yet) so I really fail to see how people complain it sucks, when I use a 30 mod point Imperator and outperform people with Fluctus, Velocitus or other guns.

see more
8 points · 1 month ago

Many people simply don't find it fun, even after they have the gear to make it easy. Archwing has no parkour or interesting movement options, significantly lower enemy and itemization variety, very little tactical shooting (cover, weak points, bubbles, etc). . .you get the idea. Even when you can faceroll every mission, Archwing just doesn't have that crisp and satisfying core gameplay loop.

How do you improve early game? I have an issue where I die within a few seconds most games. Sometimes this is because somebody beats me to landing and I don't get a gun, or somebody simply out-duels me in a house. Early game is where the skirmishes are really tough for me because I can't seem to take whatever I practice in playground build fights and emulate that.

see more
  • Better landings: learn every angle, watch where people go, don't race someone for a gun/chest unless you're sure you can win, don't land short or float down, choose a spot with multiple floor spawns, know your plan B and C.
  • Better loot: priority 1 is to get a loadout that can win a fight against an equipped opponent. Don't chase the no-skin with your pump, loot everything you can and get 100 mats as fast as possible.
  • Better choices: winning early fights is mostly about choosing favorable engagements. Use doors and stairs to peek (and don't attack an opponent's peek), get high ground whenever possible, place walls/floors to edit, disengage when you can't think of a way to get the advantage. Also, don't get mad if you miss your shots. You need to define success as shooting at someone who isn't shooting back. If you can do that you WILL win most of your fights, even if your mechanics occasionally let you down.
9 points · 1 month ago

You have everything right. Tips:

  1. Run conduit, not just wires. Eventually you'll want to change something and fishing wire through walls without an easy path is not fun.

  2. For the strongest signal strength and least interference, wifi access points should be placed on the ceiling, so be sure to run ethernet up there in at least one room per floor. Ideally a centralized room with line-of-sight to typical spots of use. You don't necessarily need power up there, as you can get power-over-ethernet devices.

  3. Bandwidth is bottlenecked by the number of users sharing a port/wire. It's easier to run one wire per room than a bunch, but you'll get more throughput with a large central switch and many runs per room. A good compromise is to run one wire for low-use rooms (bedroom) and a lot of wires for high-use rooms (office/media room).

  4. Keep in mind that consumer gear is reliable, but not always durable. Buy and install everything with the assumption that you'll replace it in 5 years.

Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

It's all good, I didn't take offense to anything you said.

Looking back on it now. Giving items a "slot value" really isn't that good of a way of saying what's better to pick up, at least in the way I have it set up. It would be much better to list off sets of loadouts and explain why they're good.

This post didn't get much traction so I'm probably just going to leave the list how it is for now, but I'll agree with you that I should have them up in the 7-10 values in most cases.

see more
3 points · 1 month ago

Just to add one more bit to the shotty discussion: burst damage is extremely underrated by a lot of people. Firstly because cover can be built instantly, which greatly lowers the importance of DPS. Secondly because, due to limited healing, avoiding damage is almost always more important than dealing it. Dealing 50 and taking 0 is much better than dealing 100 and taking 50. Shotties are crucial because of the safety factor. No other weapon has a higher damage / time spent vulnerable ratio.

Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

I definitely underrated the shotguns originally, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of where they fit in the meta. I think people actually underrate AR's for your first reason. In the comp scene being able to start the fight with an AR headshot or 2 perfectly placed AR shots is a good way to deal 50+ damage for free. I'd argue it's harder to do that free damage before building in comp because a good player has better awareness on where you are if you're close enough to do damage with a shotgun.

I'd have to disagree with your second point though, I think most people would gladly deal 100 damage and take 50 than deal 50 and take 0, especially against a player that is as good as you. 100 damage could straight up kill a player early AND in late game circumstances with people taking storm damage or getting 3rd partied. A lot people are willing to risk taking damage in pro scrims instead of using up late game materials.

I would also argue that overall shotguns are less safe than SMGs at the moment. I feel like SMGs are medium risk/High reward where as most shotguns are high risk/medium reward with the exception of the new DB which is high risk/high reward.

One could make the argument that the Grenade Launcher has the highest damage / time spent vulnerable ratio, as you don't even need to be vulnerable to do damage but things like sniper rifles and all splodes in general can match the shotguns d/tsv ratio. But overall, because you can build in front of a shotgun, the d/tsv ratio evens out for most guns.

But I do agree that shotguns are underrated by most people. Personally I think the only thing they need to do is revert the shotgun damage to structures to give them some more versatility in build fights and I actually think the pump needs to do at least 1.50 damage to structures to make sure it rips through wood.

Overall the basis of your reasoning is why I like the DB, but I think the other shotguns are just a little too far behind SMGs at dealing damage to players and structures, due to SMGs ability to endlessly spray and my opinion that it's easier to consistantly trace with an SMG than it is to consistently flick with a shotgun.

see more
2 points · 1 month ago

I think people actually underrate AR's for your first reason.

Completely agree.

I think most people would gladly deal 100 damage and take 50 than deal 50 and take 0, especially against a player that is as good as you.

There are definitely situations where winning a fight at any cost is better, but when I watch the pros fight, they prioritize safety almost without exception. Shotgun is always shoot/wall. Spam ends as soon as the other player looks their way. Unless the other player is inside their build radius, it's quite rare to see a pro get into a shoot-out. It's less rare in team modes where revives are available and people get in fewer fights per game, but still seems to be the preferred strategy.

most shotguns are high risk/medium reward

Only in a straight shoot-out. Peek/shoot or shoot/wall lets you do up to 192.5 damage (or whatever it is not) and be back under cover in a fraction of a second.

One could make the argument that the Grenade Launcher has the highest damage / time spent vulnerable ratio, as you don't even need to be vulnerable to do damage

I guess that's mathematically true, since with zero time spent your ratio is essentially infinite. :)

things like sniper rifles and all splodes in general can match the shotguns d/tsv ratio.

Splodes (RL excepted) can, due to the arcing trajectory. Snipers. . .well, it depends. On the one hand, similar peek times and lower DPS means they lose, in theory. On the other, Bolt and HR will kill after one shot, meaning the shotty won't have time to pull ahead. Then again if we're speaking in practical terms, both weapons need to be adjusted for difficulty. Even the pros miss most of their sniper shots, and even an average joe hits most shotgun shots.

Caveats aside, though, I think my overall point still stands: within shotgun range, shotguns are by far the best way to deal damage and stay safe.

I think the other shotguns are just a little too far behind SMGs at dealing damage to players and structures

I basically agree with that. I think shotties come in a narrow second to SMGs right now, due to the greater utility of the latter. I wasn't trying to argue with your (adjusted) conclusion, just adding more info to the debate. There are a lot of people severely underestimating shotties right now since safety is not a stat. :)

1 point · 1 month ago · edited 1 month ago

I guess it’s just an Australian thing. We remunerate those who would risk their life for us, much better.

A part time cleaner would earn that much here. A professional military person , with ten years would earn double that.

I realise now, there are other allowances. Our people get similar.

Just different views to what a military person is worth I guess.

$22 USD per hour is just about the minimum legal wage in Australia.

For first year, uneducated, no risk job such as a service station attendant.

Glad for those of you are happy with it though. Just think you deserve much more.

An unemployed couple with a kid will earn 35,000 USS per year in Australia for their entire life without leaving their home. Without doing a thing.

Everyone gets top class, free medical. Can’t afford a home. We will give you one heavily subsidised as well.

see more

We remunerate those who would risk their life for us, much better.

That's the thing, though: they aren't risking their lives to a particularly high degree. Even with the middle eastern conflicts that have taken place over the last few decades, the US military's fatality rate has been much lower than that of jobs like logging, fishing, construction, pilot, taxi driver, farmer, electrician, etc. Being in the military is only particularly dangerous during times of major war. I guess if you think that's a likely scenario in the near future than it'd be fair to call the military underpaid, but during anything short of that the military is just a regular ol' job.

$22 USD per hour is just about the minimum legal wage in Australia.

It is? Wikipedia says it's $18.93 AUD, or about $14 USD. "Just about" is a stretch.

For first year, uneducated, no risk job such as a service station attendant.

The risk is similar and the non-salary benefits of the military drastically outstrip those of the service station attendant.

Glad for those of you are happy with it though. Just think you deserve much more.

In a perfect world we'd all live a life of luxury. :) In a world that compensates based on risk and value production, however, the military seems like a fair deal. Minimal requirements, comfortable enough life, virtually guaranteed long-term stability.

Again, you earn that for not having a job. Pay your military what you like.

We don’t pay shit wages. I think it’s ludicrous..

Enjoy your country, like we do ours.

Not sure why you are all so butt hurt that we pay our military much better and I think your military deserve more.

Pay them what you like.

America. Land of the free, on the backs of poorly paid military.

see more

That's a very angry-sounding message; I apologize if I implied any kind of personal attack. I'm not "butt hurt" about who pays what, I was just curious about why you thought the military deserved more. Based on the edit to your last message (which was not there when I replied, by the way), it sounds like your beliefs are less about the military in particular, and more about how society should use excess wealth in general. If that's the case I actually agree with you. I think some kind of across the board basic income would do a lot of good. My position is only that the military is in a reasonable spot relative to comparable private sector jobs, not that the exact number they receive is appropriate on a macro level. To put it another way: I don't think the military is undervalued.

Load more comments

2 points · 1 month ago

I’m not angry at you. At all. I’m saying never justify someone being an asshole. The perpetuation of bad things is when good people do nothing. Implying that we’ll sort your shit out and people won’t be jerks is as much as a problem and the toxic people. I can’t change toxic people but maybe I can inspire you to be an advocate so we can stamp out the toxic people. There’s zero excuse for toxic behavior and although you concede that in your first reply you also sorta justify it and that to me is the issue with lots of games.

Doctor Suess said it “take your brother by the hand and try to help them understand”.

see more
3 points · 1 month ago

Third party perspective: there's a difference between justifying the response, and justifying the reason behind the response. Toxicity is never ok, but it's not unreasonable to be annoyed with someone for showing up to an event about which they know nothing. There's a general expectation in both real-life and online environments that when doing something with other people, you'll prepare yourself in advance to some extent. Ability is one thing, but unless specifically communicated otherwise, basic knowledge is a prerequisite. Putting zero effort whatsoever into a cooperative activity is disrespectful to the other participants. That doesn't excuse a horrible response on their part, but the fault is still with the new guy.

The reason every pro still uses shotguns and most of the players want a buff is that pros have insane aim and will hit a headshot almost every time with the pump making it still good. But casuals/average players don't have this insane aim and it's just better to use a smg or drum. I would like to see how much shotgun and smg/drum elimination there are per game. Public lobby compared to a pro custom game. I'm sure in the pro custom game there would be a lot more shotgun eliminations

see more
10 points · 1 month ago

Pros miss headshots all the time. The reason shotties are still popular (and don't need a buff) is burst damage. An SMG will do more damage in a second, but a shotty will do far more damage in 1/10 of a second. Brief time windows like that are very important in Fortnite, where players can build cover instantly, and where avoiding damage is usually a higher priority than dealing it. No other weapon is as effective at punishing split second openings, and no other weapon comes close to matching damage per time spent vulnerable.

That still makes it better to use for pros. It's not that easy for casuals to do that high ground jump shots where you immediately place a floor after you shoot. Smg/drum is just way easier to use and noob friendly and still very good and op. Shotgun skill gap is way bigger

see more

I only agree for the most casual of casual, the true "bots." Even well below-average players will benefit from a shotty. You don't have to do jump-shoot-floor. Something as simple as peeking around the side of a single wall, or over the top of a single ramp, has a much higher damage/vulnerability ratio when using a shotty. We're not talking niche skills that only pros have, we're talking anyone who can build a wall. That's not everyone by any means, but it's a large majority. If Epic is trying to balance for the masses, shotties are still fine.

I’ve proved everyone that’s argued otherwise wrong, most of the retorts have been to do with something different to what I’m saying.

Think of it as delayed pictures, if someone is taking a picture of you once every 10 seconds, you can do whatever you like in between the photos and it makes no difference, you could move once every 5 seconds and the camera is only picking it up once every 10 seconds

see more
3 points · 1 month ago

What you're missing is that there's some generation time. Imagine an artist glancing at the sunset, then turning away and painting what they saw. Someone comes by and picks up the painting once an hour. If it takes an hour to paint, then the picture the person gets will show the sun as it was an hour ago. If it takes 30 minutes to paint, then the person will get the sun as it was 30 minutes ago. If a storm should come up between minute 1 and minute 30, the person getting the picture won't see it at the first rate, while they will at the second. Despite getting the same number of pictures, each one they get will more accurately reflect the current state of the sky.

Not sure if you realise this but applications open up dead on a cycle so yes they actually are in sync.

see more
3 points · 1 month ago

They aren't. Even if they do happen to start in sync, they'll immediately get out of sync since frames take a varying amount of time to generate, but monitors update on a fixed interval. If what you're saying was true, it would be impossible to get screen tearing when matching FPS to refresh rate. That's obviously not the case.

Load more comments

2 points · 1 month ago

In theory, there's no spec that would obviously be to blame, here. You're probably going to have to narrow it down yourself. These are the questions I would start with.

  1. Do any of the problem sources work when used alone in the same network configuration (same game, too)? If not, it's a config issue. My bet is a mismatch between NDI output and source refresh rate / fps. Try using 60fps NDI output and either 60 or 120fps in game.
  2. Are the streams smooth on the streaming PC when viewed in a stand-alone NDI app (not OBS)? If so, your OBS / encoding is the problem.
  3. Are you able to get the expected amount of bandwidth through the network when NDI is not involved? You can do quick, hacky tests by copying large files over the network. Test from streaming PC to client, and also client-to-client.

Hopefully one of those steps will give you the info you need to investigate in more depth. Good luck!

Why don’t they just not show the hitmarkee then?

see more
5 points · 1 month ago

Because then you'd have to wait for the server before showing the markers, which would feel laggy to the player. By splitting hit markers and damage numbers into two different pieces, the player gets to feel like their shot happened and registered instantly (because they see a hit marker) and yet still get accurate information (damage numbers) in near (but not quite) real time.

Yeah the PC market is huge, I don't understand how people can claim there are more console Fortnite players when there's no data and are clearly a smaller percentage of gamers.

see more
2 points · 1 month ago

There's no data for Fortnite in particular, but other games have released their numbers. Rocket League is an example of a large, competitive multiplatfom game with official stats available. As you can see, PC accounts for just 21%. It's possible that Fortnite has radically different demographics, but that seems unlikely. At the very least there's a reasonable argument to be made that the console market is probably larger. The thing to remember is that even though anyone with a computer is technically a PC gamer, the percentage of those computers that can play AAA titles at reasonable framerates is much, much lower. Consoles are about half the price of even an entry-level "gaming" PC.

Fair enough, however AFAIK Rocket League is one of the few games where it's actually beneficial to use a controller so that could be a reason, as well as Rocket League was free on PS4 for a while. I would be more interested in player stats for a more similar game like PUBG.

see more

Rocket League is one of the few games where it's actually beneficial to use a controller

No one is choosing console for competitive reasons. Firstly because keyboard is barely a handicap (there are keyboard players at the highest level), secondly because PC performance is a large advantage, lastly because controllers are easy to use on PC.

as well as Rocket League was free on PS4 for a while.

That's a good thought, but what's interesting is that PC share has dropped over the years. When RL released its first-year stats, PC was at 30%. Since there hasn't been another free PS release in that time, wouldn't you expect a shift towards PC, if it was in fact the larger market?

You're definitely right that something like PUBG would be a better comparison, but I think console is pretty well established as the larger market for big titles. There's a reason that most developers release console first and then port to PC (assuming they release there at all).

Spoken like someone who doesn't have any idea how software development works.

see more
2 points · 1 month ago

I'm not in the games industry, but I've been a software engineer for a Fortune 500 for 10+ years. Not sure how I can prove that without doxxing myself, though. Would you like to talk specifics? Which part of my post do you disagree with?

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.