Playerunknown's : Battlegrounds

Squaredude

Falthyron wrote: »

Considering so many other games (e.g. Fortnite) run on the same engine and yet don't experience the sort of shít we see in PUBG, I am calling bullshít on their excuses. Like how they blamed the Bad_Module error on a Windows update and yet I have not experienced this error with any other game...

I get the bad module error in other games, so it's not just a pubg related error

Falthyron

Squaredude wrote: »

I get the bad module error in other games, so it's not just a pubg related error

Really? Fair enough. Personally, I haven't seen the error come up with any game other than PUBG.

nix

Falthyron wrote: »

Really? Fair enough. Personally, I haven't seen the error come up with any game other than PUBG.

I get it in fortnite also, in the middle of games to which is annoying :mad:, possibly an unreal engine issue?

Squaredude

nix wrote: »

I get it in fortnite also, in the middle of games to which is annoying :mad:, possibly an unreal engine issue?

Yeah I get it in Ark quite often so it's possible it's an unreal engine issue

Mickeroo

Ark, Fortnite, Pubg....maybe it's a gammy early access game issue :pac:

Squaredude

Seems to be happening in Arma and DayZ now too

TheFairy

Game needs an Irish competition, in honour of BG of course

jonski

Caught again , got a weapons crate last night that needed a key , had a look at the odds and the prices they were going for and thought 'gwan shur' , bought key , got orange ump skin , and then it wouldn't let me sell it ....grrrrrrrr ....last time steam and BG .....last time .

TheFairy

Lol Jonski, leave the skins to the young lads. I sell everything and buy nothing.

Blazer

jonski wrote: »

Caught again , got a weapons crate last night that needed a key , had a look at the odds and the prices they were going for and thought 'gwan shur' , bought key , got orange ump skin , and then it wouldn't let me sell it ....grrrrrrrr ....last time steam and BG .....last time .

I sold my orange m416 skin for a tenner. Every skin you get you can’t sell for 10 days.

Falthyron

Some tips for selling boxes:

1. Always examine the price at 7am-8am on the 'Median Sales Prices' chart. For some reason, the maximum selling price generally peaks at this time. So, see what the box was going for at 7am-8am on the previous day and set your price to that with maybe +/- 2c either side of the price.

2. Never sell boxes on Monday through to Wednesday. The reset takes place at midnight on a Sunday (you can see the huge fall in prices on the chart which reflects a sudden influx on new boxes for sale) so buy your crates and wait until nearer the end of the week when there is a scarcity in boxes, thus driving prices up a bit.

3. Sell the boxes asap (in a general sense). The free boxes tend to maintain a decent price point for a period after a subsequent round of boxes appear, but the locked boxes plummet as soon as a new shiny is available. You don't want to store up a bunch of Desperado crates (they currently market for 0.04c) for too long or you will never be able to shift them or get a decent price. Try to keep your inventory clean of boxes, sell them as soon as you can and when the price for the current batch starts to really go down, then start saving BP and await the next batch.

There will be emote boxes, this is almost 100% certain at this stage and I suspect that will be the next box or else the custom parachutes box will follow. I suspect they will need to make changes to the current box system as giving each type a % chance is driving numbers down and leading to people being less likely in getting what they want, i.e. the new and 'best' box. I reckon a third category of box will appear soon (we have the normal one now and a weekly one) or else the boxes will be changed based on type: clothes; weapons; parachutes; emotes. I reckon if we don't get a new box by mid/end-May then one will be launched at E3.

Mickeroo

One of the lads I play with got an AKM skin that was going for about €220 the poxy fecker, not sure how valuable it will be after the week long window expires. I can't bring myself to buy a key to open them though when I can just sell the crates themselves. Must have made the value of the game back in steam credit at this stage.

Falthyron

Mickeroo wrote: »

One of the lads I play with got an AKM skin that was going for about €220 the poxy fecker, not sure how valuable it will be after the week long window expires. I can't bring myself to buy a key to open them though when I can just sell the crates themselves. Must have made the value of the game back in steam credit at this stage.

From only selling boxes since January... :pac:

Blazer

Mickeroo wrote: »

One of the lads I play with got an AKM skin that was going for about €220 the poxy fecker, not sure how valuable it will be after the week long window expires. I can't bring myself to buy a key to open them though when I can just sell the crates themselves. Must have made the value of the game back in steam credit at this stage.

Yeah that 10 day is a killer. I had a jacket going for €150 which by end of the 10 day wait was only a tenner then.

Falthyron

https://kotaku.com/theres-a-new-malware-that-locks-your-files-unless-you-p-1825148822

The most innovative and original thing BlueHole has done with PUBG so far? Quite possibly.

BloodBath

Falthyron wrote: »

Haha, I am always saying to the lads on Discord about the entire team too drunk on Cristal Champagne that its any wonder they get anything done except for making more loot crates and crappy skins. No wonder Brendan Greene can't see the bugs, all those expensive sunglasses he buys make the world look better! :pac:

Perhaps UE4 can't handle such a large map size so a better engine would be needed. I have no doubt we will get some concept work by one of the big publishers/developers for a Battle Royale game at E3 in June. Will be interesting to see what professionals can do. With all of the controversies surrounding PUBG, it won't take much to push even the more hardened defenders of the game to something else that looks anyway competently made and less exploitative.

What exactly are these engine problems that can't be fixed? I don't see Fortnite having the same problems. There is nothing wrong with the engine apart from the default vehicle physics which can be fixed but still haven't been.

If they can't do it with Unreal Engine they have no hope of doing it with any others. The engine has an amazing tool set and is incredibly optimised for big open world real time lighting scenarios like pubg.

The engine code is also completely open source so you change and edit anything you want. This is entirely blueholes problem.


On a different subject I saw 70 people die to playzone in a single game last night. Checked the replay and the ones I could see were all bots crawling or walking in random directions.

K.O.Kiki

Blazer wrote: »

Yeah that 10 day is a killer. I had a jacket going for €150 which by end of the 10 day wait was only a tenner then.

Let's be honest though - in the grand scheme of things, it should be fúcking worthless!

All you lads remind me of this:

Lukker-

BloodBath wrote: »

What exactly are these engine problems that can't be fixed? I don't see Fortnite having the same problems. There is nothing wrong with the engine apart from the default vehicle physics which can be fixed but still haven't been.

If they can't do it with Unreal Engine they have no hope of doing it with any others. The engine has an amazing tool set and is incredibly optimised for big open world real time lighting scenarios like pubg.

The engine code is also completely open source so you change and edit anything you want. This is entirely blueholes problem.


On a different subject I saw 70 people die to playzone in a single game last night. Checked the replay and the ones I could see were all bots crawling or walking in random directions.

Fortnite's map is 3x3 KM roughly with only a 5.5km playable area. PUBG is 8x8. So straight away there is a bigger load on the servers/users pc.

It's not as black and white as people make it out to be. Many of the optimizations Fortnite received should be transferable to PUBG, but it remains to be seen if 1) Epic facilitate it 2) Bluehole are capable of implementing it

Falthyron

BloodBath wrote: »

What exactly are these engine problems that can't be fixed? I don't see Fortnite having the same problems. There is nothing wrong with the engine apart from the default vehicle physics which can be fixed but still haven't been.

If they can't do it with Unreal Engine they have no hope of doing it with any others. The engine has an amazing tool set and is incredibly optimised for big open world real time lighting scenarios like pubg.

The engine code is also completely open source so you change and edit anything you want. This is entirely blueholes problem.
.

I detailed a number of issues/bugs/problems that have persisted in the game for almost a year now in a previous post with little to no effort towards fixing them, from what I can tell. To me, this suggests that BlueHole are either A) incapable of fixing the issues or simply don't care, and would prefer to spend time and money on things that will make them more money - a case of: "Sure, its grand. They'll put up with it."

The engine is great, but I am not sure it was intended for such a large scale map - I believe this was mentioned by people in the past. Fortnite can do it because you have UE4 engineers working on that game and probably know the engine like the back of their hand. Also, Fortnite's map isn't as big.

There are other engines out there that could be better. Frostbite, perhaps? Crytek, maybe? One engine for sure is ARMA 3's engine. An iteration of the engine Brendan Greene himself used when first coming up with his mod. The main difference between UE4 and the three engines mentioned is that you don't have to pay up front for UE4. When you put the pieces together, it becomes clear as to the reasons why BlueHole appear relatively incompetent when it comes to PUBG's development when compared to Fortnite. Despite having made probably close to 1bn now, I guess no amount of money can fix everything... :rolleyes:

Lukker-

Falthyron wrote: »

I detailed a number of issues/bugs/problems that have persisted in the game for almost a year now in a previous post with little to no effort towards fixing them, from what I can tell. To me, this suggests that BlueHole are either A) incapable of fixing the issues or simply don't care, and would prefer to spend time and money on things that will make them more money - a case of: "Sure, its grand. They'll put up with it."

The engine is great, but I am not sure it was intended for such a large scale map - I believe this was mentioned by people in the past. Fortnite can do it because you have UE4 engineers working on that game and probably know the engine like the back of their hand. Also, Fortnite's map isn't as big.

There are other engines out there that could be better. Frostbite, perhaps? Crytek, maybe? One engine for sure is ARMA 3's engine. An iteration of the engine Brendan Greene himself used when first coming up with his mod. The main difference between UE4 and the three engines mentioned is that you don't have to pay up front for UE4. When you put the pieces together, it becomes clear as to the reasons why BlueHole appear relatively incompetent when it comes to PUBG's development when compared to Fortnite. Despite having made probably close to 1bn now, I guess no amount of money can fix everything... :rolleyes:

Frostbite again make even smaller maps, prob 1x1KM. Cryengine has never made a game close to the scale of PUBG either. ARMA 3 engine probably has more issues than PUBG tbh, and the gun play is extremely clunky.

K.O.Kiki

https://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/news/how-normal-is-cheating-at-pubg-in-china-very,488581

https://www.pcpowerplay.com.au/news/dell-responds-to-pubg-cheating-claims,488745

China Numbah Wan!

Lukker-

BTW, this seems to give much better stats for PUBG than other sites I've used.

https://pubg.op.gg/

dreamers75

Lukker- wrote: »

F
It's not as black and white as people make it out to be. Many of the optimizations Fortnite received should be transferable to PUBG, but it remains to be seen if 1) Epic facilitate it 2) Bluehole are capable of implementing it

Epic make money from every sale of PUBG or they got a lump sum up front.

Epic Games charges a 5% royalty based on gross revenue for the use of Unreal Engine 4 under the free license agreement (view EULA).

If you require terms that reduce or eliminate royalty for an upfront fee, or if you need custom legal terms or dedicated Epic support to help your team reduce risk or achieve specific goals, we’re here to help.

I would say its the former.

Falthyron

Lukker- wrote: »

Frostbite again make even smaller maps, prob 1x1KM. Cryengine has never made a game close to the scale of PUBG either. ARMA 3 engine probably has more issues than PUBG tbh, and the gun play is extremely clunky.

Perhaps the Frostbite could handle long draw distances and large maps? We don't know. Only one way to find out.

As for the Cry Engine, this came out 14 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4goe7GWCufE

As for ARMA3, I have never used the engine but according to the stats, its map size potential is huge. Couldn't possibly comment on the gun play.

I guess my point is that BlueHole went with UE4 because it was the cheapest at the time. I think 'cheap' is their primary mantra and, unfortunately, it can be felt in many aspects of PUBG. I just wish they would use the money they have earned to actually address issues that have been ongoing for months now.

BloodBath

Falthyron wrote: »

I detailed a number of issues/bugs/problems that have persisted in the game for almost a year now in a previous post with little to no effort towards fixing them, from what I can tell. To me, this suggests that BlueHole are either A) incapable of fixing the issues or simply don't care, and would prefer to spend time and money on things that will make them more money - a case of: "Sure, its grand. They'll put up with it."

The engine is great, but I am not sure it was intended for such a large scale map - I believe this was mentioned by people in the past. Fortnite can do it because you have UE4 engineers working on that game and probably know the engine like the back of their hand. Also, Fortnite's map isn't as big.

There are other engines out there that could be better. Frostbite, perhaps? Crytek, maybe? One engine for sure is ARMA 3's engine. An iteration of the engine Brendan Greene himself used when first coming up with his mod. The main difference between UE4 and the three engines mentioned is that you don't have to pay up front for UE4. When you put the pieces together, it becomes clear as to the reasons why BlueHole appear relatively incompetent when it comes to PUBG's development when compared to Fortnite. Despite having made probably close to 1bn now, I guess no amount of money can fix everything... :rolleyes:

I know and I agree with all of those issues but that's a problem on Blueholes side. Not the engine. Except for the janky vehicle physics which is from their poor implementation of outdated Nvidia PhysX code. Other's have fixed this problem but it's fairly technical.

I use and study the engine. It's capable of anything. There's lot's of different rendering and lighting options that are super optimised including for large maps like pubg. The game is optimised. I've played a lot of these large map survival games and pubg is the best optimised version I've seen for the graphics they were aiming for. Fortnite is obviously more optimised to run on weaker systems but it's far more simplistic.

Those other engines are options but honestly UE4 is leaps and bounds ahead of all of them in terms of the default workflow and toolset. The Arma Engines are terrible. There's a reason DayZ standalone development crawled and died apart from greed.

I think the main problem at Bluehole is lack of technical talent and greed. They should have just thrown a few million Epic's way to fix the games issues and pump some more money into servers to up the tick rate which would improve hit reg and would also fix a lot of the janky vehicle physics.

Falthyron

BloodBath wrote: »

I know and I agree with all of those issues but that's a problem on Blueholes side. Not the engine. Except for the janky vehicle physics which is from their poor implementation of outdated Nvidia PhysX code. Other's have fixed this problem but it's fairly technical.

I use and study the engine. It's capable of anything. There's lot's of different rendering and lighting options that are super optimised including for large maps like pubg. The game is optimised. I've played a lot of these large map survival games and pubg is the best optimised version I've seen for the graphics they were aiming for. Fortnite is obviously more optimised to run on weaker systems but it's far more simplistic.

Those other engines are options but honestly UE4 is leaps and bounds ahead of all of them in terms of the default workflow and toolset. The Arma Engines are terrible. There's a reason DayZ standalone development crawled and died apart from greed.

I think the main problem at Bluehole is talent. They should have just thrown a few million Epic's way to fix the games issues.

I completely agree. When I bring up the matter of the engine, I am speculating based on what others have said. I.e. perhaps the engine simply can't do the job being put to it. Given the incredible amount of money they have made, it baffles the mind as to why BlueHole haven't bothered fixing these issues. If they don't have the talent to do so, then hire some 6/12 month contract-based engineers/developers who have the sole purpose of optimising and fixing, not making new content. The reason they haven't done this and instead are spending their time making skins and lootboxes? Greed, imo. I reckon they know their time in the limelight is short so the plan is to milk this game for as much as they can before someone with a 200m marketing budget blows them out of the water with a better looking and, possibly, better playing Battle Royale game.

TheFairy

I cant decide if they are really trying to deal with the hacking or they are just paying the community lip service. I seriously think they would be happy if the player base dropped away and they didnt have to maintain all the server costs associated with running servers for so many gamers. I know its tin foil hat territory but hey you never know.

I do know that the last few nights at least 50% of the games I've played have had hackers, such as this skilled chap:

https://pubg.op.gg/user/happyalisa?server=eu

BloodBath

TheFairy wrote: »

I cant decide if they are really trying to deal with the hacking or they are just paying the community lip service. I seriously think they would be happy if the player base dropped away and they didnt have to maintain all the server costs associated with running servers for so many gamers. I know its tin foil hat territory but hey you never know.

I do know that the last few nights at least 50% of the games I've played have had hackers, such as this skilled chap:

https://pubg.op.gg/user/happyalisa?server=eu

I was thinking that as well. It seems to be the model for a lot of these games lately. Good concept, lots of hype and good early access but development and improvements wane after the big surge of sales and the game popularity drops off.

Money already made without maintaining large server costs. I'm not sure if it's a good idea though. With such large sales surely maintaining a large player base who will continue to buy cosmetics would surely be better for business .

Falthyron

BloodBath wrote: »

I was thinking that as well. It seems to be the model for a lot of these games lately. Good concept, lots of hype and good early access but development and improvements wane after the big surge of sales and the game popularity drops off.

Money already made without maintaining large server costs. I'm not sure if it's a good idea though. With such large sales surely maintaining a large player base who will continue to buy cosmetics would surely be better for business .

They are down an estimated 900,000 daily players as it stands. The game peaked at 3,100,000 concurrent users. In the last week, the game's peak concurrent user number is around 2,100,000.

I think many of the lost players relates to the F2P Chinese version launched a couple of months back so that probably took many of those lads away. Still though, everyone is talking about Fortnite, and PUBG's name is starting to wane. I visit sites like GameSpot and Eurogamer and very frequently (usually every couple of days) there are articles detailing added content to Fortnite. Not content 'coming down the road', content coming this week or next.

Like how the old saying goes: 'Football was created in England, but the Brazilians perfected it.' BlueHole may have created the Battle Royale phenomenon, but Epic are perfecting it. Personally, I prefer the more realistic style of PUBG to Fortnite's cartoony aesthetic, so I won't be switching, but I am eagerly awaiting a more competent and less cynically exploitative developer other than BlueHole to come along and produce a proper Battle Royale game.

dreamers75

Falthyron wrote: »

, but I am eagerly awaiting a more competent and less cynically exploitative developer other than BlueHole to come along and produce a proper Battle Royale game.

Like?

Name one game ever that doesnt have the vitriol spewed at it whether something is good or bad?

This and you are modern gaming, you spent 20 quid on a game played 100 hours and demand X and Y is given and whinge that X isnt given or Y is OP.

You have actually summed up modern gamers in every one of your posts on this thread. Bluehole dont owe you anything, you gave them money you played their game for 100 hours.