POSTIVE changes in 1.3

[Jumintiger]

Is the glass half empty or half full? I think too many of us are using the former.

Yes 1.3 does suck. EA and DiCE are being little billionaires while we fight for our "freedom". But tell me some things that were good about 1.3

Mine would be that the P90 has the rate of fire of the old MP7. It is a real nice CQC weapon now, before it was good, now it is excellent.

Just tell me your thoughts.

[menace-uk-]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

I like all the changes in all the patches but the 1.3 pacth gives me a CTD more often than not :cry:

Also they should have fixed the bugs before gameplay changes and i think that is what most people are complaining about

[Harmor]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

As an Engineer, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.

Also they should have fixed the bugs before gameplay changes and i think that is what most people are complaining about

I don't know if you're a software programmer, but when you have a team of programmers, not everyone is tasked with fixing bugs. Granted a higher priority and number of resources should be allocated, but you can only have so many people fixing the same problem before the communication between them gets too cumbersome and conterproductive.

Example (A talks to B...):

2 people (2): AB, BA
3 people (6): AB, AC, BA, BC, CA, CB
4 people (12): AB, AC, AD, BA, BC, BD, CA, CB, CD, DA, DB, DC

As you can see the levels of communication increase significantly as you add more people to the same problem. Two or three programmers fixing a specific issue is the most you should have.

There are several books that explain this better than I have here, but I think you'll get the gist.

So you can not only fix bugs but also add features. I know when I finish my modules early for a release I focus on bug fixing.

[lmimmfn]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

As an Engineer, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.


I don't know if you're a software programmer, but when you have a team of programmers, not everyone is tasked with fixing bugs. Granted a higher priority and number of resources should be allocated, but you can only have so many people fixing the same problem before the communication between them gets too cumbersome and conterproductive.

Example (A talks to B...):

2 people (2): AB, BA
3 people (6): AB, AC, BA, BC, CA, CB
4 people (12): AB, AC, AD, BA, BC, BD, CA, CB, CD, DA, DB, DC

As you can see the levels of communication increase significantly as you add more people to the same problem. Two or three programmers fixing a specific issue is the most you should have.

There are several books that explain this better than I have here, but I think you'll get the gist.

So you can not only fix bugs but also add features. I know when I finish my modules early for a release I focus on bug fixing.

Im a software developer maintaining code on a large server, what you say is half right, that only happens when many designers who arent competent enough are thrown at the same problem, e.g. if a delivery date is 2 weeks time, with 5 competent designers working on it, and they predict they will only fix half the problems, then simply adding another 5 designers will not ensure all bugs will be fixed,in fact it will be counter productive because competent designers have to train the new designers

They should NOT have added any new features( especially since its obvious they dont have the resources ), all bugs are prioritised and the highest priority bugs( server & client crashes ) must be fixed above everything else.

When new features are requested( By Customers!!!!, i.e. us??? ) a change of requirements order is issued which must be costed among design and test, obviously this didnt happen

Anyway thats enough of the behind the scenes, only reason i can see for them to introduce new features was for a test bed for 2142. Their organisation must be in a total mess, usually because of the high risk involved in introducing new features they are spread across several deliveries as the code base is larger and thus more prone to failure, another bo bo by their product management me thinks

Oh and another bo bo is that they should have rolled everything back 1-2 days after they seen all these problems, another cost cutting measure perhaps??

I blame their hand over process from DICE sweden to DICE canada for maintainence, its obvious DICE canada cant make head not tail of the code

Going back to the thread, i think the only thing i like from 1.3 is that it remembers your class from the previous game and doesnt reset it to Assult, although, there are bugs with this as i rarely play medic unless theyre are none on the team, but ive been playing a lot of medic since 1.3 as apparently that must have been my last choice, lmao, but in general i like that. Ohh and also they added some new speech files, New Commander etc.

Dice's last results were very bad,the next ones will be terrible( considering they take a huge percentage from the boosters compared to full on the shelf products, where EA take nearly all of the profits )

[Dangerdog]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

That server browser is AWESOME!

[imported_Spuddy]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

I haven't taken a drink so my glass is exactly the same, as is BF2 before and after the patch. :p

I'd rather go back to the days when the Blackhawk was awesome and the shock paddles and medic packs weren't connected, my glass would then be 3/4 full.

[lpdude]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

But seriously, the server crashes are a f*cking p!sstake

[raceacontari]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

Mine would be that the P90 has the rate of fire of the old MP7. It is a real nice CQC weapon now, before it was good, now it is excellent.

That was changed back in 1.22. they upped the rate of fire on the p90 from 600 to 900. The only thing they didn't bother to do back then was change the sound...so it was kind of stupid lol

[imported_RpTheHotrod]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

I like the AA changes

[imported_Apostle]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

I honestly can't think of anything positive. I am not being an ass, I honestly can't. I suppose the default kit selection is pretty nice, but a very minor plus point.

I guess, the best changes were the exploits they fixed on some maps, but then again they balenced that out by adding some new exploits, LOL!

[WinterNight]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

I honestly can't think of anything positive. I am not being an ass, I honestly can't. I suppose the default kit selection is pretty nice, but a very minor plus point.

I guess, the best changes were the exploits they fixed on some maps, but then again they balenced that out by adding some new exploits, LOL!

'cause you know... DICE intentionally adds exploits...

[Revoluti0n]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

Mine would be that the P90 has the rate of fire of the old MP7. It is a real nice CQC weapon now, before it was good, now it is excellent.

Just tell me your thoughts.

I was not aware that the P90 was reverted to the older version ROF. They supposedly "fixed" it the last patch 1.22 because the ROF sucked hard.
I never noticed that the ROF changed pre or post patching with 1.22. I think they were bullsh!tting us with that one...It's still the suckiest weapon in game I think.

As for positivity, I really cannot point anything out. Maybe like Apostle points out, the bugs in the maps?

I heard that they were actually going to remove strafing while shooting and jumping more than once in 1.32....

[imported_Apostle]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

'cause you know... DICE intentionally adds exploits...

Come on, you know I was being ironic. I certainly hope that they don't intentionally add bugs/exploits, but unfortunately it has been the case with many of the patchs.

[menace-uk-]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

As an Engineer, the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.


I don't know if you're a software programmer, but when you have a team of programmers, not everyone is tasked with fixing bugs. Granted a higher priority and number of resources should be allocated, but you can only have so many people fixing the same problem before the communication between them gets too cumbersome and conterproductive.

Example (A talks to B...):

2 people (2): AB, BA
3 people (6): AB, AC, BA, BC, CA, CB
4 people (12): AB, AC, AD, BA, BC, BD, CA, CB, CD, DA, DB, DC

As you can see the levels of communication increase significantly as you add more people to the same problem. Two or three programmers fixing a specific issue is the most you should have.

There are several books that explain this better than I have here, but I think you'll get the gist.

So you can not only fix bugs but also add features. I know when I finish my modules early for a release I focus on bug fixing.

It does not matter if i know how to fix bugs/code and **** i did not make the game:laugh:

I think it is obvious to a gamer that bug fixes should come first all EA want to do is make as much money as they can so they release poor patches which introduce more problems than they fix:laugh:

[imported_BlueScreen]

Re: POSTIVE changes in 1.3

Like the OP said the only positive thing i noticed is that now one is actually able to kill people with the P-90. The rest is crap (i.e. one doesn't need a spinning turret anymore to get in karkands hotel, on foot is enough :evil: - or is this old?)

[...] I heard that they were actually going to remove strafing while shooting and jumping more than once in 1.32....

I heard that they will remove the running and all the guns and give us tea bags instead :laugh: