[Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3
-
@GoodSamaritan11 @Doctor-Dissaray I also would like to clarify (with out adding fuel to the flame) that yes, In many other games the m/kb vs. controller can and often is very largely disparaging and not on the same level. (speaking of pure competitiveness)
That being said, I do believe that in THIS game, its not as large of a gap. With the way they designed combat, allowing you to remap the controller, the overall pace of the game. Just to name a few.Admittedly I have not played a variety of "those" games that allow you to play with controller or m/kb. The only one I played was Destiny 2. That game also had a form of Aim Assist, that was only activated with controller play. (I don't know if that is a thing for SoT, or if it should be to lower the gap between m/kb and controller) That's why I since the release of D1 and into D2 i played exclusively with controller and was a better than average player. (because that was the only way to play)
But when D2 released on PC, my PVP "stats" were garbage. Until i started playing with a controller again. Because I've had years of experience playing that particular game with a controller in pvp, yet haven't played a single FPS on the PC in that time. So going into PVP on PC with M/KB I wasn't used to it and my experience suffered. If I want to be "competitive" and get back to above average in the same game but with a different input device, i would need to retrain my body and get used to the controls again. I found it easier to just plug in the controller to play on par.
-
@mindarchitect said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
We can take 30 seconds longer to load into the game from the ferry of the damned compared to a pc player, this makes all the difference in the world in fights
While this may be true, it is not exclusive to console players. There have been many times where I have taken well over 1m30s to load back in from death, but typically this time is around 50s, which is still an average of 15s faster than my mate, who plays on PC as well.
I acknowledge that this time is not negligible, but it is not a guarantee that EVERY PC loads faster.
I have a buddy that plays on Xbox One (OG, not S or X) and he often has load times right around mine. It is possible that this is a network related problem. One can run a Speedtest to determine if this is so.
For Xbox:
Press the Xbox button to open the guide.- Select Settings.
- Select All Settings.
- Select Network.
- Select Network settings.
- Select Detailed Network Statistics.
The results should appear in a few moments.
High DL/UL (download/upload) and low latency (ping) is what one wants. Keep in mind, this will only reflect the results for the device that the test was run on, and not all devices on the network. If anyone is "streaming Netflix" it may impact the results.
For instance, my results were (on a hardwired connection):
Ping -- 34ms
Download -- 270.37 Mbps
Upload -- 26.44 MbpsFeel free to share your own results as well!
Any ping times over 75-100 ms will likely result in a painfully noticeable lag, as well as longer respawn times.
Has any Xbox user experienced the issue where they go to load in with a crew (Duo sloop/3-man Galleon/4-man Galleon), only for the game to immediately disconnect them "from the server due to inactivity. (Lazybeard)" before it even loads? (e.g. Never saw the tavern, never saw the ship, never saw anything but black. Just was disconnected.)
The Sea Calls To Us All, The Sea Unites Us as One
-
@savagetwinky Just because Microsoft bought RARE, does not mean they just give them free hardware and software. Its not a stupid thing to bring up. There is a cost and time factor to "turn on" said feature.
-
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@savagetwinky Just because Microsoft bought RARE, does not mean they just give them free hardware and software. Its not a stupid thing to bring up. There is a cost and time factor to "turn on" said feature.
It's pretty stupid. It'll be cheaper to user M$'s infrastructure from nearly every conceivable way. Rare has been apart of M$ since... the original xbox. M$ owns rare. M$ will be the ones footing the bill for any hardware...
-
@savagetwinky said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@savagetwinky Just because Microsoft bought RARE, does not mean they just give them free hardware and software. Its not a stupid thing to bring up. There is a cost and time factor to "turn on" said feature.
It's pretty stupid. It'll be cheaper to user M$'s infrastructure from nearly every conceivable way. Rare has been apart of M$ since... the original xbox. M$ owns rare. M$ will be the ones footing the bill for any hardware...
Even IF what you're saying is true, Microsoft will require a substantial set of data that shows why this would be a good investment of time/money/resources.
This data will not come from a few discussion threads on the forums. It will come from Rare. Not to mention Microsoft will want to see ROI. Furthermore being the owner (Microsoft) of a subsidiary (Rare) does not mean they will just "Foot the bill."
-
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
Even IF what you're saying is true, Microsoft will require a substantial set of data that shows why this would be a good investment of time/money/resources.
This data will not come from a few discussion threads on the forums. It will come from Rare. Not to mention Microsoft will want to see ROI. Furthermore being the owner (Microsoft) of a subsidiary (Rare) does not mean they will just "Foot the bill."
Microsoft foots the bill for everything. That's how 1st party works. M$ is building out a server landscape already it would be insane to first think they wouldn't ask for space in what M$ currently has, that is completely scalable, and designed for our applications like SoT... that they would spend MOAR on a 3rd party solution, because that would be super efficient when their product is exclusive to M$ platforms.
And what do you think this mega thread is for? There is no technical reason for disabling crossplay. There is no data to be gathered outside of feedback, this being a place to gather said feedback. The ONLY reason to segregate the community that has any validity is the precision/speed benefits of kb/m against a console player that is limited. So this mega thread is designed to gather feedback.
There is NO reason to discuss the technical side of it. We do not know whats there or whether or not it will be easy so trying to argue the cost benefits is as dumb. It's even dumber if you take the presumption that Rare wouldn't be leveraging azure or that somehow rare would be paying for this, even though rare's pockets reach back into M$'s pockets... It's so dumb it's like arguing about how much peanut butter can be found on the moon.
-
@doctor-dissaray said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@savagetwinky said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
And again what do they need to do beyond a platform check during match making? Or joining a server to see if your allowed to join. Its a platform check. The proposal I mentioned would be better....They probably have significantly harder things to deal with then configuring a server. Why do you think even think they need more servers?
Where did you go to get your Software Engineering degree? Perhaps one should apply with Rare and push for implementing thsese changes.
What for? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm asking questions mostly in there because the other guy seems to think its going to be super difficult to do. Based on what? It could be super simple. At least I pointed to some evidence they already have things in place, like filters, that would filter/group players, thus maybe its easy.
What University did you go to for your business degree?
Don't speak like one knows if one is under-qualified to be elaborating on how business systems work.
You do realize if Rare isn't profitable, it's an M$ expense... at the end of the day, M$ is responsible for paying rare's employees or shutting them down.
No-one here has said suggested Rare SHOULDN'T (or doesn't for that matter) use MS servers. Get your head out of your b******e.
Ugh... you don't seem to understand what we were arguing over. His presumption seems to be it'll be to expensive to implement, because rare will need to buy more server space somewhere (not request it from their IT depart at M$)... and that M$ wouldn't give them space/equipment for free.
You have a serious attitude and this is the wrong place for it.
SMH so hard it hurts
If you believe that someone is wrong in their opinions or statements, it does not help to attack and try to degrade them. All one needs to do is, try to understand why another sees from the perspective they do, and using reasonable, factual evidence try to persuade them otherwise.
I think calling an idea dumb is a pretty good way to criticize an idea, and I pointed out why I think its dumb. It's based on premises that have not based. I didn't call the person dumb... I also think your interpretation of our argument is dumb. You seem to think I called him dumb which I did not. Just to clarify I did not call you dumb either. Just your perception and counterargument. Maybe you should read more precisely before saying dumb things.
-
@kungfustu72
Before you choose sloop or galleon, press yellow Y (settings) then select controller.
Select which button you wish to remap press green A & select bananas etc ;) -
@savagetwinky said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
Even IF what you're saying is true, Microsoft will require a substantial set of data that shows why this would be a good investment of time/money/resources.
This data will not come from a few discussion threads on the forums. It will come from Rare. Not to mention Microsoft will want to see ROI. Furthermore being the owner (Microsoft) of a subsidiary (Rare) does not mean they will just "Foot the bill."
Microsoft foots the bill for everything. That's how 1st party works. M$ is building out a server landscape already it would be insane to first think they wouldn't ask for space in what M$ currently has, that is completely scalable, and designed for our applications like SoT... that they would spend MOAR on a 3rd party solution, because that would be super efficient when their product is exclusive to M$ platforms.
First, Owners and Subsidiary are for all intents and purposes act/operate as their own separate company. Let me provide you some reading material here and here so you can better understand how they work.
Second, you are assuming that Rare's servers are at the same sites as Microsoft's and trying to pass it off as fact. When the reality of the matter is they probably have their own onsite server space separate from Microsoft's server farms. I am not calming that what Rare has is not scale-able, just that its a POTENTIAL factor.
Third, I never said it would be super efficient, When companies run out of current space they have two options.
- rebuild their current space to allow for growth.
- rent out space from a local server farm.
And what do you think this mega thread is for?
It's for feedback.
There is no technical reason for disabling crossplay.
So you assume that its already built into the game to be "toggled" similar to other games that have it that way from the start. SoT ≠ every other cross play game.
There is no data to be gathered outside of feedback, this being a place to gather said feedback.
I am positive they are looking at numbers behind the scenes to justify decisions. Similar to other games that have "OP" weapons. Sure it starts off as "complaining" then turns into a discussion, which sparks developers to look at the statics and determine if "said feature" (weapon in this case) is working as intended, or needs to be reworked. Suffice to say, you're wrong.
The ONLY reason to segregate the community that has any validity is the precision/speed benefits of kb/m against a console player that is limited. So this mega thread is designed to gather feedback.
Yes its designed to gather feedback. I never stated otherwise.
There is NO reason to discuss the technical side of it. We do not know whats there or whether or not it will be easy so trying to argue the cost benefits is as dumb. It's even dumber if you take the presumption that Rare wouldn't be leveraging azure or that somehow rare would be paying for this, even though rare's pockets reach back into M$'s pockets... It's so dumb it's like arguing about how much peanut butter can be found on the moon.
Again I will refer you up to the links i provided, so you can have a better understanding of how a subsidiary works. Ignorance is not bliss.
-
@savagetwinky said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
What for? I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
All I'm saying is that, you can say it is simple all you want, but in reality it may not be so. It could be, but it could also not be. That's all.
You do realize if Rare isn't profitable, it's an M$ expense... at the end of the day, M$ is responsible for paying rare's employees or shutting them down.
Yes I understand this. But I also would think that MS is going to try to have them stand on their own to some extent (i.e. still charging for server space.) Parents shouldn't be [financially] responsible for their children (Subsidiaries) in every aspect.
Ugh... you don't seem to understand what we were arguing over.
Please, don't get cantankerous.
I understood the argument. I agree with both of you to an extent. I feel that (going with your POV a bit) that MS would likely lease the servers for cheap if not close to free, to Rare (themselves essentially). I feel that there still would be a cost, although it would not be too expensive. Costs are costs and who likes losing money?
I think calling an idea dumb is a pretty good way to criticize an idea
Calling an idea dumb is comparable to calling the person who thought of it dumb. I'm not saying they are the same, but often when you call someone's idea dumb, they will take offense to it.
Also, that is a s***e way to criticize something. It helps neither party and makes you look like a piece of trash. Criticism should be constructive, not destructive. It should focus on how to improve the idea, not destroy it. Also, keep your emotions and personal attacks out of it.
Maybe you should read more precisely before saying dumb things.
I read everything concisely and fully understood the content before me. You should just try to improve your vocabulary and use another word that's more appropriate, other than dumb.
The Sea Calls To Us All, The Sea Unites Us as One
-
@doctor-dissaray It's true that pc players can also have an agelong loading screen, as I noticed with my teammate who is a pc player.
Most of the time however his loading screen doesn't take more then 10 - 20 seconds where I take 30 - 50 seconds. (He's done with repairs before I even spawn)
Also true that sometimes (Very rare) I have a loading screen of only 10 seconds. (Never in PvP though, as those loading screens take longest out of all for me)I have done my speedtest as you recommended, these are the results:
Download Speed: 28.10 Mbps
Upload Speed: 3.42 Mbps
Packet Loss: 0%
MTU: 1480
Latency: 11 msI have no idea what it means though... :/
Is this a decent overal "score" or is it low/high?
Also hardwired by the way.
(Edit: Was done on a Xbox One S)About the issue where you load in with a crew (so the beginning of a session) and get a LazyBeard before even seeying anything... Never had it or heard of it yet, but something simular did happen to a crewmember I had 3 days ago.
He came from the ferry of the damned only to have a loadingscreen take longer then 5 minutes before he quit and restarted the game. (He was a pc player though) -
The entire reason I bring up the fact that this "cost" will come into play, is because this: SoT is a game (and hopefully they will start making money on this game) and as a game the developers had backers (to offset the cost of creating the game over the past 4 years) So when the game sells copies they begin to make their money back. I don't know how much was "borrowed" in this sense or how many copies they need to sell to break-even or get back in the "red." So I assume that they are making money by several methods:
- First and foremost, game sales
- A small % of xbox live subscriptions. (maybe?)
- A small % of Gamepass subscriptions. (maybe?)
Potential ways to earn money:
- Turn SoT into a subcription based game (never happen)
- Add micro transactions (confirmed)
The fact of the matter is this: if they aren't making money, Microsoft can close Rare down or shift them to other projects. (because they own the company) they still operate on their own until that happens though. (hopefully it doesn't)
All that said, the potential "cost" comes from their budget, and if they aren't making much money as it stands (again i assume due to the number of players "quitting" for various reasons) would be something that factors into the decision making. Therefore IF these factors i have listed are part of that process, then the change would/could come later rather than sooner. So yes its worth mentioning so you could see the larger picture. Because as you said "We don't know what they have or don't" but having an open mind to a "worse case" scenario might make decisions a little easier to swallow if they don't go your way in the future.
-
@mindarchitect said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@doctor-dissaray It's true that pc players can also have an agelong loading screen, as I noticed with my teammate who is a pc player.
A sad thing indeed. :(
But hopefully something to be worked on in the future!Most of the time however his loading screen doesn't take more then 10 - 20 seconds where I take 30 - 50 seconds
Wow, that is significant! That amount of time can be a complete game changer.
Also true that sometimes (Very rare) I have a loading screen of only 10 seconds. (Never in PvP though, as those loading screens take longest out of all for me)
I too feel that in PvP, there seems to be more time to respawning. Additional research would need to be done on this.
I have done my speedtest as you recommended, these are the results:
Download Speed: 28.10 Mbps
Upload Speed: 3.42 Mbps
Packet Loss: 0%
MTU: 1480
Latency: 11 msThis is an average connection in terms of DL/UL speeds. They don't need to be higher than they are but it may help, meaning a higher tier connection through your ISP (Internet Service Provider). MTU, or maximum transmission unit, is good, it needs to be "at least a minimum of 1384 MTU or higher to play games on Xbox Live". Your latency is on-point.
I am also connected with a cable modem, which has one of those "screw on" connectors. If you have DSL (connection comes in on a phone cord) type internet, it can be less reliable. High traffic times (prime time) can also affect this. If someone decides to stream a movie (assuming you don't live alone, and others use your home network) that too will take away from your connection.
It is curious that your load times should be delayed with your current connection.
Is this a decent overal "score" or is it low/high?
Definitely decent. Not "low" by any means.
Also hardwired by the way.
The best way IMO :)
About the issue where you load in with a crew (so the beginning of a session) and get a LazyBeard before even seeying anything... Never had it or heard of it yet, but something simular did happen to a crewmember I had 3 days ago.
OK, I was just curious. I don't think this is an issue that affects console, but we would need more pirates to chime in. (Yarrrr!)
He came from the ferry of the damned only to have a loadingscreen take longer then 5 minutes before he quit and restarted the game. (He was a pc player though)
I've also experience this. Kinda sucks when you got plenty of loot and cant join back in with the crew you were with (randoms.)
The Sea Calls To Us All, The Sea Unites Us as One
-
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
First, Owners and Subsidiary are for all intents and purposes act/operate as their own separate company. Let me provide you some reading material here and here so you can better understand how they work.
A subsidiary may operate alone but all their costs are M$'s costs, and all their profit are M$'s profit. The expensive being the important part, M$ is ultimately is responsible for their operating cost IE if they want server they'll either be able to pay for them or M$ will pay for them. Any budget they have is profit M$ lets them keep.
Second, you are assuming that Rare's servers are at the same sites as Microsoft's and trying to pass it off as fact. When the reality of the matter is they probably have their own onsite server space separate from Microsoft's server farms. I am not calming that what Rare has is not scale-able, just that its a POTENTIAL factor.
I'm not assuming, your presumption first, ignores that SoT already integrated with M$ live front end, and requires some server farm for games spread out across regions, M$ has a scalable landscape they build and maintain...
What I'm saying is its an unlikely factor given what we know about rare/m$ already.
Third, I never said it would be super efficient, When companies run out of current space they have two options. 1 rebuild their current space to all for growth. 2 rent out space from a local server farm.
Which M$ already does as necessary for azure, even farming out to aws. To rare it would just be a significant duplication of work managing their own servers for the game. Given that prior to release rare was a smaller company.
So you assume that its already built into the game to be "toggled" similar to other games that have it that way from the start. SoT ≠ every other cross play game.
I don't assume it can be toggled, I pointed out evidence to suggest your presumptions are stupid based on literally nothing. I at least have something to point to and say, if they want to implement something to group players into servers... and they have something to implement players into servers, then the scope of work your estimating on their behalf is completely unreasonable.
I am positive they are looking at numbers behind the scenes to justify decisions. Similar to other games that have "OP" weapons. Sure it starts off as "complaining" then turns into a discussion, which sparks developers to look at the statics and determine if "said feature" (weapon in this case) is working as intended, or needs to be reworked. Suffice to say, you're wrong.
And there is no technical reason to disable crossplay. It's already implemented. The only reason to consider disabling it is whether or not its deemed harmful to the player experience.
Of course they are looking at technical stuff. But why are you? You don't know anything, it could be expensive, it might super easy, it might not. But here is a feedback thread that allows us to discuss the practical benefits for the option. This is not a technical discussion and whether or not this is a useful feature is not a technical discussion. Whether or not they do, and when, and how long it takes is and has nothing to do with us.
Again I will refer you up to the links i provided, so you can have a better understanding of how a subsidiary works. Ignorance is not bliss.
Which you should read. Considering they had to pitch this idea to M$... to get funding... and they aren't exactly a profitable independent organization... you should probably ask yourself are all subsidiaries identical in their financial setup.
-
@mindarchitect You don't already own a keyboard/mouse? That's hilarious. In fact, this whole thread is getting ridiculous. If they added a 60fps mode and have keyboard/mouse support, then it's loading times on the ferry. No, it does not take 30 seconds longer to load in, I've got both and it may be a few seconds more, but I think it's server dependant more than inferior hardware. It has taken me longer to load on my PC than my bros Xbox one X at times. So do you want Xbox one X separate from the OG/s as well? It does have much better hardware than the og/s and loads quicker/has better resolution support.
After 1.0.4 over two weeks ago, we have a vsync issue on pc (that hasn't been talked about by rare), that dips us into the 30fps range or lower in many spots. Do you see us saying it makes us loose on the supremely casual PvP experience?
You do realize that some people that play on pc have a worse config than an even the OG Xbox, and also play with a controller?
Rare, don't fold for this issue because a few people on a forum are livid. Keep the community together as intended. This game was touted heavily as cross plat play anywhere. Don't change to appease a tiny portion of the player base.
-
@trophy-un1ocked I'm sure msft already paid them handsomely for jumping in gamepass. Rare is working on other projects, just not this team.
-
@doctor-dissaray "Wow, that is significant! That amount of time can be a complete game changer."
It definitly is, this is the biggest reason why I think that crossplay should be optional.
In a PvP situation every second counts, even half a second can make a big difference, having a 20 to 40 second difference in loading in from the ferry is too much to handle for any pirate no matter how skilled at the game (s)he is.
This is especially true for smaller crews fighting bigger crews."This is an average connection in terms of DL/UL speeds. They don't need to be higher than they are but it may help, meaning a higher tier connection through your ISP (Internet Service Provider). MTU, or maximum transmission unit, is good, it needs to be "at least a minimum of 1384 MTU or higher to play games on Xbox Live". Your latency is on-point."
So I can say without doubt that my loadingscreens come from being on a console rather then having a bad connection?
I do wonder how it works for you right now then, as you're a pc player right?
But we have about the same loadingscreen times if yours take about 50 seconds too.
Most, if not all, pc players I met load a lot faster then me. (Don't know about everyone wether they're on pc or xbox though, I don't always ask) -
@savagetwinky I preemptively (and unknowingly) answered your questions on post 205. Yes while "unlikely" as it may be, its not outside the realm of "possibilities."
That's all I am saying.
Again: "Because as you said "We don't know what they have or don't" but having an open mind to a "worse case" scenario might make decisions (made by RARE)a little easier to swallow if they don't go your way in the future." -
@mindarchitect I can agree with you there for sure, but if they were able to make the respawn loading times more finite, (akin to wow/destiny/cod) where your dead for a specific time then come back. Would there still be a need for the cross play options? Right now there seems to be too many variables when it comes to repsawning in the heat of battle.
I for sure agree that the respawn times need to be addressed and fixed for sure. But I am not a programmer and don't know how/if it would be possible.
-
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@savagetwinky I preemptively (and unknowingly) answered your questions on post 205. Yes while "unlikely" as it may be, its not outside the realm of "possibilities."
That's all I am saying.
Again: "Because as you said "We don't know what they have or don't" but having an open mind to a "worse case" scenario might make decisions (made by RARE)a little easier to swallow if they don't go your way in the future."I didn't really ask question.
Let me go back to the start when you first bought up servers
This isn't a worth while discussion for us and the likeliness it will be a real issues with technical or server capacity are not a reasonable assumption to make. That's my argument. You can defend your point of view all you want but its completely baseless and pointless given the context. The much more likely scenario given they have filters already + Microsoft's tool/servers this shouldn't be a technical hurdle.
-
@savagetwinky You asked why i was looking at the technical side, when they do already. My answer was back at 205*
Honestly I'm not for or against making crossplay optional. (I just haven't come across hard proof its NEEDED in my opinion) My point is that there are many external factors to this decision. So if everyone goes into it with that open mind setting and
thinkrealize there are many factors we -as players- can't control. Thus if they come out to say Yes it will happen or NO it wont happen, its easier for the proponents on both sides to swallow that pill. -
@doctor-dissaray said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
All I'm saying is that, you can say it is simple all you want, but in reality it may not be so. It could be, but it could also not be. That's all.
Great, my original point was saying its difficult is a stupid assumption based on the parent company and the parent companies technology backing...
It could be. But its stupid to think so unless you have more information.
Yes I understand this. But I also would think that MS is going to try to have them stand on their own to some extent (i.e. still charging for server space.) Parents shouldn't be [financially] responsible for their children (Subsidiaries) in every aspect.
Not every aspect but... there is no point in charging them more in operating costs.. its not extra profit that M$ can make. And rare can and likely adds more value to the platform even if they operate at a loss.
Please, don't get cantankerous.
I understood the argument. I agree with both of you to an extent. I feel that (going with your POV a bit) that MS would likely lease the servers for cheap if not close to free, to Rare (themselves essentially). I feel that there still would be a cost, although it would not be too expensive. Costs are costs and who likes losing money?
Right, but why do we need more servers . If they already can handle all the players playing... W*F is the point of more servers. Why do you think it would be difficult to implement without servers, when the intent is to group players based on an option, and they have spoken about matchmaking based on options already.Why even make that as a suggestion?
Not you, but this is where I went with his argument.
I think calling an idea dumb is a pretty good way to criticize an idea
Calling an idea dumb is comparable to calling the person who thought of it dumb. I'm not saying they are the same, but often when you call someone's idea dumb, they will take offense to it.
Not its not. An idea can be dumb. Someone smart can come up with a dumb idea. Then they learn. Its generally because someone didn't know better or didn't think an idea all the way through.
Like arguing against a feature because of technical difficulties when you have neither have technical knowledge or the understanding of the system to make that judgment. When the discussion is whether or not the feature would have any use. It's an incredibly dumb position to take.
Also, that is a s***e way to criticize something. It helps neither party and makes you look like a piece of trash. Criticism should be constructive, not destructive. It should focus on how to improve the idea, not destroy it. Also, keep your emotions and personal attacks out of it.
It's not destructive. Its not a personal attack. This is a dumb comment because its making a leap in logic that because I attacked an idea, everyone that holds it must be dumb. That's not how people work. Many people come up with dumb ideas. Many people misinterpret or do not fully flesh out an idea. Then the power of hindsight teaches you something important. People can run with a dumb idea while still being rather intelligent.
Making a leap in logic = dumb. It's one of the reasons why smart people say or do dumb things, they took a shortcut and missed something trivial.
Maybe you should read more precisely before saying dumb things.
I read everything concisely and fully understood the content before me. You should just try to improve your vocabulary and use another word that's more appropriate, other than dumb.
Maybe you should read more precisely before saying dumb things.
-
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@savagetwinky You asked why i was looking at the technical side, when they do already. My answer was back at 205*
Honestly I'm not for or against making crossplay optional. (I just haven't come across hard proof its NEEDED in my opinion) My point is that there are many external factors to this decision. So if everyone goes into it with that open mind setting and
thinkrealize there are many factors we -as players- can't control. Thus if they come out to say Yes it will happen or NO it wont happen, its easier for the proponents on both sides to swallow that pill.Whether or not it's important is all that matters in the feedback forum. I'm asking why are you bringing up technical stuff when you, don't know, won't know, can't know about any technical limitations, and even pointing them out is a massive pointless and misdirection of the actual conversation.
KB/M is fundamentally superior to a controller for fps games. Equally skilled opponents the KB/M player has the advantage, because they don't have to sacrifice speed for precision, or precision for speed. Crossplay shouldn't be disabled but we need a controller only option to group with other controller gamers.
-
@savagetwinky said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@savagetwinky You asked why i was looking at the technical side, when they do already. My answer was back at 205*
Honestly I'm not for or against making crossplay optional. (I just haven't come across hard proof its NEEDED in my opinion) My point is that there are many external factors to this decision. So if everyone goes into it with that open mind setting and
thinkrealize there are many factors we -as players- can't control. Thus if they come out to say Yes it will happen or NO it wont happen, its easier for the proponents on both sides to swallow that pill.Whether or not it's important is all that matters in the feedback forum. I'm asking why are you bringing up technical stuff when you, don't know, won't know, can't know about any technical limitations, and even pointing them out is a massive pointless and misdirection of the actual conversation.
You may feel its a pointless misdirection, and you're entitled to that opinion. I don't however.
KB/M is fundamentally superior to a controller for fps games. Equally skilled opponents the KB/M player has the advantage, because they don't have to sacrifice speed for precision, or precision for speed. Crossplay shouldn't be disabled but we need a controller only option to group with other controller gamers.
I have already posted my findings, and opinion on this m/kb vs controller topic. As I have said many many times before SoT ≠ other FPS shooter games. I don't feel (from my own testing experience) that THIS game is as bad as people are claiming it to be (like other shooters)
This is my opinion. It doesn't have to line up with yours, and I am fine with that.
-
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
You may feel its a pointless misdirection, and you're entitled to that opinion. I don't however.
KB/M is fundamentally superior to a controller for fps games. Equally skilled opponents the KB/M player has the advantage, because they don't have to sacrifice speed for precision, or precision for speed. Crossplay shouldn't be disabled but we need a controller only option to group with other controller gamers.
I have already posted my findings, and opinion on this m/kb vs controller topic. As I have said many many times before SoT ≠ other FPS shooter games. I don't feel (from my own testing experience) that THIS game is as bad as people are claiming it to be (like other shooters)
This is my opinion. It doesn't have to line up with yours, and I am fine with that.
Right, I get that, and my point is your opinion is neither helpful to whether or not this feature is worth any effort nor is it based on anything intelligent, lets just toss a coin about the technical limitations because its as effective as a way of deciding whether or not its easy.
And its horrible. As a PC gamer, I can solo galleon's worth of xbox players. Just because it's not constant FPS doesn't mean that a disadvantage isn't a real problem. I like using a controller but they are so bad at ship management during combat I actively switch control schemes.
-
@doctor-dissaray said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
Its not anything, saying "its a dumb idea" is worthless.
Something constructive would be: "this isn't good, here is what makes me think this, and here is how it this idea could be better/here is how this idea won't work."
Ok how is dumb destructive. And where did I not add anything constructive as I tried to point out the more likely scenarios as well as drag the conversation back to the topic of whether or not cross play is a worth while feature, not whether or not we should be concerned with technical limitations. Talking technical limitations is stupid, it's less then constructive dialog and no one has any idea W*F they are talking about.
There is no better way to describe it. It's dumb. It's a dumb conversation to have. And I'm trying to stress how dumb it is to talk about it to avoid talking about it more. It's also dumb to assume calling something dumb isn't constructive in some way because if people understood why its such a dumb thing we can move on from this conversation for actual constructive dialog. There is nothing constructive that can be made out of a conversation about technical limitations.
But it appears you obviously are not here for another person's input.
I am if it were relevant and anything we could actually talk about. Now we are arguing over semantics about dumb.
Your words not mine. I never said that is the way you think. Maybe you just think they are misinformed. I don't know.
You basically decided I was attacking someone when I said an idea was dumb. You might have stated the idea under which the conclusion was made, but you most certainly practiced it.
You are right, and everyone else is wrong. If someone tries to convince you otherwise, it is blasphemy. Thats the only vibe I get from you.
What happened to the moral posturing and no personal attacks?
I did try, but I will no longer attempt to see things your way. That would be dumb. I don't come here for arguments.
you specifically argued a point, argued against me.. this is rich saying you didn't come here for an argument and tried to see things my way. You can think that's what you did...
-
@savagetwinky said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
@trophy-un1ocked said in [Mega Thread] Play Anywhere and Cross Play - Part 3:
You may feel its a pointless misdirection, and you're entitled to that opinion. I don't however.
KB/M is fundamentally superior to a controller for fps games. Equally skilled opponents the KB/M player has the advantage, because they don't have to sacrifice speed for precision, or precision for speed. Crossplay shouldn't be disabled but we need a controller only option to group with other controller gamers.
I have already posted my findings, and opinion on this m/kb vs controller topic. As I have said many many times before SoT ≠ other FPS shooter games. I don't feel (from my own testing experience) that THIS game is as bad as people are claiming it to be (like other shooters)
This is my opinion. It doesn't have to line up with yours, and I am fine with that.
Right, I get that, and my point is your opinion is neither helpful to whether or not this feature is worth any effort nor is it based on anything intelligent, lets just toss a coin about the technical limitations because its as effective as a way of deciding whether or not its easy.
And its horrible. As a PC gamer, I can solo galleon's worth of xbox players. Just because it's not constant FPS doesn't mean that a disadvantage isn't a real problem. I like using a controller but they are so bad at ship management during combat I actively switch control schemes.
That's impressive in any setting. But are you assuming because you beat them they must be on xbox... This is rhetorical.
So many times I have seen the example "I beat x players so easily because I use m/kb..." etc. Cool, but maybe you were/are the better player. Maybe they weren't as experienced as you are? Maybe they weren't prepared for a fight (in the sense of supplies) So many times, people (not just you) equate the win to "superior" controls.
And yes i know (from experience) there are camera snap/look speed issues when interacting with the ship when sensitivity is set to full.(applies to controller only) These should be addressed also.
-
The only reason there are issues with snap speed is because you blow past your intended target with high controller sensitivity. You have a couple of choices with a controller, either you want to aim at things in front of you easily, or behind you. You generally don't get both with a controller.
Not really if you have a range/aiming/turning advantage. I usually get stomped on by good PC players. And it's pretty easy to just ask. Usually, although more rare now, xboxers are in chat all the time, PC players have a separate group / push to talk set up. While its a bit anecdotal, kb/m being objectively better is not.
Case in point. A duo sloop rolled up on my solo sloop. I grabbed a barrel and started treading water.. in plain site over to their sloop. Before they could get accurate shots of... i'd drop the barrel, kill one of them, and pick up the barrel. This was probably mid distance away. When the first guy spawned I just shot/sword combo... after dropping the barrel of course, at this point I was right next to the ship. Picked up the barrel ran up the deck. The second guy spawned and I was out of ammo, so I gave him a hug with the barrel. They were frustrated xbox players. They couldn't aim as quickly at the keg because their sensitivity was too high, for ship combat. The distance caused them to over shoot centering their aim on the barrel by a wide margin.
Your best argument is that most of the game doesn't matter. The problem I see with that argument is it tries to disregard or trivialize the points where it does matter. Which I'll point out still do matter.
-
Lets get back to the topic this thread is about
I support cross-play. I enjoy playing with users on Xbox. If Rare were to implement a way to "toggle" or disable cross-play, I would not be opposed to it. Variety is the (Crate of Exquisite) spices of life, savvy?
Trying to get a sort of census going, or poll rather.
Please reply with Aye or Noe (No if you prefer) to whether or not YOU believe that optional cross-play should be a feature in the game.
Reply remove, if you think this feature should be removed from the game entirely.
Reply Stay the same, if you are happy with the way things are currently!
The Sea Calls To Us All, The Sea Unites Us as One
