**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I'm not painting anything. Just the opposite, actually. I'm using Turpentine.
Absolutely made me laugh. Burn, baby, burn.
How I wish a few of you software engineers could take an in depth look at the actual coding for the game. I suspect its architecture would make Rube Goldberg shudder.
Dr. Zola
I did, couldn't find any.
Kabam clearly stated they made the changes to stop people 100%ing the map because exploration should be the tie breaker.
You now failed to justify the activation of game engine related changes, while non game engine related changes were postponed THREE times. I recall that issue reports are wrt performance and overheating so please cut the BS, and recall you are the one calling other people idiots and questioning appraisals... It was just a constructive criticism yet please move on to the subject in discussion.
They've maintained from the start of the changes that completing the Map should be rare. As for specific comments, it's been said over and over since the introduction of Diversity that people are constantly reaching 100%, and the Win is determined by a small number of Points. Now, whether the Search Function will find them or not, I can't go back that far in my memory. I'm sure other people have read the same. Regardless, that was the argument. Everyone hits 100%, and Wars are won by a few Points in Diversity. Until they reneged on the removal of it, Diversity was also set to go. I'm usually present, so I have a clear memory of the argument.
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/comment/187788#Comment_187788
Couple examples on the first Search.
Wow you can twist words some strange ways.
So no one actually complained it was too easy but that diversity was a ridiculous medium for deciding a winner.
People have complained the Map was easy. Yes. I don't have time to go on a Scavenger Hunt for comments to appease doubt.
If people are hitting 100%, then it would be too easy as per their goal of making it rare.
I did in the first post I made on the subject, which is probably how I "missed" your "point:"
If you need more specifics, I'm actually one of the people that's been experiencing odd problems since the push of 19.0, and while I haven't been experiencing some of the severe overheating and related problems, I have been experiencing random bouts of the game client behaving as if its resource management is totally broken. The game client gives the appearance of graphics resources somehow being swapped out of memory, and it also experiences random instances of losing network connectivity even though I can confirm network connectivity itself isn't disrupted. All of these combined with the other reports of overheating and other performance problems lead me to believe the problem is something significant in how the game client functions. But that doesn't have to be a game client problem, or if it is it doesn't have to be caused by game client changes: game server problems can sometime appear to be game client problems when the game servers malfunction in a way that instructs the game clients to do weird or suboptimal things, and game server changes can sometimes trigger game client problems.
For reference, in another MMO I played an update to the online store that appeared to be completely independent of the rest of the game caused major game client problems due to the fact that the in-game store used an embedded minibrowser that had a serious memory leak that was triggered by an expansion of the in-game store. The problem was triggered when the game servers were updated with larger sets of store contents, which were pushed live to the game clients, which would leak memory under certain store-browsing and sorting operations. In that way, a pure database update on the backend caused a memory leak in the game clients and crashed the game on client desktops under high activity situations. On the surface, the problem looked like a game client problem, which it technically was, but the game clients hadn't themselves been changed in any way around when the problem occurred. It was a game client problem that wasn't triggered by a game client change.
When this happens to you often enough, you stop trying to guess what changes will cause problems in which places, unless you are absolutely certain your knowledge of the entire system is absolutely complete. I doubt anyone has that knowledge about MCOC, and it would be best practice operationally not to guess.
1 post in 8 months and that's only if you twist his words to say it's too easy.
This whole "100% is meant to rare" philosophy is only a week old.
A week old? No. You need to read the 2.0 Thread.
Hey, I do like the fact that you are pushing the updates. APpreciate it. However I just saved glory from the past week of AQ for this coming week in expectations of this new update. So I just lost 3 alpha catalysts for the week. I had no other way to phrase this without it sounding like complaining lol. Sorry
Was supposed to be 2 links. Anywho.
We get it, you have to be the designated dink. Those affected don’t want to screw over our alliances because kabam’s update is causing issues with our phones, which affects our ally contribution...
I’m excited for the peak milestones and new Alliance events
If you are expecting people to play old AQ with overheating phones then there was no point delaying the new format because heat problems, the AQ version we play is not going to change the fact phones are overheating
Actually you are just trolling at this point and your posts aren't constructive and only creating a hostile environment which isn't healthy for the forums.
I really am ignorant to this, anyone have an explanation I could understand?
The only reason why they decided to risk peoples phones and not totally suspend everything is just because they dont want to compensate players even further and would rather let people ruin their devices than have to do so.
also, AQ requiring 3 to join each BG before opening next BG, whereas it was 1 before.