|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
675
   |
Posted - 2013.09.06 17:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
How to reproduce: create duplicates of the same suit/ variations of the suit with variations of the equipment. Once you drop all your equipment go to a supply depot and swap to the next suit, you'll be able to glitch the maximum equipment out per time infinitely by doing this repetitively.
Equipment is limited for a reason, and people are exploiting this glitch to diarrhea pile equipment all over objectives. It is impacting performance in PC as well as public matches and fw.
When something says you can only have up to 2 or 3 out at a time and you have 500% of that out, something is broken. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
702
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 06:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
The equipment was already limited, you found a way to exploit a glitch to bypass the maximum equipment out. He's not restricting you, you are cheating him. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
702
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 06:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
I Feel a good fix for this would be: When someone swaps suits at a supply depot, any new equipment they chunk down splodes the last suit's equipment on a one for one basis. It is how it works when you use normal nanohives and throw down more than they support. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
702
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 14:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:There is no glitch or bug here, tool bags.
THE LIMITS ARE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, NOT ALL EQUIPMENT OF THAT TYPE!
Restricting equipment use stifles creativity and limits gameplay. Switching equipment and spamming hives and uplinks is a legitimate way to start and sustain an assault or bolster a line of defense. I'm sorry that you assault-biased CODophiles can't appreciate support play, but this isn't your typical shooter. Dust 514 is fun for people like me because there are many ways to play and make a difference. You goons are just too myopic to realize that's a good thing.
Your dropsuit does not have forty equipment slots, it has up to four. Even if you were to toss down four types of equipment, swapping suits for four different equipments should pop the previous ones. You don't have eight equipment slots, you have between one to four.
It IS a glitch. You were never supposed to be able to diarrhea spam equipment like this. That is why there are hard limits on each piece, and a limited number of equipment slots on the suits themselves. You are blatantly cheating with a broken mechanic.
|
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
712
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 23:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Skihids wrote:This sounds like another case of people wanting to homogenize game play.
They call for limits rather than expansions.
You think the opposition is being effective in supporting their team? You call for limitations on base ability rather than a counter method.
That line of thought will create an extremely narrow set of play styles (basically Assault AR with one or two inconsequential pieces of equipment).
My understanding of DUST is that it attempts to be expansive and deep rather than shallow and superficial. Constraining choices is a sure way to kill this game because depth and complexity is its main draw.
People are exploiting a bug in core mechanics and calling it a 'play style'. If you want the core mechanics to support your play style, post in feedback requests. I'm reporting a bug here.
This has already been noted by the dev team in this weeks dev report sticky. It IS a bug. You are supposed to be limited by the amount of equipment your suit can carry. People have found a way to abuse a bug to cheat their way around the core mechanics.
I'm not asking for a change, I'm asking for the bug to be fixed. If you don't like the core mechanics the way they are supposed to be, post in feedback. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
712
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 00:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:Leovarian L Lavitz wrote:Skihids wrote:This sounds like another case of people wanting to homogenize game play.
They call for limits rather than expansions.
You think the opposition is being effective in supporting their team? You call for limitations on base ability rather than a counter method.
That line of thought will create an extremely narrow set of play styles (basically Assault AR with one or two inconsequential pieces of equipment).
My understanding of DUST is that it attempts to be expansive and deep rather than shallow and superficial. Constraining choices is a sure way to kill this game because depth and complexity is its main draw. People are exploiting a bug in core mechanics and calling it a 'play style'. If you want the core mechanics to support your play style, post in feedback requests. I'm reporting a bug here. This has already been noted by the dev team in this weeks dev report sticky. It IS a bug. You are supposed to be limited by the amount of equipment your suit can carry. People have found a way to abuse a bug to cheat their way around the core mechanics. I'm not asking for a change, I'm asking for the bug to be fixed. If you don't like the core mechanics the way they are supposed to be, post in feedback. You can't read. Seriously. Read the attributes for any hive or uplink. The max active and max carried info is for that piece of equipment only! You didn't discover a bug, genius!
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1292823#post1292823
Is a bug, dev confirmation right there.
Thank you, have a nice day and go thukk yourself. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
712
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 05:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Skihids wrote:So how is this supposed to work?
I put one UL type on each of four suit fittings and the second type pops the first, the third pops the second, and the fourth pops the third?
Or
I put four UL types on one suit and lay out all four, then swap out to a medic fit and they all stick around, or they all suddenly pop?
What's my supposed limit?
If it's only what I can carry then being a support Logi just became extremely constraining.
You want me to schlep uplinks and hives around for you, but just one of each? if I lay out a handful of DU's and hives for my team I'm supposed to stand around with my thumb up my ass because I've got no active module and I'm too squishy to go to the front and shoot?
Then if I do die, well, my suit is no longer supporting the equipment so your hives and DU go pop?
No, they stick around? Well what the hell is supporting them then?
Might as well go become an Assault Logi, or see if vehicles are fixed in 1.5 and screw trying to help cry babies who won't be happy until everyone is carrying an AR and nothing is more important to the game than the almighty assault rifle.
I'll stop dispensing anything to you babies at all.
No.
Whenever you put out equipment from a new suit it replaces the old equipment one piece at a time in the order of oldest first.
*numbers are placeholders*
Throw out 15 nanohives, then swap to your drop uplink fit, throw out 5 uplinks. The oldest 5 nanohives pop as each of the new uplinks come online. Now you have 5 uplinks and 10 nanohives out. |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
712
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 05:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
The digits 1 to 9 in the Hindu-Arabic numeral system evolved from the Brahmi numerals. Buddhist inscriptions from around 300 BCE use the symbols which became 1, 4 and 6.
By the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, the Babylonian mathematics had a sophisticated sexagesimal positional numeral system. The lack of a positional value (or zero) was indicated by a space between sexagesimal numerals. By 300 BC, a punctuation symbol (two slanted wedges) was co-opted as a placeholder in the same Babylonian system. In a tablet unearthed at Kish (dating from about 700 BC), the scribe B+¬l-b+ón-aplu wrote his zeros with three hooks, rather than two slanted wedges.[12]
The Babylonian placeholder was not a true zero because it was not used alone. Nor was it used at the end of a number. Thus numbers like 2 and 120 (2+ù60), 3 and 180 (3+ù60), 4 and 240 (4+ù60), looked the same because the larger numbers lacked a final sexagesimal placeholder. Only context could differentiate them.
The first universally accepted inscription containing the use of the 0 glyph is first recorded in the 9th century, in an inscription at Gwalior in Central India dated to 870. By this time, the use of the glyph had already reached Persia, and was mentioned in Al-Khwarizmi's descriptions of Indian numerals. Numerous Indian documents on copper plates exist, with the same symbol for zero in them, dated back as far as the 6th century CE.[13]
The numerals used in the Bakhshali manuscript, dated between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE.
Brahmi numerals (lower row) in India in the 1st century CE
Modern-day Arab telephone keypad with two forms of Arabic numerals: Western Arabic/European numerals on the left and Eastern Arabic numerals on the right
The numeral system came to be known to both the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, whose book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals written about 825 in Arabic, and the Arab mathematician Al-Kindi, who wrote four volumes, "On the Use of the Indian Numerals" (Ketab fi Isti'mal al-'Adad al-Hindi) about 830. Their work was principally responsible for the diffusion of the Indian system of numeration in the Middle East and the West.[14] In the 10th century, Middle-Eastern mathematicians extended the decimal numeral system to include fractions, as recorded in a treatise by Syrian mathematician Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi in 952GÇô953. The decimal point notation was introduced by Sind ibn Ali, he also wrote the earliest treatise on Arabic numerals.
A distinctive West Arabic variant of the symbols begins to emerge around the 10th century in the Maghreb and Al-Andalus, called ghubar ("sand-table" or "dust-table") numerals, which are the direct ancestor of the modern Western Arabic numerals used throughout the world. Ghubar numerals themselves are probably of Roman origin.[15]
Folk etymologies
Some folk etymologies have argued that the original forms of these symbols indicated their value through the number of angles they contained, but no proof exists of any such origin.[16]
Adoption in Europe
Woodcut showing the 16th century astronomical clock of Uppsala Cathedral, with two clockfaces, one with Arabic and one with Roman numerals.
A German manuscript page teaching use of Arabic numerals (Talhoffer Thott, 1459). At this time, knowledge of the numerals was still widely seen as esoteric, and Talhoffer presents them with the Hebrew alphabet and astrology.
Late 18th century French revolutionary "decimal" clockface.
In 825 Al-Khw-ürizm-½ wrote a treatise in Arabic, On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals,[17] which survives only as the 12th-century Latin translation, Algoritmi de numero Indorum.[18][19] Algoritmi, the translator's rendition of the author's name, gave rise to the word algorithm (Latin algorithmus, "calculation method").[20]
The first mentions of the numerals in the West are found in the Codex Vigilanus of 976.[21]
From the 980s, Gerbert of Aurillac (later, Pope Sylvester II) used his position to spread knowledge of the numerals in Europe. Gerbert studied in Barcelona in his youth. He was known to have requested mathematical treatises concerning the astrolabe from Lupitus of Barcelona after he had returned to France.
Leonardo Fibonacci (Leonardo of Pisa), a mathematician born in the Republic of Pisa who had studied in B+¬ja+»a (Bougie), Algeria, promoted the Indian numeral system in Europe with his 1202 book Liber Abaci:
"When my father, who had been appointed by his country as public notary in the customs at Bugia acting for the Pisan merchants going there, was in charge, he summoned me to him while I was still a child, and having an eye to usefulness and future convenience, desired me to stay there and receive instruction in the school of accounting. There, when I had been introduced to the art of the Indians' nine symbols through remarkable teaching, knowledge of the art very soon pleased me above all else and I came to understand it."
The numerals are arranged with their lowest value digit to the right, with higher value positions added to the left. This arrangement was adopted identically into the numerals as used in Europe. Languages written in the Latin alphabet run from left-to-right, unlike languages written in the Arabic alphabet. Hence, from the point of view of the reader, numerals in Western texts are written with the highest power of the base first whereas numerals in Arabic texts are written with the lowest power of the base first.
The European acceptance of the numerals was accelerated by the invention of the printing press, and they became widely known during the 15th century. Early evidence of their use in Britain includes: an equal hour horary quadrant from 1396,[22] in England, a 1445 inscription on the tower of Heathfield Church, Sussex; a 1448 inscription on a wooden lych-gate of Bray Church, Berkshire; and a 1487 inscription on the belfry door at Piddletrenthide church, Dorset; and in Scotland a 1470 inscription on the tomb of... |
Leovarian L Lavitz
Better Academy.
712
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 05:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
SirManBoy wrote:In other words, you're making **** up. At least you're consistent.
If only. SirManBoy; I feel that Ad hominim arguments are your strong point and that your position is based squarely in your confirmation bias.
I have brought the truth to the table, and you attack me. Not the facts, not the evidence, you attack the messenger. Your direct the discussion away from the debate and use worthless ad hominim and red herrings to hide the terrible truth: Your crutch is nothing more than a big, ugly, bug.
You are a cheater, and want to keep cheating. You are no better than those cheaters who would sit inside of objectives when it was possible to enter them. Your entire methodology is based around manipulating the game itself instead of playing by the rules. You have found a bug, and abused it to oblivion.
It is destroying PC, love that lag? YOU are the cause of it.
|
|
|
| |
|