DUST Search - To CCP Remnant - Concerning Future Equipment Changes

Protected Void wrote:

I don't know Dust's engine in detail, but from general digital sound knowledge, I would assume that if equipment sound is causing lag, it's most likely to be reverb related.

Ie: the calculations needed to apply a reverb effect (make audio sound like it's in an actual room or hallway) are very processor-intensive, compared to just playing an audio clip. Grab any DAW and loop some sound while applying a reverb effect. Watch CPU load rise as you increase decay time of the effect. Add more sound sources to the same reverb and the load might increase exponentially, depending on how the sound mixing is done. Reverb effects that simulate smaller rooms or rooms with highly reflective walls might also be more resource intensive, since they have to calculate how the sound bounces of walls multiple times.

In any case, limiting the sound emitted from equipment in some way could only be good anyway, even if the sound isn't creating any lag at all - the sound of 5+ nanohives tighly clustered together in a small room is just a headache inducing, useless sensory overload anyway. Voice comms are impossible when in the middle of that racket.

I think nanohives should have their audio muted if they're closer to a nanohive from the same team than, say, 6 or 7 meters. Or at the very least, the combined volume of multiple hives should be lowered to a more tolerable threshold, and only a few of them should be routed to the reverb effect.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4323	Posted - 2014.01.04 08:58:00 - [1] - Quote Quote: 8. Do you feel equipment spam is a problem and if so what are your thoughts on possible solutions for littered uplinks and stacked nanohives? by The Council of Planetary Management (CPM) Use of equipment is obviously encouraged but abuse of any system to the point where itGÇÖs detrimental to gameplay is obviously a problem. So, yeah, itGÇÖs definitely an issue. WeGÇÖd like to approach the problem by first increasing the PG/CPU costs along with role-specific skills that reduce those costs to discourage mass fitting of drop uplinks and nanohives, and put them back into the hands of the specialists. Eventually, weGÇÖd want to introduce the ability for the enemy to hack a piece of equipment and take ownership of it (to encourage smarter placement of equipment instead of dumping dozens in plain sight) and have War Barge-fired EMP strikes that destroy all equipment over a very large area. I understand there's a significant level of crystal balling here as we [the community] don't know any details pertaining to what changes will take place, but after some time to consider my words, I feel it needs to be said. Please proceed with caution on this, I beg you. Equipment Spam covers a wide variety of symptoms ranging from general in-battle strategy to frame-rate drops, among other things. It is important to not simply view this as the result of laxxed fittings on equipment items and while I'd rather not commit the logical fallacy of a 'slippery slope' argument, logic would dictate that regardless of the fitting costs, if a player wants to spam the item they're going to do it no matter what. At the moment a large part of the issue, I (and others) feel, is that the problem revolves around the ability to set a pre-determined suit for the purpose and simply switch it out at a supply depot after dropping off multiple types of the same piece of equipment. Increasing the fitting costs won't hamper this much, I feel, due to the fact that the suit's sole purpose is to put down the equipment - no other. There would be no reason to fit other modules or high-grade weaponry if it meant being able to perform the same task as before. While my fears may be premature, my concern is solely revolving around the ideal that increasing resource costs may very well downgrade the intended usability by other roles and restrict it to a more narrow field that still is capable of being used in the same problem areas. That's all I have to say, thank you. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4323	Posted - 2014.01.04 09:04:00 - [2] - Quote CCP Saberwing wrote: Will fire this thread over to him in an email. :) Thanks, Saberwing. Would give more likes if at all possible. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4337	Posted - 2014.01.04 20:59:00 - [3] - Quote There's a lot of propositions and I didn't expect the thread to take off as well as it did (Murphy's Law addendum of Blue-Tags I guess). Few solutions I personally agree with: 1.) Distancing. If you place a drop-uplink down, or someone else does, no-one can place another one within say, a 50m radius of it, as an example. There are similar measures in place for certain objects in Eve Online. I like this solution because it focuses more on tactical placement rather than whatever you can cram in at the time. 2.) Bandwidth. Same as above, there are similar measures in place for certain objects in Eve Online - most notably drones. I sort of understand what was proposed but I don't feel safe commenting on it until I genuinely know. 3.) Limitations based on the item's deployment amount. An Ishukone Gauged Nanohive is the best, for this, as you can carry four and have three active. That being said, if the teams were limited so that each player could only put down the contiguous maximum of his highest tiered item, in this case three, regardless of how many 'variations' of said item he'd have, we'd notice a lot more thought put into placement as well as a significant reduction in the spam. If every single person on a team dropped every single variation of each item, to it's maximum, you'd see: Nanohives: 544 Dropuplinks: 528 But if they could only put down the maximum that single piece of equipment would allow, subtracting ones already placed: Nanohives: 48 Dropuplinks: 48 It's important to remember that while we, the community, can suggest different ways of going about this, we're not always going to agree on every aspect. Some of the community feel that it's perfectly acceptable to not have any limitations at all, so long as it doesn't infringe on game-play. I can understand this. However, it's important to remember that the decision CCP makes on the solution is ultimately up to them and not everyone may be happy with the solution, so fancy the thought of all outcomes EDIT: I also am very opposed to equipment type limitations based on class specific roles. All this generally does is infringes on personal customization styles and ultimately doesn't resolve the problem. If a Logi is the only one capable of fitting Nanohives, it's not going to stop anyone from fitting a logi suit solely to spam hives. What it will stop, however, is someone wanting to use them for whatever reason on any other suit. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4348	Posted - 2014.01.05 04:57:00 - [4] - Quote Skihids wrote: Don't play with workarounds, fix the kitten code! None of these half measures will solve the lag problem if it builds up regardless if the equipment is there or destroyed. The number one rule for fixing software is to first identify the root cause, then address that specific issue. It's like having a room with a rotten floor. Some of you propose to put up turnstiles that allow only two people in the room at a time so nobody crashes through the floor. Some want to make all but one suit too wide to fit through the door. Others just want to paint the floor. What we need is to pull up the rotten boards and replace them. You don't need to dream up detour signs to keep people out of the room. It's ineffective, adds complexity, and reduces the fun. Added complexity opens the door to loopholes and unforeseen consequences. I've been in the software business for nearly thirty years and I've seen the results of trying to hide bugs rather than fix them. It's not just lag, mate. It's just a generally irritating battle strategy to litter the ground with half-assed spawn points for the sake of spawning anywhere. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4349	Posted - 2014.01.05 05:49:00 - [5] - Quote Marston VC wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Skihids wrote: Don't play with workarounds, fix the kitten code! None of these half measures will solve the lag problem if it builds up regardless if the equipment is there or destroyed. The number one rule for fixing software is to first identify the root cause, then address that specific issue. It's like having a room with a rotten floor. Some of you propose to put up turnstiles that allow only two people in the room at a time so nobody crashes through the floor. Some want to make all but one suit too wide to fit through the door. Others just want to paint the floor. What we need is to pull up the rotten boards and replace them. You don't need to dream up detour signs to keep people out of the room. It's ineffective, adds complexity, and reduces the fun. Added complexity opens the door to loopholes and unforeseen consequences. I've been in the software business for nearly thirty years and I've seen the results of trying to hide bugs rather than fix them. It's not just lag, mate. It's just a generally irritating battle strategy to litter the ground with half-assed spawn points for the sake of spawning anywhere. One flux fixes that. Its not like its really that hard to counter....... If it were that simple the problem wouldn't exist, would it O_o forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4349	Posted - 2014.01.05 06:44:00 - [6] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Skihids wrote: Don't play with workarounds, fix the kitten code! None of these half measures will solve the lag problem if it builds up regardless if the equipment is there or destroyed. The number one rule for fixing software is to first identify the root cause, then address that specific issue. It's like having a room with a rotten floor. Some of you propose to put up turnstiles that allow only two people in the room at a time so nobody crashes through the floor. Some want to make all but one suit too wide to fit through the door. Others just want to paint the floor. What we need is to pull up the rotten boards and replace them. You don't need to dream up detour signs to keep people out of the room. It's ineffective, adds complexity, and reduces the fun. Added complexity opens the door to loopholes and unforeseen consequences. I've been in the software business for nearly thirty years and I've seen the results of trying to hide bugs rather than fix them. It's not just lag, mate. It's just a generally irritating battle strategy to litter the ground with half-assed spawn points for the sake of spawning anywhere. That's an entirely separate issue that comes down to gameplay and esthetics. The lag is the game-crippling issue that needs to be solved before DUST can go anywhere at all. I really don't see any point in arguing about it. Everyone has a different opinion, a different solution and more times than not not going to be the end result. It's a generally mutually accepted that Equipment Spam is a problem and it needs to be fixed. How it's done is entirely up to CCP. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4350	Posted - 2014.01.05 12:55:00 - [7] - Quote DeeJay One wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: 2.) Bandwidth. Same as above, there are similar measures in place for certain objects in Eve Online - most notably drones. I sort of understand what was proposed but I don't feel safe commenting on it until I genuinely know. If you need something clarified feel free to ask :) As for the people claiming that the number of equipment isn't the root cause for lag - true, but we seem to be unable to do something new to help CCP fix it, there were more than enough reports and videos and we can't fix the code ourselves. This thread is about future development for equipment and bringing it more in line with what was expected to be in game, as certainly the amount of equipment brought down by a single player wasn't intended. Thread was about sanity-checking a potentially disastrous alternative. Just to make the distinction. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4364	Posted - 2014.01.06 18:54:00 - [8] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: I've got nothing against your or anybody else's suggestions. Sometime the car needs a new paint job or to have brake pads changed. But those worthwhile things are not gonna cut it when a main bearing needs replacing. Then it's best not to pretend to be the mechanic and let him do his job forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4364	Posted - 2014.01.06 19:16:00 - [9] - Quote RKKR wrote: Reducing the limit of equipment or **** like that won't work, sure it would maybe help the game but not the support role. Your squads moves to a different position? Too bad you already dropped that hive, you are now useless. Out of hives? Too bad that your gayass teammate of a tanker destroyed the supply depot. Teamlimit? A douche will just throw all his equipment down at base at the start of a game. - Your squads moves to a different position? Too bad you already dropped that hive, you are now useless. It's assumed that when placing down new equipment it would simply over-write the ones you already placed, which speculation states is the intended way of doing things considering that some nanohives allow you to carry more than you have active. - Out of hives? Too bad that your gayass teammate of a tanker destroyed the supply depot. This has, does and will always happen. - Teamlimit? A douche will just throw all his equipment down at base at the start of a game. Team-limitations are something I'm not directly opposed to, if done correctly. This would not be the correct way of going about it. The best way to go about team-limitations and reducing the 'spam' of equipment would be to revert to having active equipment maximums per player, which already exist for single variations of equipment. An Ishukone Gauged Nanohive cannot have more than three active but you can combine it with other types and circumvent the limitation. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4368	Posted - 2014.01.06 21:11:00 - [10] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: I've got nothing against your or anybody else's suggestions. Sometime the car needs a new paint job or to have brake pads changed. But those worthwhile things are not gonna cut it when a main bearing needs replacing. Then it's best not to pretend to be the mechanic and let him do his job Evidence-to-date in DUST's development history indicates that is a bad idea. The risk of a band-aid patch here is high, and it would only come back to haunt us later. There needs to be voices in these threads telling CCP that the desired course of action is to address the underlying issues. Speaking only for myself, ofc, that is the desired course of action. That's an even more dangerous move, I feel, because the player-base will never unanimously agree to any specific ideal or circumstance; this thread is proof enough of that. Band-aid patches usually work a lot better than trying over-arching themes and mass changes due to the severity of said change. You're more likely to ** people off when you implement those. Such said, I'd much rather we take it slowly and work with small scalpel changes until we find a sweet spot instead of spending months using extremes in either direction until we, by pure luck or chance, find what we're looking for. Hobo on Fire wrote: The suggestions going around that the equipment spam is related to an audio issue is a perfect example; disabling the audio effect for uplinks and nanohives would have zero real effect on gameplay. I would gladly give up a little immersion to make the game more playable. Removing the audio effect would make drop-uplinks/nanohive locations entirely dependent on active scanners and visual spotting; the latter of which is impossible at long distances. You'd be spending the entire match trying to figure out where they're spawning from using only the general location they keep popping up from. It'd be like trying to find the source of bed bugs using only the occurrences in which you saw them. Despite this, there's no evidence that the audio is the direct cause of the problem. It's plausible, yes, but the graphical factor is far more prominent as I've displayed here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1648656#post1648656 Skihids wrote:** None of the proposed restrictions would solve the frame rate issue and all would reduce options and fun. Team wide restrictions? People could still dump everything in one pile. Individual restrictions? People could still dump everything in one pile. Proximity restrictions? One type of equipment could lock out all others within a useable radius. Someone drops an RE and it locks out uplinks and hives? This gets worse when we get deployable shield bubbles and other types. Individual restrictions would force a team initiative to do that, which becomes more of a time-involved-to-reward scenario. Every single player on the team would have to drop each piece of equipment individually and replace it each time it was removed; reducing the time spent actually participating in combat. It would focus specialists. Proximity restrictions are a good solution but I don't think it's the most optimal. Even if the proximity restrictions were based on type (drop uplinks only affected drop uplinks, for example) it would just make placement more frustrating as someone else takes up the usable spot in a very terrible area and you'd have to invest time in removing the erroneous placement to get a better one out. It's also very susceptible to 'griefing' this way but I won't assume that it will automatically occur that way. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201

Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4370	Posted - 2014.01.07 01:31:00 - [11] - Quote Atiim wrote: DeathwindRising wrote: imo logis dont need a light weapon. if theyre doing their job, then theyll be too busy to shoot anything. logis should just have a side arm I have multipule jobs, none of which involve becoming your slave and sitting in the back repping and resupplying people 24/7. Also, while we are talking about being limited to their jobs, why can Assaults and Commandos carry equipment? Support's not their job, so let's remove it. Being limited to one equipment slot severely limits a suit's capabilities. I run a scanner but I'm completely dependent on others for ammunition. Scouts have actually been asking for more equipment slots ever since they removed the Type-II variant, though I'm not sure that would do them justice as of late considering the plethora of other problems that is ailing the scout currently. In regards to Logi's having only side-arms, that is not the purpose of this discussion and I'm already discouraged that the thread has devolved into a discussion on equipment as it is. Please bring it to another thread. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4382	Posted - 2014.01.07 12:04:00 - [12] - Quote RKKR wrote: Yeah because the current mechanics on how equipment and support works don't contribute to the problems you wrote down in your first post...I guess we can't discuss that and stick to same old crappy system . I don't understand this statement. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4383	Posted - 2014.01.07 12:09:00 - [13] - Quote Protected Void wrote: I don't know Dust's engine in detail, but from general digital sound knowledge, I would assume that if equipment sound is causing lag, it's most likely to be reverb related. Ie: the calculations needed to apply a reverb effect (make audio sound like it's in an actual room or hallway) are very processor-intensive, compared to just playing an audio clip. Grab any DAW and loop some sound while applying a reverb effect. Watch CPU load rise as you increase decay time of the effect. Add more sound sources to the same reverb and the load might increase exponentially, depending on how the sound mixing is done. Reverb effects that simulate smaller rooms or rooms with highly reflective walls might also be more resource intensive, since they have to calculate how the sound bounces of walls multiple times. In any case, limiting the sound emitted from equipment in some way could only be good anyway, even if the sound isn't creating any lag at all - the sound of 5+ nanohives tighly clustered together in a small room is just a headache inducing, useless sensory overload anyway. Voice comms are impossible when in the middle of that racket. I think nanohives should have their audio muted if they're closer to a nanohive from the same team than, say, 6 or 7 meters. Or at the very least, the combined volume of multiple hives should be lowered to a more tolerable threshold, and only a few of them should be routed to the reverb effect. That's a pretty logical assessment. I'll have to get a team together and test that out. All of my previous tests have been in the outdoors. forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m= (Frames)1544109 (Advertisement)1556863 (Packs)1570030 (Lag Hunt) 1570201