DUST Search - 32 v 32 increasing game capacity by limiting in battle variables

All Channels

General Discussions

32 v 32 increasing game capacity by limiting in battle variables

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tech Ohm Eaven Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1798	Posted - 2015.05.17 14:37:00 - [1] - Quote Theoretical work in progress Will redit for clarity Proposal keep suit and vehicle variable loadouts to merc quarters only Proposal keep suit and vehicle variable loadouts purchasing to merc quarters only Proposal battle loadouts Proposal no market access when in battle Battle loadouts suit selection a i.E. Heavy Battle loadouts suit selection b i.E. Scout Battle loadouts vehicle a lav Battle loadouts vehicle b dropship Instead of thousands of variables we limit to just four loadouts But ,but what if i wanted a logi and an assault suits loadouts ? Sure but you are limited to just two battle suits loadouts same as if you wanted a gunlogi and a madrugar Two vehicle battle loadouts No in battle purchasing But,but what if my battle loadouts were wrong? Redo at merc quarters not in battle Why Got tired of seeing pc lag Got tired of 16 v 16 Well hope you folks at least look at this since a limited battle loadouts worked formags 128 versus 128 Welp thats my feedback post
Tech Ohm Eaven Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1799	Posted - 2015.05.17 14:50:00 - [2] - Quote Stormblade Green wrote: Anybody else see something very familiar in his suggestion? Its from a post from when the replication build was active and we were still looking at mag gameplay Problem with ps3 is its limited to 512 megabytes ram in shared pool minus os Forgot to mention theres only two battle suits loadouts options at supply depo Course my no vehicles in ambush from several years ago? I used to post many ideas in feedback Now? I hardly bother
Tech Ohm Eaven Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1800	Posted - 2015.05.17 19:33:00 - [3] - Quote Being in battle and able to restock any fit always looked like a wtf move The point Being you better have your loadouts sorted before battle 32 versus 32 beats Being able to restock during battle
Tech Ohm Eaven Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1803	Posted - 2015.05.17 21:18:00 - [4] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: I prefer Aero's & Avallo's proposal better. Not only is it logical, but genius. Their proposal might even open up a chance to expand towards 32v32. Sorry but i disagree that whilst being in battle permits any type of loadout to be modified at any time and being able to buy anything?-,sorry but no like i said years ago At homebase its logical to restock But during battle ? Hell no You must deal with the consequences during battle of your limited loadouts At present unlimited supplies along with unlimited loadouts is neither logigal nor sustainable if one wants 32 versus 32 and larger battle counts Aeros and avallos proposal gives 20 options for loadouts along with UNLIMITED market restock during battle
Tech Ohm Eaven Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1803	Posted - 2015.05.17 21:26:00 - [5] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: I wouldn't go as far as only four Loadouts, but you seem to have a similar idea as I posted earlier. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2778915#post2778915 I sent in an idea like this back when we got our keys as part of the sony server stress test The proposal was to improve frames per second by limiting packets transfer due to unlimited loadouts along with unlimited supplies purchase at supply depos The responses from ccp were just retooled supply depos and an email telling me they had experience sorting things out Good to see pc never lagged and all these lag problems were solved
Tech Ohm Eaven Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 1805	Posted - 2015.05.17 22:37:00 - [6] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: JIMvc2 wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Taking those away won't give a big enough performance improvement for 32v32 If CCP somehow does manage it, 5 point skirmish maps would be the only ones capable of supporting 32 v 32. That many players in a condensed area would murder performance. Look at MAG. It ran 32 vs 32 fine, 64vs64 fine, 32 vs 32 vs 32 fine, abd mega 128 vs 128 fine. Clearly Dust's engine is far less efficient. I believe I remember reading that when Dust was in alpha on the PC, on the carbon engine, CCP claimed to have successfully done 64 v 64 internally. The problem is too many variables versus a limited power pool aka 512 megabytes ram shared pool minus os Increased ps3 ram is not an option So reduction to variables theoreticaly leads to better performance If we have just two suit loadouts then its a set performance state per game If we have no in battle restock then its a set performance state per game Much better than what we have now of 99 bugs 99 bugs Patch one bug around 129 bugs 129 bugs A set performance state per game theoreticaly leads to patching bugs then theres a set state to introduction of expanded game content based on a stable performance set

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.