| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| 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
|
Stormblade Green
KnightKiller's inc.
81
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 14:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Anybody else see something very familiar in his suggestion?
One might say... I'm very skilled... yet I'm his apprentice... So what does that say about my mentor?
|
Tech Ohm Eaven
Storm Wind Strikeforce
Caldari State
1799
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 14:50:00 -
[3] - 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 -
[4] - 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 |
Scheneighnay McBob
And the ButtPirates
6640
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
Some details can be ignored
|
JIMvc2
Consolidated Dust
1097
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
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.
(Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!! Die YOU SHADOW BEING IN THE DARK!!!
|
Henrietta Unknown
Corrosive Synergy
Rise Of Legion.
1470
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
I'd be fine with 16 v 16 as long as it's friggin' 16v16 and not 6v13. And I love the OP's suggestion. Problem is that everytime CCP tries something, performance doesn't improve, leading me to think that the problem is inherent with how the game was structured and developed.
I guess we must keep trying things.
Selling Items
Store - Player Trading
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
11703
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
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.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Regis Blackbird
DUST University
Ivy League
887
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 20:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
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 |
Tech Ohm Eaven
Storm Wind Strikeforce
Caldari State
1803
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 21:18:00 -
[10] - 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 -
[11] - Quote
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 |
Scheneighnay McBob
And the ButtPirates
6641
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 21:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
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.
Some details can be ignored
|
Scheneighnay McBob
And the ButtPirates
6641
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 22:08:00 -
[13] - 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.
Link? Not sure what you're referring to.
Some details can be ignored
|
Tech Ohm Eaven
Storm Wind Strikeforce
Caldari State
1805
|
Posted - 2015.05.17 22:37:00 -
[14] - 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
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |