Editable Mod Draw

[(XBOX)spacemanSpork42]

 

What about a setting that allows you to adjust the draw of a mod, up to its current upgraded limit?

For example, instead of keeping a Streamline mod at each of 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, and 4 draw, I can use the maxed out mod and adjust the draw to suit the loadout.

[Dauggie]

then there will be no point of getting duplicates, and that will mean no endo/credit conversion or mod trading. 

[(XBOX)spacemanSpork42]

On 2021-10-13 at 11:49 PM, Dauggie said:

then there will be no point of getting duplicates, and that will mean no endo/credit conversion or mod trading. 

Not at all. You still want to get them for those specific purposes. It's just easier to manage the upgraded ones.

[Birdframe_Prime]

Yeah, this was actually discussed and answered before.

The reason is that we literally have hundreds of thousands of accounts (active or not) and possibly billions of mods in circulation assigned to those accounts.

Adjusting mods to do this would change the storage from being able to say 'Mod X Rank 0. Number owned: 30' which is two points of data, and is two points of data for any ranked mods you have too, because you just have 'Mod X Rank 10. Number owned: 1'. It means that the database for any one player is listed out as up to 20 data points for any rank 10 mod they may have, at maximum.

However, if you allow them to be de-ranked after ranking them up, this changes the way the database would have to work. You would have to have an extra two data points for every rank of every mod. So for every Mod X you would need this: 'Mod X. Ranked to: 10. Current Rank: 8. Number owned: 1'

Think about that difference, because that means that you would have, in potential (as in you must allow for this possibility), 10 data points for the 'ranked to', each of those with 10 data points for the 'current rank', meaning your 20 points for the old system becomes 100. You've quintupled the database size.

Now, if you assume that this is a tiny, tiny amount of data per mod, you'd be right.

Except that it's not just one mod, it's hundreds. And you aren't worried about the Storage of the data, you're worried about the Access of it. That's what server space for large games is costed on, not the base storage (although that is important) it's how much the data is accessed and re-accessed over and over and over again in a single play session.

Imagine you were trying to stream your movies to your phone, using your Data (silly, yes, but it's a good example) on Netflix. Now Netflix is quite good at adjusting the video quality to match the format you're watching on, and data usage is usually the most optimised it can be. Imagine that they decided that all of your movies to your phone, over your data, were going to be 4k and take up 5x the data...

That would cost you extra, right? To access the same movie? And yes, it would be better quality, but is that quality worth costing you 5x the data?

Making mods do that means that when you access the database every time you use the Arsenal and Mod bench, it's exactly the same thing for DE's servers. Thousands of people suddenly accessing 5x the amount of data just to look at mods.

That's not something they're going to do voluntarily. Not without massive amounts of money injected into the company. I mean... look at what happened at Tennocon; they literally didn't have the servers set up to take the strain of so many players accessing the Relays, even though those were dedicated servers set up for the event... They tried, but they just don't have that as a priority.

[(XBOX)spacemanSpork42]

On 2021-10-16 at 4:24 AM, Birdframe_Prime said:

Adjusting mods to do this would change the storage from being able to say 'Mod X Rank 0. Number owned: 30' which is two points of data, and is two points of data for any ranked mods you have too, because you just have 'Mod X Rank 10. Number owned: 1'. It means that the database for any one player is listed out as up to 20 data points for any rank 10 mod they may have, at maximum.

However, if you allow them to be de-ranked after ranking them up, this changes the way the database would have to work. You would have to have an extra two data points for every rank of every mod. So for every Mod X you would need this: 'Mod X. Ranked to: 10. Current Rank: 8. Number owned: 1'

Hi Birdframe_Prime, thanks for your detailed response. I disagree with your analysis. There would only be one variable required per mod equipped. You already have 'equippedModXRank' and you would only need to add 'equippedModXRankAdjust' that would only apply to the equipped mods. It doesn't need to make any changes to the broader database of mods owned.

 

[(XBOX)spacemanSpork42]

...

[(NSW)Greybones]

Huh. Personally I’d considered this idea as well, and I probably wouldn’t mind the option myself. That said, I feel like I’d just end up preferring the simplicity of equipping a max-rank mod versus not, so I’m willing to wait; eventually found out it’s no big deal to have leftover capacity

[Lutesque]

7 hours ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Huh. Personally I’d considered this idea as well, and I probably wouldn’t mind the option myself. That said, I feel like I’d just end up preferring the simplicity of equipping a max-rank mod versus not, so I’m willing to wait; eventually found out it’s no big deal to have leftover capacity

In that case... How does everyone feel about Warframes Having more Capacity ?

[Birdframe_Prime]

8 hours ago, (XBOX)spacemanSpork42 said:

and you would only need to add 'equippedModXRankAdjust' that would only apply to the equipped mods

Except... no, that's wrong. Because you aren't storing mods based on what you have equipped.

You're using a database of mods you have, versus mods you do not have that are accessed every time you open your Arsenal or Mod Bench.

If you want to add an 'adjust' to that value you absolutely must add a value for what the mod's maximum value actually is. Because your current loadout or current mod setup is not drawn from your local machine, it's drawn from the database of what mods are and do.

There is no separation of a mod that is on the database from a mod you have equipped. It's literally just a bit of code that says 'mod slot 2 = this listing from the database'

Another way of putting it would be a Link. You put a link into a comment here on the Forums that points at an image on another website. The Forums doesn't store a copy of that image, it simply points your computer to the other site to download the information from there, then tells your computer how to display it.

Besides, even if your version did work, you're adding 50% onto every single data transfer, from thousands of people, dozens of times each per hour. Even if that doesn't sound as bad as the actual amount that this change would need, that's still a completely un-necessary change for DE to make.

[LillyRaccune]

At least DE made changes for Sentinel weapons, now we don't need a copy for us and a copy for our Sentinels.

As for the proposed changes: Would be more convenient, yes. Would take away from working on X-save and X-play, definitely.

[Famecans]

On 2021-10-16 at 6:24 AM, Birdframe_Prime said:

Yeah, this was actually discussed and answered before.

The reason is that we literally have hundreds of thousands of accounts (active or not) and possibly billions of mods in circulation assigned to those accounts.

Adjusting mods to do this would change the storage from being able to say 'Mod X Rank 0. Number owned: 30' which is two points of data, and is two points of data for any ranked mods you have too, because you just have 'Mod X Rank 10. Number owned: 1'. It means that the database for any one player is listed out as up to 20 data points for any rank 10 mod they may have, at maximum.

However, if you allow them to be de-ranked after ranking them up, this changes the way the database would have to work. You would have to have an extra two data points for every rank of every mod. So for every Mod X you would need this: 'Mod X. Ranked to: 10. Current Rank: 8. Number owned: 1'

Think about that difference, because that means that you would have, in potential (as in you must allow for this possibility), 10 data points for the 'ranked to', each of those with 10 data points for the 'current rank', meaning your 20 points for the old system becomes 100. You've quintupled the database size.

Now, if you assume that this is a tiny, tiny amount of data per mod, you'd be right.

Except that it's not just one mod, it's hundreds. And you aren't worried about the Storage of the data, you're worried about the Access of it. That's what server space for large games is costed on, not the base storage (although that is important) it's how much the data is accessed and re-accessed over and over and over again in a single play session.

Imagine you were trying to stream your movies to your phone, using your Data (silly, yes, but it's a good example) on Netflix. Now Netflix is quite good at adjusting the video quality to match the format you're watching on, and data usage is usually the most optimised it can be. Imagine that they decided that all of your movies to your phone, over your data, were going to be 4k and take up 5x the data...

That would cost you extra, right? To access the same movie? And yes, it would be better quality, but is that quality worth costing you 5x the data?

Making mods do that means that when you access the database every time you use the Arsenal and Mod bench, it's exactly the same thing for DE's servers. Thousands of people suddenly accessing 5x the amount of data just to look at mods.

That's not something they're going to do voluntarily. Not without massive amounts of money injected into the company. I mean... look at what happened at Tennocon; they literally didn't have the servers set up to take the strain of so many players accessing the Relays, even though those were dedicated servers set up for the event... They tried, but they just don't have that as a priority.

hello birdframe good afternoon friend, I will disagree with what was said by the developer because it is possible to do what was suggested here in our local game ("warframe.exe") and not in the server data.

the server doesn't need to add a mod for each rank for numerous accounts as everything can be done in the build slot. the slot must swap the maximized mod for another mod with a lower rank before entering the match, this mod with a lower rank is not in our collection but the "warframe.exe" on our computer can understand the slot and make the switch.

I tried to explain it in this thread but my english is very broken.

 

[(NSW)Greybones]

6 hours ago, Lutesque said:

In that case... How does everyone feel about Warframes Having more Capacity ?

Hm. My first thought is that people will feel pressured to fill the extra capacity with mods to make the fights super easy so that they can grind faster, and then be unable to stop using the super-easy builds even if the novelty wore off and they’re now bored.

 🤔 It feels like the current mod capacity is some kind of balancing mechanic, though it’s non-obvious to me what the thinking behind it is

[Birdframe_Prime]

5 hours ago, Famecans said:

hello birdframe good afternoon friend, I will disagree with what was said by the developer because it is possible to do what was suggested here in our local game ("warframe.exe") and not in the server data.

I understand your point, but it's never going to happen.

DE removed a huge amount of Client end storage because of Code Injection usage by the player base while using Peer to Peer connections for games.

Client side storage of the mod database would work only if there were verification by either a live connection to a server, which is also data-intensive compared to the current setup, or verification by having a backup of the client's data on the server (which defeats the purpose of this idea).

So because DE literally had a problem with code injection being used to cheat the game, they disabled the client-side storage of game affecting things like mods and other resources.

This is, in fact, why players that found the most efficient ways to farm Steel Essence (when that was first released) received automatic Trade bans, because DE had an estimate of how much of the resource players could earn in a single game, and players went above it, so they automatically assumed code injection had happened and banned them to prevent trading of any resources they might have used code injection to attain.

So yes, a huge problem of server data access could be solved by storing the data client side, but there is a specific reason that DE do not store data client side, and they never will store that data client side.