Forums » Suggestions
Get rid of Traffic 2
Instead of having a bunch of empty tin cans floating into the station and disappearing, I say we have legit NPC traffic.
For example, in commerce stations, have ships unloading tridents, random corporations sailing in/out, a list of commodities next to the station doors, commercials for weapons and trade goods spray painted on the sides of behemoths, etc. It should look like a legit center of trade.
Maybe in mining stations, have ships mining. But not to much ships, so they aren't all nuked.
Anyways, you guys get the idea. It doesn't necessarily have to happen exactly this way.
(By the way, please don't hijack the thread or I'll be forced to hunt you down.)
For example, in commerce stations, have ships unloading tridents, random corporations sailing in/out, a list of commodities next to the station doors, commercials for weapons and trade goods spray painted on the sides of behemoths, etc. It should look like a legit center of trade.
Maybe in mining stations, have ships mining. But not to much ships, so they aren't all nuked.
Anyways, you guys get the idea. It doesn't necessarily have to happen exactly this way.
(By the way, please don't hijack the thread or I'll be forced to hunt you down.)
+1
Real convoys or something would be neat. traffic2's kinda just spawn in huge blobs and line up at the docks.
Real convoys or something would be neat. traffic2's kinda just spawn in huge blobs and line up at the docks.
yesh please fill them up or remove them entirely.
Full of hiveposis, kthx
+1 to Improve Fake Traffic with diversity!
As requested in Improving "Fake Traffic" topic, we need FEWER incoming ships, few departing ships, all them with some cargo, preferably income from different spots.
Make "Real Traffic" is asking too much over engine now, as Incarnate explained before, so we had to improve the Fake Traffic.
+2 to also relate the cargo type to station's production, departing with locally produced items, and incoming with "desired" ones. A simple list per station is a good start, fixed items: ($Station# ; $Size ; $sendItem1 ; $receiveItem2).
$Size relates to station size, and consequentially to number of ships composing "Fake Traffic", as it makes no sense that the largest capital and smallest outpost have the same traffic volume.
+3 to replace fake traffic with NPC/bot miners mining around mining station.
The Capships requested then and already present in capitals are great, what about also add some to Barracks next?
As requested in Improving "Fake Traffic" topic, we need FEWER incoming ships, few departing ships, all them with some cargo, preferably income from different spots.
Make "Real Traffic" is asking too much over engine now, as Incarnate explained before, so we had to improve the Fake Traffic.
+2 to also relate the cargo type to station's production, departing with locally produced items, and incoming with "desired" ones. A simple list per station is a good start, fixed items: ($Station# ; $Size ; $sendItem1 ; $receiveItem2).
$Size relates to station size, and consequentially to number of ships composing "Fake Traffic", as it makes no sense that the largest capital and smallest outpost have the same traffic volume.
+3 to replace fake traffic with NPC/bot miners mining around mining station.
The Capships requested then and already present in capitals are great, what about also add some to Barracks next?
I hate you when you refer to only your own threads. And hijack them. Go away.
Alloh, I swear to God I will strap you to an asteroid, attach rockets to the asteroid, and slam you into Sol II repeatedly while Serco genetically modified dogs eat at your sanity.
Stop
hijacking
threads.
Stop
hijacking
threads.
You both can go suck an Ice Roid, suckers, that is not hijacking threads, but directly on topic. Don't get rid of such a great improvement, but instead, simply improve it.
If you don't want back references, don't proposed in a worse way what was already proposed in a better way.
If you don't want back references, don't proposed in a worse way what was already proposed in a better way.
Directing someone for the tenth time on a topic you created, which has been rejected many more times, is just being a nuisance. So stop thread hijacking, you're misdirecting people. Its not an improvement.
On nearly every single thread you do this. You take an idea and add your own.
Anyways, we're getting off topic.
Anyways, we're getting off topic.
Yeah, Alloh does that...
Where did Inc say more real convoy traffic would overload the engine?
Where did Inc say more real convoy traffic would overload the engine?
ARF:
it's more a matter of observation.
How much persistent server lag have you experienced lately that hasn't happened before these bots came along?
it's more a matter of observation.
How much persistent server lag have you experienced lately that hasn't happened before these bots came along?
Yes it did. We had "server lag" in conquerable station sectors all the time before these NPCs existed. In Deneb it used to be much worse.
Reply from Momerath is on the Link I referenced above. Topic was not shot down, indeed, it was partially implemented, as Capital's capships...
For very light/weak hardware, whenever many ships (PC/NPC) are in sector it slows down rendering, FPS drops, someone already complained of this, asking to remove the fake traffic... but they add the long requested "life" to station sectors, so we'd better improve it. It is a great feature with a "lazy" implementation... make all NPCs spawn at once in same spot does break the immersion, as it is very large incoming empty voy, while we'd expect smaller, spread voys, some departing, some mining...
But as Mom says, they have problems launching many ships - while I asked a few, like 3 or 4 launching ships, and half or a third of all those incoming empty ships when you arrive at a sleeping sector. Fake traffic now works great after a few minutes of people inside the sector, keeping it alive, but the very first "wake-up wave" is the problem: Once those are spread out they'll be perfect, adding LIFE to station sectors in absence of real players.
{OT}
On nearly every single thread you do this. You take an idea and add your own.
Isn't that WHY we have a forum, to discuss ideas, improve it, shoot it down? Or we can't discuss and evolve ideas, and everyone not agreeing to OP is thread-hijacking? Someone here is missing the whole concept of an open suggestion forum ... Let's close the forums and send suggestions to devs in private messages, so others can't disagree nor improve it... [/Sacarsm]
For very light/weak hardware, whenever many ships (PC/NPC) are in sector it slows down rendering, FPS drops, someone already complained of this, asking to remove the fake traffic... but they add the long requested "life" to station sectors, so we'd better improve it. It is a great feature with a "lazy" implementation... make all NPCs spawn at once in same spot does break the immersion, as it is very large incoming empty voy, while we'd expect smaller, spread voys, some departing, some mining...
But as Mom says, they have problems launching many ships - while I asked a few, like 3 or 4 launching ships, and half or a third of all those incoming empty ships when you arrive at a sleeping sector. Fake traffic now works great after a few minutes of people inside the sector, keeping it alive, but the very first "wake-up wave" is the problem: Once those are spread out they'll be perfect, adding LIFE to station sectors in absence of real players.
{OT}
On nearly every single thread you do this. You take an idea and add your own.
Isn't that WHY we have a forum, to discuss ideas, improve it, shoot it down? Or we can't discuss and evolve ideas, and everyone not agreeing to OP is thread-hijacking? Someone here is missing the whole concept of an open suggestion forum ... Let's close the forums and send suggestions to devs in private messages, so others can't disagree nor improve it... [/Sacarsm]
You're adding your own which has been REJECTED. Many times. Come up with new ideas, don't fucking keep trying to barrage us with the same old shitty idea (Last reply was LATE JANUARY, 2 MONTHS AGO, don't resurrect old threads).
Isn't that WHY we have a forum, to discuss ideas, improve it, shoot it down?
Yes, that is, but you're not improving ideas. You're just refusing to accept that your idea was dismissed. Move on and come up with new things.
Isn't that WHY we have a forum, to discuss ideas, improve it, shoot it down?
Yes, that is, but you're not improving ideas. You're just refusing to accept that your idea was dismissed. Move on and come up with new things.
facepalms
Alloh... please... stop attention hogging
Alloh... please... stop attention hogging