|
Cant believe I just saw this post. Very well said OP. My thought's exactly. I have 0 problems tossing money to GGG via Micro transactions, etc... But specifically those "2" issues you mentioned are completely unacceptable.
I understand we are in beta yada yada. That's great and all, but for a game that's always online, this is absolutely crucial to the integrity of the game. I literally spend more time attacking thin air than landing blows on monsters. So much so that it's making a lot of situations near impossible to survive without having to re-position my character and wait a few seconds.
|
Posted byDigitalMP#4508on Apr 9, 2013, 1:08:49 AM
|
"
Real_Wolf wrote:
I'd just like to point out the irony, this thread is right next to a thread complaining that GGG aren't doing anything about the legacy silverbranch.
Its ironic because it would take a lot of resources for them to be able to change the silverbranch +2 to +1 for ALL existing silverbranches, yet people are arguing viciously for them to do this and demonising them for not. Then there is this thread where they are saying "You should be spending your time better".
Can't stop laughing
I can show you exactly how many resources it would take for them to change Silverbranch.
UPDATE TABLE item_db SET plus_to_gems = "1" WHERE item_name = "Silverbranch"
No matter how their database is structured, the resulting SQL statement does not get much more complicated than that.
Still laughing?
I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect
|
Posted byOrich#7589on Apr 9, 2013, 1:44:35 PM
|
"
Orich wrote:
"
Real_Wolf wrote:
I'd just like to point out the irony, this thread is right next to a thread complaining that GGG aren't doing anything about the legacy silverbranch.
Its ironic because it would take a lot of resources for them to be able to change the silverbranch +2 to +1 for ALL existing silverbranches, yet people are arguing viciously for them to do this and demonising them for not. Then there is this thread where they are saying "You should be spending your time better".
Can't stop laughing
I can show you exactly how many resources it would take for them to change Silverbranch.
UPDATE TABLE item_db SET plus_to_gems = "1" WHERE item_name = "Silverbranch"
No matter how their database is structured, the resulting SQL statement does not get much more complicated than that.
Still laughing?
Do you know 100% how their architecture works?
|
Posted bygonzaw#3022on Apr 9, 2013, 2:05:30 PM
|
"
gonzaw wrote:
Do you know 100% how their architecture works?
From this aspect, yes.
I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect
|
Posted byOrich#7589on Apr 9, 2013, 3:28:08 PM
|
|
and yet you think microtransaction is related to network code...
to design a new effect, you only need a graphist.
and maybe they have a set of tools to create and balance skills without requiring actual code...
You don't speed up things by throwing more devs at a problem.
PoE forums ignore list script:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/162657
0.4: added "ignore" button. ignore list is now saved locally.
|
Posted bykodr#0209on Apr 9, 2013, 3:41:44 PM
|
"
Orich wrote:
"
Real_Wolf wrote:
I'd just like to point out the irony, this thread is right next to a thread complaining that GGG aren't doing anything about the legacy silverbranch.
Its ironic because it would take a lot of resources for them to be able to change the silverbranch +2 to +1 for ALL existing silverbranches, yet people are arguing viciously for them to do this and demonising them for not. Then there is this thread where they are saying "You should be spending your time better".
Can't stop laughing
I can show you exactly how many resources it would take for them to change Silverbranch.
UPDATE TABLE item_db SET plus_to_gems = "1" WHERE item_name = "Silverbranch"
No matter how their database is structured, the resulting SQL statement does not get much more complicated than that.
Still laughing?
Yes, because this wouldn't actually work, because its not the item db that needs to change at all.
It is the way the items are stored in teh database, you would need to have it run for everyone whenever it checks any items for any character, it would need to be forceably changing a value that normally is not ever changed, requiring a lot of database read and writing, and it would take a developer off improving the game simply to effect this change for a fairly significant portion of time, especially considering their aggressive patch goals of one per week.
Stupid post is stupid
|
Posted byReal_Wolf#6784on Apr 9, 2013, 6:41:51 PM
|
"
Real_Wolf wrote:
"
Orich wrote:
"
Real_Wolf wrote:
I'd just like to point out the irony, this thread is right next to a thread complaining that GGG aren't doing anything about the legacy silverbranch.
Its ironic because it would take a lot of resources for them to be able to change the silverbranch +2 to +1 for ALL existing silverbranches, yet people are arguing viciously for them to do this and demonising them for not. Then there is this thread where they are saying "You should be spending your time better".
Can't stop laughing
I can show you exactly how many resources it would take for them to change Silverbranch.
UPDATE TABLE item_db SET plus_to_gems = "1" WHERE item_name = "Silverbranch"
No matter how their database is structured, the resulting SQL statement does not get much more complicated than that.
Still laughing?
Yes, because this wouldn't actually work, because its not the item db that needs to change at all.
It is the way the items are stored in teh database, you would need to have it run for everyone whenever it checks any items for any character, it would need to be forceably changing a value that normally is not ever changed, requiring a lot of database read and writing, and it would take a developer off improving the game simply to effect this change for a fairly significant portion of time, especially considering their aggressive patch goals of one per week.
Stupid post is stupid
Actually he is right, but not completely
The SQL statement would look similar to that. It is really that simple. GGG's entire database would be stored as an SQL database (if it is SQL), and you would just interface it via SQL commands, the largest SQL databases in the world work this way...
What makes it difficult is not the SQL statement, its that they need to shut down the game and do backups to ensure nothing breaks when they run that statement. Such a SQL statment definitely cannot be done when the game is running, and making backups (and ensuring the command worked correctly) takes more effort the less trivial your database is in size (and GGG definitely reached this point ages ago)
|
Posted bydeteego#6606on Apr 9, 2013, 8:03:41 PM
|
"
deteego wrote:
"
Real_Wolf wrote:
"
Orich wrote:
I can show you exactly how many resources it would take for them to change Silverbranch.
UPDATE TABLE item_db SET plus_to_gems = "1" WHERE item_name = "Silverbranch"
No matter how their database is structured, the resulting SQL statement does not get much more complicated than that.
Still laughing?
Yes, because this wouldn't actually work, because its not the item db that needs to change at all.
It is the way the items are stored in teh database, you would need to have it run for everyone whenever it checks any items for any character, it would need to be forceably changing a value that normally is not ever changed, requiring a lot of database read and writing, and it would take a developer off improving the game simply to effect this change for a fairly significant portion of time, especially considering their aggressive patch goals of one per week.
Stupid post is stupid
Actually he is right, but not completely
The SQL statement would look similar to that. It is really that simple. GGG's entire database would be stored as an SQL database (if it is SQL), and you would just interface it via SQL commands, the largest SQL databases in the world work this way...
What makes it difficult is not the SQL statement, its that they need to shut down the game and do backups to ensure nothing breaks when they run that statement. Such a SQL statment definitely cannot be done when the game is running, and making backups (and ensuring the command worked correctly) takes more effort the less trivial your database is in size (and GGG definitely reached this point ages ago)
I was looking at it from the aim of keeping the game online during this, rather than having the game offline for a long period of time
|
Posted byReal_Wolf#6784on Apr 9, 2013, 8:14:17 PM
|
|
Y'know, I kinda suspect that the POE database is not a standard relational database. This isn't a blog. Not an expert on this sort of thing though.
|
Posted byjiussa#5776on Apr 10, 2013, 9:00:10 AM
|
"
jiussa wrote:
Y'know, I kinda suspect that the POE database is not a standard relational database. This isn't a blog. Not an expert on this sort of thing though.
The chances that it is not a "standard relational database" is nearly 0%
I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect
|
Posted byOrich#7589on Apr 11, 2013, 9:06:32 PM
|
