ubisoft discussions

Quick Suggestions

  • EliClone2626
    Original poster 3 posts

    I'd like to start by saying that while I do have suggestions for what I think is in the game's best interest, I am not trying to tell the developers what to do, I am only offering insight on what I believe would improve the game's quality of life.
    So I would propose:
    -Allowing the player to switch between "Over the shoulder" and "Scoped" view when using x8 and x12 scopes. I don't really understand why the x4 scope gets a pass, but I would really appreciate this change as it would allow for more adaptability in sniper builds and the like. I also understand that some scopes have different levels of zoom (x12-x16) but I don't think that an over the shoulder view is needed for those, as the button mapping issue could be troublesome.
    -Kind of an overdone one I know, but perhaps increase stash size. I wouldn't mind having it locked behind a challenge or material requirements if needed, but I really think letting us horde more items would be nice.
    -Gear mods: only letting us keep the 3 highest rolled mods of one type (like Crit chance, Armor on kill, Skill haste...) or at least highlighting them in our inventory, since we can only use a maximum of 3 at the same time anyway on our mask, chest and backpack. If this is not possible, then maybe just letting us sort each mod by highest value would be appreciated.
    -Having a way to put season locked blueprints in the regular blueprint pool. For example, I missed season 3 and so did not get the hunter's fury blueprints. I hope that a way will be implemented to allow for its retrieval without needing to wait for S3 to return.
    -Allowing us to tag gear and weapons for recalibration the moment we pick them up, so that we don't have to go in our inventory and do it there. I will admit that this is a very, very minor complaint and I probably won't cry all that much if it doesn't happen, but still, a suggestion.
    -Bit of a weird one and more of a game mode (also probably unnecessary), but for people that simply like to explore and look at the world of the game, a mode where all enemies and loot is removed. This is probably the least needed one but I thought I'd still propose it cuz why not ?

    That's about it, feel free to add more ideas in the comments if you have any, and I hope any dev that reads this will find this helpful.

  • Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

    Contrary to popular belief, Lorem Ipsum is not simply random text. It has roots in a piece of classical Latin literature from 45 BC, making it over 2000 years old. Richard McClintock, a Latin professor at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia, looked up one of the more obscure Latin words, consectetur, from a Lorem Ipsum passage, and going through the cites of the word in classical literature, discovered the undoubtable source. Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. This book is a treatise on the theory of ethics, very popular during the Renaissance. The first line of Lorem Ipsum, "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..", comes from a line in section 1.10.32.

  • XMdead
    144 posts

    @eliclone2626 Good suggestions. The only tweak I'd make is to make sure that on the large zoom scopes it should default to zoomed and let you toggle the state. Or better yet... remember the latest used state so that the player's preference is what becomes the default.

    I would also love to see the default sort (at least for weapons) to be locked->Oldest. That would make it fast to change a given's slot weapon if you run out of ammo. Right now we have to wade through dozens of trash weapons just picked up to find what we really want.

  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    -Kind of an overdone one I know, but perhaps increase stash size. I wouldn't mind having it locked behind a challenge or material requirements if needed, but I really think letting us horde more items would be nice.

    Yannick has said this can't happen because of "latency" issues. I think he's saying that performance of the game (in particular responsiveness of the UI) would be impacted if stash size was increased any further.

    -Gear mods: only letting us keep the 3 highest rolled mods of one type (like Crit chance, Armor on kill, Skill haste...)

    I'm not sure only letting people keep the three highest would be a good idea, especially for people who use multiple characters and might want to swap gear between them. Sorting them by value would be useful though.

    I would like a mod slot added to one more gear piece. Unlike adding talents to other gear pieces, it would increase flexibility without impacting already recalibrated gear.

  • XMdead
    144 posts
    Yannick has said this can't happen because of "latency" issues. I think he's saying that performance of the game (in particular responsiveness of the UI) would be impacted if stash size was increased any further.


    As a developer, I doubt any serious developer would have said such a thing. It might have been true 30-40 years ago, but with today's tech you can sort through thousands of items in far less than one second. Been there, done that MANY times.

    Any kind of stash limitation is purely by choice... or due to ridiculously horrid code.

  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    As a developer, I doubt any serious developer would have said such a thing.


    https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthread.php/2235109-Allocate-Additional-Loadout-Slots-amp-Library-List-For-Gear-System-Mods-Only: (https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthread.php/2235109-Allocate-Additional-Loadout-Slots-amp-Library-List-For-Gear-System-Mods-Only)

    The thing you need to remember is that they have a performance budget for every single system in the game, both locally (particularly on last-gen consoles) and on the server.

    https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthread.php/2178843-The-rocky-history-of-Audio-in-The-Division-2: (https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthread.php/2178843-The-rocky-history-of-Audio-in-The-Division-2)



    Point being, it's not just about retrieving a list of items. It's about retrieving a list of items from a server running 1000's of instances and ensuring that remains performant on every platform.

  • XMdead
    144 posts

    @dagrommit

    The video about how they monitor performance is quite interesting and speaks to thoughtful development at least on the server side, but is not very applicable to the issue of the stash.

    Similarly, the idea of latency being relevant to limiting stash size is quite absurd given today's internet speeds. You would have to be quite reckless with how much of the data associated with each entry you transfer during each query. Furthermore, there is no reason to transfer more than just a small part of the stash list at any time, since a player can't view it all at once.

    From the performance side, out of the 1000 users per server and 40 cores... you will likely have no more than 1-10 users working on the stash at any time (and possibly no more than 1 in most cases) and only a tiny fraction of the time for that (those) user would be used in actual processing of stash queries/updates.

    In summary... there is no technical reason (at least none explained by those links) to restrict the stash to the current size. The only logical conclusion is that limiting the stash size is a business choice, not a technical one. What might be the reason for it though... baffles me.

  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    Similarly, the idea of latency being relevant to limiting stash size is quite absurd given today's internet speeds.

    I specifically called out responsiveness of the UI, not network latency. If I press a button, I expect the corresponding action to happen immediately. That doesn't always happen in this game because so much of the processing is done server side - e.g. the ISAC dialog often lags behind the event that triggered it.

    From the performance side, out of the 1000 users per server and 40 cores... you will likely have no more than 1-10 users working on the stash at any time (and possibly no more than 1 in most cases) and only a tiny fraction of the time for that (those) user would be used in actual processing of stash queries/updates.

    The point you're missing is that each instance has to complete all it's other processing within a fixed time window - i.e. all the open world activity tracking, AI pathing and sound propagation, along with any queries or updates related to inventory and stash. This also has to be done for a group of four who are potentially in completely different areas of the game world.

    In summary... there is no technical reason (at least none explained by those links) to restrict the stash to the current size.

    Heh. I used to lead QA teams brought in to test applications developed by others. You would not believe how often a developer would confidently assert something about their code only for it to be proven false. Now consider the odds of someone who hasn't even seen that code getting their assertions right 👀

    [edit] before the usual 🤡 (not Xmdead) decides to jump in having misread the thread, I am not asserting whether it is or isn't technically possible to increase the stash. Instead, I am presenting a hypothesis about why it hasn't. Is it theoretically possible? Of course, but the question is at what cost - i.e. what other aspect of the game would need to be reduced in order to ensure performance didn't suffer.

  • RaciaIAdhesive-
    210 posts
  • XMdead
    144 posts

    @dagrommit

    I understand the points you are making.

    When a player is looking at the stash there isn't much happening, he is just standing in a safehouse. If they are consuming too much processing power the excess (like other players noises) could easily be suppressed with negligible impact to the user experience.

    Another quite simple option (probably unnecessary) would be to route the stash queries to a separate server cluster dedicated to that purpose. That way any delay in "looking at a stash" would not affect any other part of the game.

    And there are probably half a dozen other solutions that don't affect game performance.

    In the end simple speculation isn't going to convince us that the issue is game performance. Unless we have a Division developer state and clearly explain the exact technical reason... it will be very difficult to believe that the reason for the limited stash is anything besides a business ($$$) or "I really don't want to bother" decision.


  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    When a player is looking at the stash there isn't much happening, he is just standing in a safehouse.

    You can't assume this, as other members of the group can be in combat in completely different locations - i.e. the world simulation is always running, regardless of player action. Before WoNY, having four players in four different fights was necessary to get the achievement of having all control points on the map under your control.

    Another quite simple option (probably unnecessary) would be to route the stash queries to a separate server cluster dedicated to that purpose. That way any delay in "looking at a stash" would not affect any other part of the game.

    And there are probably half a dozen other solutions that don't affect game performance.

    See previous comment about overconfident assertions 👀

  • XMdead
    144 posts
    When a player is looking at the stash there isn't much happening, he is just standing in a safehouse.
    You can't assume this, as other members of the group can be in combat in completely different locations - i.e. the world simulation is always running, regardless of player action. Before WoNY, having four players in four different fights was necessary to get the achievement of having all control points on the map under your control.

    Another quite simple option (probably unnecessary) would be to route the stash queries to a separate server cluster dedicated to that purpose. That way any delay in "looking at a stash" would not affect any other part of the game.

    And there are probably half a dozen other solutions that don't affect game performance.
    See previous comment about overconfident assertions 👀

    Overconfidence goes both ways, including denying that "nothing can be done" based on zero evidence other than "it hasn't been done yet".

    And you are right that I can't assume that querying a list and displaying a menu is in a thread independent from other things going on in the world... but tying it into the same thread of execution would be such a subpar design that I find it hard to believe that any developer would do it, or if done inadvertently would be unwilling to break it up.

    In the end... if it is doable or just a question of whether they WANT to do it or not is not something you can answer unless you are one of The Division developers, rather than just another player. After all, this is a suggestion thread *for the developers*, not a thread for other players to bash suggestions based on their personal perceptions (not knowledge) of how the game is put together. If anybody is going to say "this can't be done and this is why" it has to be a developer.

  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    Overconfidence goes both ways, including denying that "nothing can be done" based on zero evidence other than "it hasn't been done yet".

    From a previous reply:

    I am not asserting whether it is or isn't technically possible to increase the stash. Instead, I am presenting a hypothesis about why it hasn't. Is it theoretically possible? Of course, but the question is at what cost - i.e. what other aspect of the game would need to be reduced in order to ensure performance didn't suffer.


    You on the other hand are making all sorts of assertions - for example:

    And you are right that I can't assume that querying a list and displaying a menu is in a thread independent from other things going on in the world... but tying it into the same thread of execution would be such a subpar design that I find it hard to believe that any developer would do it, or if done inadvertently would be unwilling to break it up.


    Again, the point you're missing is that all of this processing has to be done in real-time (i.e. maintaining a 30Hz tick rate). Nobody has made any claim about how they've threaded all of the different systems, just that they all need to be completed within a fixed amount of time.

  • XMdead
    144 posts
    Overconfidence goes both ways, including denying that "nothing can be done" based on zero evidence other than "it hasn't been done yet".
    It helps to read the replies you're responding to:

    I am not asserting whether it is or isn't technically possible to increase the stash. Instead, I am presenting a hypothesis about why it hasn't. Is it theoretically possible? Of course, but the question is at what cost - i.e. what other aspect of the game would need to be reduced in order to ensure performance didn't suffer.

    You are assuming that some other portion of the game MUST be degraded to increase the stash size.

    I am saying that while possible that the game is so poorly designed that degradation is the only option, that is unlikely given how much thought was given to other areas, and therefore extremely unlikely to be the case.

  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    You are assuming that some other portion of the game MUST be degraded to increase the stash size.

    I have provided links in support of my thesis that the game is extremely resource constrained, both on the server and client. The video even specifically talks about processes having to remain within a performance budget.

    I am saying that while possible that the game is so poorly designed that degradation is the only option, that is unlikely given how much thought was given to other areas, and therefore extremely unlikely to be the case.

    There's that overconfidence again.

  • XMdead
    144 posts
    You are assuming that some other portion of the game MUST be degraded to increase the stash size.
    I have provided links in support of my thesis that the game is extremely resource constrained, both on the server and client. The video even specifically talks about processes having to remain within a performance budget.

    I am saying that while possible that the game is so poorly designed that degradation is the only option, that is unlikely given how much thought was given to other areas, and therefore extremely unlikely to be the case.
    There's that overconfidence again.


    Did you *understand* what those links describe, especially the video? Seems to me that you didn't. They speak about apples and you are commenting about oranges... as if they were the same thing.

    Trusting that the devs are competent is certainly not overconfidence. I am afraid you confuse knowledge of a subject matter and trust in the game's developers skill (which I admit went up after watching the video) with overconfidence.

  • dagrommit
    894 posts
    Did you *understand* what those links describe, especially the video? Seems to me that you didn't. They speak about apples and you are commenting about oranges... as if they were the same thing.

    I understand that a performance budget is a resource constraint, yes. The attributes that make up that constraint may vary depending on the task to be performed (i.e. GPU cycles, CPU cycles, memory usage, disk I/O, time-to-complete etc). What neither of us know for certain is whether those constraints allow for any changes without negatively impacting some other task, but the available evidence suggests it's more complicated than "increase the number of rows you return".

    Trusting that the devs are competent is certainly not overconfidence. I am afraid you confuse knowledge of a subject matter and trust in the game's developers skill (which I admit went up after watching the video) with overconfidence.

    I have worked for enough clients in different industries to recognize the limits of my knowlege, and thus avoid making confident declarations about code I haven't seen. You are obviously entitled to take a different attitude.

    Anyhow, we've strayed way off topic here. The fact is that Yannick did say that latency issues were why they would not be increasing stash size any further. That might change in future of course, but there's little evidence to show that it's high on their priority list.

  • EliClone2626
    Original poster 3 posts

    @raciaiadhesive Damn bro why are you doing me like that 😞

Suggested Topics