{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by The Dude:
5/22/2015 4:23:50 PM
12
I guarantee (99%) this will fix the vault (storage) PLEASE READ
Here is my logical approach based on the way Bungie has explained the vault being dependant on a memory limitation. (Due to memory constraints on 3rd gen, they had to scale back the increased vault size, remember?)
So here goes attempt number 432 at explaining this ingenious approach.
Lets take a minute and explain how the vault works first.
As with our inventories, the vault/inventory seems highly dependant on available system memory. The more there is going on around us, the longer it can take to load, right?
So then, if the vault is limited to available memory, hence the downsize to the vault space increase, wouldn't that memory refresh each time we switch characters? (Or reconnect to server...ie logging out and back in.)
Now if we know these things work this way then I think it is safe to assume the following:
Disabling the shared vault would virtually give us triple the vault space. Since the memory would refresh with each character switch, if each character had their own vault, then we instantly get triple space.
But what about moving items between characters? There is an app for that! Or perhaps we could use Bungie.net or Tess Everis and deposit as a special order to pick up on the character we need said item on.
So that's my theory. I'm about 99% it will work. But I don't have all the information or access I need to test it.
Please like this post if you agree with this logical approach. If you disagree, please state why. I hope I explained this well enough this time.
<3S guardians. I won't stop trying to help fix this great game.
Edit: Please visit this post as well. https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/122528556/0/0 Thanks @J Stevensontown
English
#feedback
-
Edited by The Dude: 5/23/2015 2:21:45 PMBump for anyone who cares anymore. I can't even buy my shank burn gun without deleting raid primaries. And I need those for burns. --- Any recs on a game that doesn't restrict me or peer to peer me to death? What company makes a peer to peer based game, releases it world wide, and throws everyone on the same server? Oh yeah, ONLY Bungie. I honestly can't name anyone else that would even think of p2p for online coop. I sick to death of pointing at the loot chest. Pointing out the fatal flaws. Pointing... I have become comfortably numb. I'm gonna let Pink Floyd speak for me...link coming in about 42 seconds.
-
1 Replythere's easier and more effective ways than that even, but Bungie wants to purposely -blam!- players on weapon and armor storage. It's part of the overall gambling type feel that supports RNG
-
8 RepliesLook at pokemon's box storage system Profit.
-
They would need to add trading for that to work effectively, mostly via mail, so basically a gift based system, then your idea would work pretty well with the game. They would still need an additional server to mitigate the live server and the bank server to allow the information to be backed up incase of crashes or memory glitches within the system. They could just repurpose 4 of the their 12 testing servers to do this; one of each console to help prevent accumulating issues and reduce the likely of hacking from guys like lizard squad. This could save them in the long run and help them to add content much more quickly then they did before. this would effectively close the gaps in your idea and make it not only a great idea but helpful for bungies financial future. One could only hope they use such methods, and I hope you put some of this comment on the original post to keep others from restating what I just did. Cheers.
-
27 RepliesMemory space of console is not the problem..... not with something as simplistic as the vaults page.... if that was a problem for consoles, then never-mind the vault, we couldn't even do a raid, or walk in the tower. Only Logical problem is on Bungie's end (with variables, and the sheer mass of accounts, that adds up to a lot of memory space) https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/121604001/0/0 This is storage space for non variable weapons. That said, If there was weapon customization / combination, we wouldn't need more vaultspace as we could collapse like weapons with different elements into one with just the perks we use, rather than having a multitude of weapons for different scenarios.
-
1 ReplyEdited by QuincyBlaze: 5/22/2015 4:04:22 PMBump! That memory problem, or rather, the connection between memory and a solution is something no one has ever mentioned before, maybe Bungie didn't think about it either
-
9 RepliesThat is terrible please god no. Lets get 3x the vault space so we can not ever use it. Please never work for bungie
-
5 RepliesFail. Good idea, really, but I don't want to spend an hour equipping g stuff. It takes a considerable amount of time to go through all the avenues. The app is a poor solution as not every one has an appropriate device. Even if they do it needs to be available. If mom is using the iPad its kinda hard. Better idea to leave the old gen alone and increase the new. The 360 and ps3 users shouldn't hold back the new gen. They could give the one and PS users a larger vault without consequence I imagine. The app has also lost items for people and I wouldn't want to rely on it. I think 1 shared inventory, no vault. Scrap compare, the items aren't that complex.
-
3 Replieshttps://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/122528556/0/0 Can you please edit this link into your post?
-
Thanks for the input guys. And the like! Coffee bump!
-
7 RepliesI think the memory concerns were mostly around how many items can be displayed on the screen at one time. Bungie chose the most graphically demanding option. Instead of adding more space, they added how many things were displayed on the screen. I say add PAGES to the vault. so there aren't 60-80 items on the screen at once, to access other stuff we go to the next vault page. That many alleviate memory concerns, but then again I didn't code this game or know what all the game queries when doing vault stuff. So this may or may not be possible.
-
11 RepliesWould it work, sure. But you would also be breaking an important game mechanic. I don't see this as an acceptable tradeoff.
