IN-GAME EVENTS FOR OCTOBER 2022

[Addictress]

Ok so I played a handful of bounty contracts so far and honestly all I got was reputation and money. Was there some other reward possible?

[Nee-Elder]

2 hours ago, Addictress said:

Ok so I played a handful of bounty contracts so far and honestly all I got was reputation and money. Was there some other reward possible?

Check  those  side/reputation  vendors in the  'Cartel Market'  elevator section of Fleet.  ( across or near where you turn-in & pick-up new  'bountys' )

[SteveTheCynic]

6 hours ago, Addictress said:

Ok so I played a handful of bounty contracts so far and honestly all I got was reputation and money. Was there some other reward possible?

Also check the "Currency" tab of your Inventory panel - you should have one "Completed Bounty Contract" for each contract you finished.

EDIT: plus however many you've collected from login reward boxes.

Edited October 10, 2022 by SteveTheCynic

[lightningseven]

On 10/7/2022 at 1:47 AM, SteveTheCynic said:

It's a performance restricting feature, so they capped the number of NPC-type decorations to prevent problems.  I don't remember for sure, but I suspect it's a server-performance thing rather than a client-performance thing.

there is NO excuse for BADLY written software.  saying it is a "performance restricting feature" is nonsense since it only really means that the software was written very poorly and they are not coding properly.   there is NO reason why they cannot re-factor some of that code to make this work.   You ALWAYS DEFEND the devs!!!!

i am starting to think you are one of them or are related or connected to the devs in some way.

i myself am familiar with software development and i have NEVER bought ANY of your defenses (excuses) for them.

yet you are not my target:   lazy & under-funded devs are.

 

[FlameYOL]

7 hours ago, lightningseven said:

there is NO excuse for BADLY written software.  saying it is a "performance restricting feature" is nonsense since it only really means that the software was written very poorly and they are not coding properly.   there is NO reason why they cannot re-factor some of that code to make this work.   You ALWAYS DEFEND the devs!!!!

i am starting to think you are one of them or are related or connected to the devs in some way.

i myself am familiar with software development and i have NEVER bought ANY of your defenses (excuses) for them.

yet you are not my target:   lazy & under-funded devs are.

 

The fact you think the devs are lazy kind of shows you're not that familiar with software development.

[SteveTheCynic]

9 hours ago, lightningseven said:

there is NO excuse for BADLY written software.  saying it is a "performance restricting feature" is nonsense since it only really means that the software was written very poorly and they are not coding properly.   there is NO reason why they cannot re-factor some of that code to make this work.   You ALWAYS DEFEND the devs!!!!

I'm just the messenger here, reminding the audience what BioWare said at the time.

I'd also point out that in the original use of the term, refactoring code does not fix bugs.  It restructures the code so that the bugs will be easier to fix when it is time to fix them.  In the context of this conversation, inadequate performance can be considered a bug, so refactoring doesn't fix that either.

Very important point I am not a BioWare developer, nor do I work for them on a consulting contract or whatever.  That said, I have been a professional developer since 1989, so it's possible that I know a thing or two about how software is designed and developed.

9 hours ago, lightningseven said:

i am starting to think you are one of them or are related or connected to the devs in some way.

Only insofar as that I am also a developer.

9 hours ago, lightningseven said:

i myself am familiar with software development and i have NEVER bought ANY of your defenses (excuses) for them.

"familiar with"?  Have you spent nearly 34 years doing it as your day job?

9 hours ago, lightningseven said:

yet you are not my target:   lazy & under-funded devs are.

"lazy" is a very strong word to use, and probably inaccurate, but I'll agree with you on "under-funded".

[Mubark]

On 10/9/2022 at 8:10 PM, Nee-Elder said:

uhh  that site ^  has nothing to do with  BioWare (official) .

It's just some random 3rd-party site , no?

No Idea. I always thought it was a DEV that kept that updated...

[Addictress]

*yawn* It's time for November. Can someone make a November thread?

[Nee-Elder]

8 minutes ago, Addictress said:

*yawn* It's time for November. Can someone make a November thread?

hmm, on planet Earth  we still have 10 more days ...

[lightningseven]

On 10/14/2022 at 12:43 PM, FlameYOL said:

The fact you think the devs are lazy kind of shows you're not that familiar with software development.

you THINK i am not.   HERE is what the DEVS here SHOULD be doing if they were NOT "lazy":

(and it might be a great big project but NEVERTHELESS.... this is what should be done)

1.  DE-FORK the SWTOR code base and go back to the mainline (and now, far more modern, and updated) Hero Engine.

2. INVEST REAL TIME in getting DirectX12 and MAYBE VULKAN to work in SWTOR (modern non-forked or mainline Hero Engine can do at least DX11 RIGHT NOW)

3. Re-compile ALL of it for 64-bit targets.   VOILA!  NO MORE LAG EVER AGAIN in Operations, Warzone PVP, GSF, Flashpoints, or ANY OTHER world-based PVE operations like world bosses.  Why?  FAR MORE memory efficiency!!!  FAR LESS CPU dependence.  FAR MORE laying the burden on the GPU where it BELONGS.

And why are the devs not doing this?

Mainline and thus non-forked Hero Engine CAN do DirectX 11 at the very least and thus COMPETE WITH ALL OTHER currently released and THIS-generation Graphical Games and MMOs.

So, EITHER THEY ARE NOT BEING PAID to do it, OR YES, THEY ARE LAZY INDEED.  And that means they DO NOT WANT to do it.

 

[lightningseven]

On 10/14/2022 at 2:02 PM, SteveTheCynic said:

I'm just the messenger here, reminding the audience what BioWare said at the time.

I'd also point out that in the original use of the term, refactoring code does not fix bugs.  It restructures the code so that the bugs will be easier to fix when it is time to fix them.  In the context of this conversation, inadequate performance can be considered a bug, so refactoring doesn't fix that either.

Very important point I am not a BioWare developer, nor do I work for them on a consulting contract or whatever.  That said, I have been a professional developer since 1989, so it's possible that I know a thing or two about how software is designed and developed.

Only insofar as that I am also a developer.

"familiar with"?  Have you spent nearly 34 years doing it as your day job?

"lazy" is a very strong word to use, and probably inaccurate, but I'll agree with you on "under-funded".

There is a GIANT difference between a COBOL or FORTRAN MAINFRAME developer, and a modern C# or C++20.... developer.

I really do not need to say anything more here, mister 1989.   i was mastering BASIC in 1989 and i was barely 16 years old.

it is not as if i am going to suggest devs redo the whole game in BASIC .....  that would be entirely stupid of me if i ever thought that.

And when i said re-factor i was INTENDING it to be understood that this whole code base is ALREADY SPAGHETTI and that is why it NEEDS it.

if it was NOT spaghetti, they would have ALREADY GONE BACK to mainline Hero engine (de-forked it) and started to redo the game using the MODERN CURRENT Hero Engine which has ALREADY been able to do full 64-bit and DirectX 11 or 12.   VULKAN would be nicer.....

 

[SteveTheCynic]

15 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

There is a GIANT difference between a COBOL or FORTRAN MAINFRAME developer, and a modern C# or C++20.... developer.

Good thing I'm not a COBOL or Fortran developer, I guess, and also that I'm not any kind of mainframe developer.

For info: I currently work in C99 and C++17.  Why not higher versions?  Well, changing language specification / version is a risk, and there's no point in taking on that risk *just* to be "like the cool kids".

15 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

I really do not need to say anything more here, mister 1989.   i was mastering BASIC in 1989 and i was barely 16 years old.

Um.  When I said that I began my career in 1989, I did not mean that I am still stuck in 1989.

15 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

it is not as if i am going to suggest devs redo the whole game in BASIC .....

Glad to hear it, but I never thought you were going to suggest that.

15 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

And when i said re-factor i was INTENDING it to be understood that this whole code base is ALREADY SPAGHETTI and that is why it NEEDS it.

From what I've heard, it might or might not be *spaghetti*(1), but it is a mess.  More likely a Big Ball O' Mud.  So yes, refactoring is a good place to start, but it's a way to get ready to fix bugs, and not a way to fix bugs.

(1) That is a tangled mess, usually implying liberal use of ugly things like goto.

15 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

if it was NOT spaghetti, they would have ALREADY GONE BACK to mainline Hero engine (de-forked it) and started to redo the game using the MODERN CURRENT Hero Engine which has ALREADY been able to do full 64-bit and DirectX 11 or 12.   VULKAN would be nicer.....

*Maybe* they would have done that, but more likely not, especially since it wasn't *just* a fork, but a fork followed by heavy modifications.  That's a recipe for *huge* headaches when trying to merge in the upstream.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

you THINK i am not.   HERE is what the DEVS here SHOULD be doing if they were NOT "lazy":

That word "lazy" is a strong accusation.  Do you have something solid to back it up?

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

(and it might be a great big project but NEVERTHELESS.... this is what should be done)

You left out "if they had unlimited time and resources to do it in", which they do not.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

1.  DE-FORK the SWTOR code base and go back to the mainline (and now, far more modern, and updated) Hero Engine.

Big huge job.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

2. INVEST REAL TIME in getting DirectX12 and MAYBE VULKAN to work in SWTOR (modern non-forked or mainline Hero Engine can do at least DX11 RIGHT NOW)

What content do they produce in the meantime?  The rate of content production is already painfully low.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

3. Re-compile ALL of it for 64-bit targets.   VOILA!  NO MORE LAG EVER AGAIN in Operations, Warzone PVP, GSF, Flashpoints, or ANY OTHER world-based PVE operations like world bosses.

No.  Voilà, it crashes all over the place for three weeks until they fix the things that weren't 64-bit ready in BioWare's code.

And the lag occurs because of the structure of the code and things like that, and changing the bitness won't change that structure.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

Why?  FAR MORE memory efficiency!!!

Not as such.  Remember, I've done 32-to-64 bit ports of existing codebases, and no, it doesn't make memory use more efficient, just, well, more.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

FAR LESS CPU dependence.

Explain?  Why would changing the compiler bitness switches change the structure of the code to make it suddenly use less CPU?

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

FAR MORE laying the burden on the GPU where it BELONGS.

Nope.  They'd need to actually change their code for that, not just compile it differently.

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

And why are the devs not doing this?

Several reasons, of which probably the most important is the need to continue advancing the content of the game.

Behind that, you'll find things like "it's a big expensive job and won't, as such, directly earn more revenue, but will (see above) impose a risk of *losing* revenue in the meantime."

28 minutes ago, lightningseven said:

So, EITHER THEY ARE NOT BEING PAID to do it, OR YES, THEY ARE LAZY INDEED.  And that means they DO NOT WANT to do it.

You're right, they aren't being paid to put the game's development on hold while they replatform it.  That doesn't make them lazy.