Since you did look at my post, you can see that there are some others who also whish for this. Although i do agree that it should be earned and not given, so yes i do hope to see that a feature like this is added via an unlockable.
Also one thing you should also consider, is that many gamers who come to play GZ most likely are gamers who play othe open world games. Its very common for players who play open world games to want to be completionists and collect all possible weapons in the game. So its abit unfair to label them as horders, maybe you dont want to be a completionist, but there are others who want to, which is why a limited storage space can be unfair to those who wish to complete their collection.
I don’t think increasing the Plundra limit any further would work. People will always request more regardless of how much space it has. 200 units is well enough to store what you need.
Perhaps there could be some way to display weapons though, or store favourite items
Yes perhaps, this could also work. But dont forget, how are you going to display ammo? Many other players who only use one type of gun tend to stockpile ammo for that gun. So honestly im more for making an unlockable upgrade for the plundra, even if its just a simple increase upgrade or an unlimited upgrade.
Perhaps another way to deal with the situation, is via base building? Ive heard that base building is being taken to consideration, maybe instead of an increased plundra, craftable chests could be added? It will be just like in other survival games like Rust and Ark survival. Food for thought?
How much ammo do you have? I too have alot of ammo, but not enough space to keep them all. Which is why i use mule characters, i only have 6 weapons, but im carrying them all. Same thing for medical supplies.
That is complete guesswork. Most GZ players are from Sweden, rather than from open world gaming scene. Also, i’m not the one from open world gaming scene either. I’m solo player with a love towards strategy and HOG (hidden object game).
Being a completionist has little to do with open world games. It’s more to do with personality. E.g i’m also a completionist; achievement hunter in Steam and collector in GZ.
Here, is your argument to increase the Plundra capacity because there are more different weapons in game? And if one likes to store each of them, there needs to be more Plundra storage?
This was calculated before the Soviet weapons DLC came. So, if to consider the Soviet weapons as well, we’d get:
In the launch day game, there were 14 different weapons.
2 LMGs were added to the game.
2 melee weapons were added to the game.
There are also 8 experimental weapons, one in each class of a weapon.
1st weapon DLC added 3 more new weapons.
And 2nd weapon DLC added 3 more new weapons.
That makes 24 normal weapons and 8 experimental weapons, or
32 weapons in total.
There are also talks about new, 3rd weapon DLC with 3 more new weapons (N79, COM-10 SMG and S21). Making the future possible total of weapons to 35 weapons.
One weapon weighs 2 units. And when to multiply that with different weapons amount, we get 64 units. Or 70 units with 3rd weapons DLC.
So, you need 64 (70) units of storage if you want to keep one (best) version of each different weapon, including all experimental weapons.
100 unit Plundra is more than enough to store the complete weapon collection, leaving space free for other stuff. But we don’t have 100 unit Plundra, instead, we have 200 unit plundra. Making the above argument void.
However, one could say that weapon attachments also take up space and that is true.
So, lets count those as well. And here, i’ll take all 32 weapons while considering the maximum possible attachments each and every weapon could have.
Excluded from the count are the 3 upcoming weapons, since we don’t know which and how many attachments they can have.
Count: 59 on regular weapons and 17 on experimental weapons = 76 total.
One attachment weighs 0.250 units, times 76 = 19 units taken up by all attachments.
And if we add the weapons weight to that, 64 + 19 = 83.
100 unit Plundra is capable of to store that perfect weapon collection + then some.
Current 200 unit Plundra is more than enough + more than double of that, to house that perfect weapon collection and i see no reason why to increase it even further, even for the collector (me being one of them).
Also, i don’t know how many people want the perfect weapon collection in their Plundra. It could be minority or majority. For those, who doesn’t collect every version of a weapon + all attachments on a weapon, they have even more free space to work with as it currently stands.
This is one option, yes. But then there should be limit on how many of those chests you can build. Also, since its in the player base, it also has a health bar and machines can destroy it, where you’d be loosing all you have stored in it.
Other folks have suggested weapon racks that you can build in your base. Either free standing ones or on the wall. But to balance it, i’d suggest that too is destructible for the machines.
Do you know how software and files work? Imagine having to upgrade your hardware just to accommodate just to play this game because it requires unlimited RAM, harddrive space and processing power. As it is now the saving works flawlessly. It runs in the background without interfering with the gameplay. With unlimited storage space the user can have an insane amount of things stored and this needs to be saved everytime the player interacts with loot for example.
Limits in games have two purposes.
First and foremost they make the player think. Unlimited of everything makes a game dull since the spirit of achieving something becomes mindless. Having to overcome limits and find success in achieving something gives the player reward.
Second it reduces the strain on the hardware. Some functionalities don’t just scale linear with a linear increase of data to process. When coding a game the programmers have to find ways to make the hardware impact as small as possible to include as many players as possible and have the game not choke on large ressource to calculate.
Except not beeing able to keep that reward because of limiting plundra will work quite the opposite.
Trust me, the plundra aint it. A correct implementation of the plundra would cost max 16 bytes per object you store. Give some overhead for the array handling. (8 bytes for the object reference and then 8 more for the counter, that is how many of these that are stored. That would give you the possibility to store 18446744073709551615 items of any given sort, which is kind of overkill).
Also a sidenote on the plundra: Its shared between characters, and completionists might want to store complete gear setups for each character independently, which yields the urge to save duplicates in order to be ready to go.
And one could also argue that why shouldn’t one be able to store every epic weapon one finds? Since they spent the hours to get them? (The reward for spending the time)
Thks for doing the math, but the point i wanted to make was that its not fair to call those types of players horders. But i digress.
As for extra chests, i was thinking that maybe unlike the plundra which has a linked storage, where you can go to any safehouse and still get take items that you stored at another safe house, these craftable boxes are not only smaller than the plundra, but you have to travel to where you built those boxes inorder to access them. Maybe for each safehouse/buildable base you can only craft a limited amount of these boxes. So if you were to go to another safehouse or buildable base, you could build more there. That way you could store items but you would have to travel to each base inorder to get them.
To add on to this, maybe we can unlock blueprints for different types of chests, some larger more expensive to craft chests, being bigger than the plundra itself. That way instead of having an unlimited plundra, we get a craftable storage that is bigger than the plundra but more expensive to craft.
As much as i agree that the storage amount should be increased. Perhaps earning that right is better than the devs outright giving it to us. That way players will have one more objective to do, whether the devs want to make unlimited/increased plundra an unlockable feature or simply allowing us to craft extra chests in the rumored base building feature, i do feel that making us work for it is more fair than just giving it to us.
Well my man, you clearly havent been reading my newer posts havent you? Ive changed my opinion on the matter and you should have probably replied to that post alot earlier.
As ive said in my newer post, with talks of having a base building update, maybe the devs can add in craftable storage containters. These containers have different tiers cheaper containers have are smaller compared to the plundra, and as you unlock better chest blueprints they can store more items. And as Aesyle has mentioned, perhaps these boxes could be destroyed by bots if they attack your bases.
So basically like a plundra editor mode? I mean it seems abit tedious dont you think? Might aswell just make a mule character? But this is definetly food for thought?
Now I’m really wondering where you get all the numbers? Can you enlighten me please?
Really? Why do you want to store every weapon you find? Why do you want to store 537th 1* Möller? Sorry, but this sounds very silly and this is a very weak argument to open the limits.
I totally get that a bit more storage with the increased weapon and ammo type count makes sense and working for this kind of increase has a rewarding factor. Let’s say - for the sake of the argument - the devs implement a system where the player can increase the storage 5 times (to stay in the 1 to 5 crown systematic) in 50kg increments. This would give the player a 450kg storage capacity which is more then double the player has at the moment. For me this is way too much but I hope this would suffice for you.
With the introduction of new ammo types and many new DLC weapons, the storage needs some adjustment, requiring a bit more of space to keep pace with the new introductions.
It would be very appreciated by many if it the storage was extended.
And of course Balance is key, unlimited storage would feel just wrong and weird.
I hope the Team will come with some solution for this .
May not be related, but once again ive done a poll on reddit in regards to the Plundra. As of this post it has only been 2 hours and here are the result. image|281x499 By no means are the devs obliged to add unlimited storage/increased storage, but the numbers speak for it self. More active useres on reddit than on the forums.
I second this aswell. Although unlimited may not be neccessary, but a good, healthy boost to the Plundra’s capacity will definetly be appreciated by the players.
I am by no means a computer programmer or game programmer, i dont know Java, Java script, C++ or Python. But one thing i have done is play a wide veriaty of games to know that you havent played alot of games. Take a older open world game for example, Fallout 3, go to any container in the game and try fitting every item in that same container and tell me if your game works fine. Fallout 3 runs on the already dying Gamebryo engine and it can do it, i dont see why GZ’s Apex engine will have issues.
Need a better example? Try playing any of the Dark Souls games, Dark Souls also uses an auto save function with no manual saves. Everytime you store an item in UNLIMITED storage box, tell me if your game works fine. As ive mentioned im not programming wizkid, and feel free to enliten me, heck give me a full on lesson on programming if you have to. My guy, you need to expaned your gaming library.
I think you missed the word epic. I didnt say every weapon you find.
I got it from thinking, with my knowledge of datascience to back me up. (University studies, as well as 20+ years in the business).
Typically you need one reference to the object, thats 8 bytes (long), and then you want to count how many of that you have, thats 8 more bytes. Unsigned long can represent any number from 0 to 18446744073709551615. Or so I thought. I was mistaken long long for a long. A normal long only has 4 bytes. So I guess the correct size if you only use longs are actually only 12 bytes (plus abit of overhead for actual object and array implementations) and would only suffice for 4294967295 objects storage per type. (tbh only 1 byte could be used, then you would be able to store a maximum of 255 objects per object type. I think that could suffice?)
.
(minus the errors… hmmm)