Eureka : If I can't see it, it shouldn't hit me...

[Sekkei]

When you see other people's pets first before anything else and mobs disappear with those pets still able to be seen, someone has their importance hierarchy thoughts completely wrong. I would like to be able to still see Amarok and Rider when they zip away instead of completely disappearing from my screen leaving me a sitting duck to an unseen Tail Blow or Rider sliding back right into my face...

[RitsukoSonoda]

My experience with eureka NM's, fates, and hunts the only times I get hit by invisible attacks are generally due to lag and maybe just not seeing it because I still have all effects turned on and there is a lot of magical crap exploding. It was like this in besieged in ffxi as well which makes me wonder if some of these complaints are actually due to limitations of the user's hardware.

As far as the whole "if I cant see it, it shouldn't hit me" argument. Implementing that opens the door for client end exploitation.

The game engine could use an overhaul now that they no longer support PS3 hardware however that kind of overhaul would take a very long time to do and they would need to test it considerably before even thinking about implementing it into the game client.

[SpiritMuse]

I don't need to see every single target in range, I can live with that limitation. But at least let me see the players in my party and the mobs I'm standing right next to...

[Tridus]

My experience with eureka NM's, fates, and hunts the only times I get hit by invisible attacks are generally due to lag and maybe just not seeing it because I still have all effects turned on and there is a lot of magical crap exploding. It was like this in besieged in ffxi as well which makes me wonder if some of these complaints are actually due to limitations of the user's hardware.

As far as the whole "if I cant see it, it shouldn't hit me" argument. Implementing that opens the door for client end exploitation.

The game engine could use an overhaul now that they no longer support PS3 hardware however that kind of overhaul would take a very long time to do and they would need to test it considerably before even thinking about implementing it into the game client.

No, the problem is server side. You see it on weak systems and on comically absurd gaming PCs that overpower the game by huge margins. The problem is that the server has to tell every client what every other client is doing. As you add people, the load scales exponentially. That gives you a situation where two groups of 50 on far sides of the instance will both work fine while one group of 100 will have these problems. The server simply can't keep up with telling everyone what everyone else is doing and stuff gets lost. So you wind up having things drop out that you really don't want to, even while still getting combat log data on 90 other people you don't care about.

They need better prioritization on this stuff. It should be monsters, party, alliance, and then anything else. I should never lose track of a NM or a party member but e able to see 90 other people.

[Claviusnex]

No, the problem is server side. You see it on weak systems and on comically absurd gaming PCs that overpower the game by huge margins. The problem is that the server has to tell every client what every other client is doing. As you add people, the load scales exponentially. That gives you a situation where two groups of 50 on far sides of the instance will both work fine while one group of 100 will have these problems. The server simply can't keep up with telling everyone what everyone else is doing and stuff gets lost. So you wind up having things drop out that you really don't want to, even while still getting combat log data on 90 other people you don't care about.

They need better prioritization on this stuff. It should be monsters, party, alliance, and then anything else. I should never lose track of a NM or a party member but e able to see 90 other people.

Really the first item needs to be current target then everything else you list. However as usual SE has indicated they plan to do nothing about the problem as they have said it is working as intended or as I prefer to call it, "Failing as designed".

[KisaiTenshi]

No, the problem is server side. You see it on weak systems and on comically absurd gaming PCs that overpower the game by huge margins. The problem is that the server has to tell every client what every other client is doing. As you add people, the load scales exponentially. That gives you a situation where two groups of 50 on far sides of the instance will both work fine while one group of 100 will have these problems. The server simply can't keep up with telling everyone what everyone else is doing and stuff gets lost. So you wind up having things drop out that you really don't want to, even while still getting combat log data on 90 other people you don't care about.

They need better prioritization on this stuff. It should be monsters, party, alliance, and then anything else. I should never lose track of a NM or a party member but e able to see 90 other people.

I doubt it's the server not keeping up, it's the client. Until they stop supporting the 32-bit client (hopefully in 5.0) it's still hamstrung by the networking and draw limits of the 32-bit version, since they can't send different amounts of data to different clients. Peoples bad connections, improperly configured connections, or malfunctioning cable/dsl modems/routers may also just push things over for some players when they hit an area with too many players. I've seen cheap linux routers/wireless access points fall over for less.

Why the game doesn't prioritize party members and NM's is probably more of a developer oversight, since it's doubtful they have 200 testers to do load tests on content like this, while it's subject to occlusion culling. They could also easily fix this by adding a "hide all players, pets, mounts and minions not in my party, when more than 8/24/X players are visible" or "hide all friendly targetable objects but my own/alliance and active quest targets" as a more extreme measure. But that would result in nobody getting raised if everyone turned it on. But that might have to be the cost of having such encounter designs, as not everyone is going to have a good connection.

I’m sure they can implement it somehow since they have this option in their mobile/Steam app: FF Möbius.

You do realize that there is a much higher performance disparity on mobile devices right? We're talking about the average iOS device being 100x more powerful than the average android device. So people with those cheap $50 amazon.com phones still need to be able to play a game someone with an iPhoneX can play.

I think some people in this thread are confusing performance limits with priority limits.

Performance limits are those imposed so the game maintains 15fps/30fps/60fps, because below that, the game is unresponsive. Priority limits are telling telling the game what it should be drawing, and dropping everything else from the display lists.

If the problem was the server, it would impact everyone, 100% of the time, no matter where they are in the instance. If it's the client, it only impacts the players that are in the congested area, and everyone experiences a slightly different version of it.

From what I experienced in Eureka is that I'll be in a party, and can't see anyone in the party, but I can see the NM and 30 other people directly underneath the NM. Randomly getting hit by AOE's that I don't see and only know are coming because of managing to target the NM.

[alimdia]

snip

We have a 64 bit client, if they wanted to they could push improvements to that client, because maybe this is not a client issue.

Lack of priority is not an oversight considering it has been here since 2.0 and Odin, seems more like they don't know how to fix it without impacting performance.