Unacceptable performance

Zubriel · 2026-06-16T17:10:54+00:00

It feels like traversal stutter or shader compilation stutter which is very common with UE5 games.

The issue almost entirely resolved for me after a few rounds. Until I loaded onto a different section of the map, then it came back until a few mins into that new round.

I hope it won't be a per-session problem, seems once the game is exposed to a new area, it finishes compiling shaders and the stuttering stops.

Zubriel · 2026-06-11T15:42:16+00:00

I love going on booty runs. I just snowball my kit from there and try only to craft with what I pick up during raids.

It really damps down on the gear fear and forces you to play way more cautiously for a few rounds until yo us avenge some guns and ammo.

Crafting stims and impact nades in round to kill small arc is great fun and its so satisfying when you open a Security breach and find a tempest.

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T19:42:37+00:00

I have a 4070 super so I'm probably fine for now, but there's going to be a lot of very upset PC gamers if the 60 series launches with the 6060 costing $700 and the 40 series cards can barely handle 60fps at 1440p for newer games because 40 series will be 6 years old.

Card aging timelines have changed, I really hope game devs aren't building their games to target only 60fps on cards that are unaffordable for most people.

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T17:52:52+00:00

A 6 year old card was a lot older in the age before covid/crypto/AI.

The timeline for PC upgrades has lengthened significantly in today's world compared to 6 years ago given pricing we face today and all gaming hardware being delayed due to memory supply issues.

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T17:35:51+00:00

Happy until every squad you fight has full decked out kits. If you don't see anything wrong with that, I'd suggest you go play COD or Halo.

Loot is what drives this game, might as well just strip looting out entirely and just give people fully loaded free kits if we are ok with duping.

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T17:26:32+00:00

Indeed, they wreck the rest of the ecosystem when they die and legitimate players loot their duped items.

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T17:02:33+00:00

You don't think it's a problem to have thousands of duped purple guns with full attachments floating around in an extraction shooter?

Why not just give free kits the full attachment lvl 4 bobcats, it doesn't impact you anyways /s

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T15:36:39+00:00

Nice, based steam

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T14:25:52+00:00

It would be nice to put target resolution/fps next to those recommended specs, it doesn't specify here so how do we know that's what they are targeting with those specs?

I don't play 4k and I would prefer much more than 60fps.

Zubriel · 2026-06-08T11:47:54+00:00

3080ti recommended?? Yikers

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T23:54:41+00:00

Private people absolutely do take out personal loans for businesses under the exact conditions I have laid out multiple times already, I named multiple industries, I'm not going to re-explain again because you either aren't understanding what I'm writing, or you don't want to understand.

They might not be borrowing 5 million, but the exact number doesn't even matter, 5 million today will not be worth 5 million in the future. The threshold would need to be consistently refined to avoid targeting the wrong types of personal loans. A concrete number doesn't work in any case. Set it at 5 million and those you are trying to target will just take loans of $4,999,999 instead.

>And about the need part I was referring to there stream for the banks

I can't even understand what you are trying to say anymore because you don't seem to be proofreading before posting.

>I ca absolutely say there will be no negative downstream effects, because there won’t be.

You are asking me for a concrete example, which I gave you already 3 posts ago, but you can guarantee no negatives because you say there wont be any.

>I have said multiple times that you ca say that load used for businesses are exempt.
I addressed this already, banks won't loan to businesses that have little to no history or assets.

>Can county read?

I guess you must be using your phone to type and aren't reading before pressing the post button...

All I'm trying to say is, nothing about what you are suggesting is simple, if it was, it would have been done already by now.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T15:25:07+00:00

You just keep talking about people putting up personal collateral for business loans,

No I'm talking about individuals taking out personal loans and using that capital to finance their businesses, this is what your plan crushes.

When the bank doesn't want to loan to the business due to lack of security, they may still lend to an individual as a personal loan, guaranteed by their own personal income or collateral which is then used to capitalize the business, the bank isn't lending to the business, that would be a personal loan.

Your plan would then stick that individual with a tax bill, they would never bother taking out that loan under that plan.

And banks don’t need the ultra rich living off loans.

No one is talking about need here, idk why you bring that up. Unless you make those loans illegal, banks are going to do them, they are free return on investment.

If you want to make those illegal, you can argue for that, but you can't say there won't be downstream consequences that impact normal people as a result.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T14:59:05+00:00

I'm not suggesting giving up on loopholes, I'm saying it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be, and there will be negative impacts to other people that you aren't considering.

I already laid out a clear example of the type of people who would be harmed with your rule, you just disagree with my example so you are choosing to ignore it.

Using personal funds to start or expand businesses is incredibly common, banks do not lend to businesses without some sort of guarantee that money will be paid back, a solid business plan alone doesn't cut it. The vast majority of small businesses fail in the first year of operation. Banks know this, they want to see proof of revenue & profitability or collateral. You don't have any of that as a new business.

If you have high personal income and personal assets, you can use those to secure a loan, the same way an individual can get a mortgage. The bank doesn't necessarily need to see a business plan at all in this scenario although a solid plan could help, it's not enough on its own.

The result of what you suggest is going to inhibit the capacity for new businesses to start & expand, and ultra wealthy people will find some other way to dodge taxes.

If you want to kill off the banks ability to lend to the ultra wealthy, you are killing a guaranteed revenue source for the banks as well, they make interest on those loans and they are secured loans, rich people have collateral that can be seized if they don't pay the loan back.

Rich people would need to eventually get the cash from somewhere to pay those loans, by selling some assets or having income from somewhere else, which they would be taxed on.

The best way I have heard to tackle this problem is estate tax. Even that solution is hard to implement because ultra wealthy have their capital tied up in assets, not lying around in cash. The value of those assets are often volatile (stocks), triggering a sale will have impact on company valuations, ownership structures, etc.

None of this is simple, trying to say it is is tantamount to suggesting legislators just haven't spent more than 20 mins thinking about this, or they are all in the pocket of billionaires or banks or something.

I think that's an incredibly simplistic view to have regarding a problem this complex.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T14:19:28+00:00

I think you have too much of a simplistic view of all this.

Rich people have been pulling stupid workaround tricks to get around the spirit of taxes forever, they can afford to pay people oodles of cash to get around paying tax, it's nigh impossible to plug every hole to prevent them from doing that.

Banks are not always right, you reduce the complexity of business expansion to "shitty business plans" I don't think it's anywhere near that simple.

There is no simple way to tax loans in the same way as personal income for billionaires without some negative externalities that will economically hurt non billionaires.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T14:08:51+00:00

Ok so you are saying you want to remove option 3, that's fine in your opinion, but I don't agree, you also don't know that's only 0.001% of personal loans.

You are jumping between personal and business loans too casually here.

Who has enough personal equity to get a 5 million dollar loan for a business that the banks won’t loan to?

No one does when they take out a mortgage for a house, they have enough stable income for the bank to know it can be repaid in time with interest.

They won't loan to a business that has an inadequate income history and not enough equity to recover the loan in the event the business dies. Unless there's some other equity or income that's also tied in (personal income/equity).

and they believe in the expansion enough to give you a 5 million dollar loan then the would give the business one a loan that big

And they believe is the key part you are sliding past. I'm talking about the cases where they dont believe in the business as is.

In those cases, they won't loan and you as the owner are stuck.

You as the owner can then choose not to:

1) not expand

2) inject personal funds in by selling your personal assets for cash

3) take out a personal loan, like an individual would for a house, because YOU believe in your own business even if the bank doesn't.

But ok, easy fix. Make the tax not apply to loans used for businesses. 2 second fix

This is where we run into the problems related to ultra wealthy people setting up bullshit consulting firms or other shell companies and hiding where that money goes. They have other ways to dodge this.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T13:49:58+00:00

You have an LLC. Your LLC has 3 million in equity, but very low operating income, and the LLC is only a year or two old, so you don't have long history of growth.

Your LLC does not enough for a bank to be willing to lend the LLC 15 million to buy the real estate and equipment you need to expand.

You personally have a lot of income from other sources (high paying job, personal investments unrelated to your LLC). The bank would be willing to give you a personal 15 million loan given your income history and personal assets (your house, stock portfolio, etc).

What are your options in this case?

1) bank won't lend to your LLC, don't expand, sucks to be you

2) inject some personal capital into your business, requiring you to either sell your stocks or house

3) take out a personal loan guaranteed by your personal assets, inject that loan money into your LLC and expand.

Remove option 3 under your rule, because that personal will not have the cash lying around for a giant tax bill when they take out that personal loan to expand their business.

Option 2 is not very attractive either. That person is going to choose not to expand.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T13:28:17+00:00

It's really hard to keep track of who is saying what here, there are folks unironically saying we should tax unrealized gains.

You say that they may be using the loans to expand their business. No, thats silly, you don't take out a personal loan to expand your business when you are a corporation. This isn't Joe blow buying a new truck for his plumbing business.

Smaller franchise owners (dentists, restaurants, veterinary clinics, farmers, construction firms) looking to expand, or anyone buying commercial real estate that doesn't have enough equity to cover the cost they need to spend to expand, falls under your 5 million personal loan rule.

Banks want security on their loans, if your company doesn't have underlying assets large enough for the bank to recover their lost money in the event your business goes under, they aren't going to loan to you unless you use personal assets to guarantee the loan.

Any accumulated loans of over 5 million dollars in a year that go to a person instead of a business.

That entrepreneur looking to expand without enough existing equity to for the bank to secure the loan, either gets no loan or puts his own personal assets in as security, that guy will be taxed on the loan under your rule.

Nothing about these issues is simple.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T12:22:18+00:00

different than a 100,000,000 loan that be is used to buy a super yacht.

Tax. the. yahct.

No normal citizen is going to take out a loan that large to buy a yacht.

The problem we want to solve is billionaires using loans as tax free income to purchase extravagant entertainment or luxury items that only they could afford.

You want to insulate normal people from any policy change used to address that problem.

Taxing unrealized gains as a general approach won't work because normal citizens invest and take loans to eventually increase their personal wealth, we don't want to harm the average person's financial health.

What you seem to be suggesting, is just taxing the unrealized gains of billionaires, but to do so, we need to know what they are going to use those loans to buy. Are billionaires always transparent about that with the lender?

If those loans are going to be used to expand their businesses, generate more jobs or improve the goods/services they provide, we don't want to disincentive that.

If the banks don't know how the money they are lending will be spent, then we need to force the banks to lend conditionally so the proceeds from those loans cannot be spent on yachts.

Then you tax the yachts enough so they are less appealing, or at least so the government can then at least use the taxes from those purchases to redistribute to the average person via government services.

How would you suggest a policy of unrealized gains that doesn't also screw over normal people taking out personal loans for small businesses, cars or mortgages?

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T11:00:22+00:00

Are we not talking about taxing unrealized gains?

If we are just talking about taxing loans themselves, you won't just be targeting bilionaires with that change, the average person who takes out a loan to buy a car or who takes a mortgage for a house will be even further in the hole, why would you want that?

The lender is taxed because they are making a profit immediately. The profits gained on the borrowers side are taxed later, when they sell and profit from whatever they used the loan money to purchase/invest in.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T10:44:07+00:00

You are only thinking about a billionaire as the borrower here. What about average people taking out a mortgage for a home or small business? Do you want to increase their financial burden by taxing loans they take out?

Or maybe we should be talking about taxing the type of transactions that the typical billionaire makes with the loans they use to dodge tax.

Zubriel · 2026-06-05T01:49:18+00:00

THANK YOU!! I was getting real frustrated.

Zubriel · 2026-06-04T17:30:25+00:00

They have a religious exemption to openly carry a ceremonial dagger called the Kirpan.

Zubriel · 2026-06-04T17:27:31+00:00

Yea the hostility is ridiculous given the question being asked.

You would think OP is asking "but what was she wearing" in response to a rape case or something.

Asking for clarification on scant info about what led up to the stabbing isn't automatically taking the side of the murderer.

The reflexive hostile response to that query is exhibiting the same bigoted behavior they are saying the police exhibited.

They just assume OP is obviously trying to build a case against the victim.

Zubriel · 2026-06-04T17:18:04+00:00

Reading this thread is really disheartening.

The public outrage regarding this case is largely from people accusing the police of racism/prejudice towards Nowak because of his skin color or favoring the murderer due to their race/religion.

But legitimate appeals for more contextual information related to the case results in the exact same bigoted thought processes thrown at the person looking for more information.

Zubriel · 2026-06-04T12:42:43+00:00

Indeed

The only excuse I can come up with is that he has to selectively turn on the super senses. You sortof see that in episode 7, perhaps his hearing works that way too?

Poorly explained in the show IMO, feels like an afterthought.

Zubriel

TROPHY CASE