[1830] Fine controls for Avatar Performance Gating in Group Instances
SilvyPaws
The Avatar Performance Gating is fantastic, but I think it could be made better by allowing groups better controls for what they want to allow in their instances. Like if they're not bothered by polygons but more care about skinned meshes and Texture Memory, they should be able to specifically select those to gate.
I created quick mockups for UI ideas. Alternatively, instead of a big advanced option, it could be better, under the Good button that already exists, make a custom button that when clicked, opens up another UI or puts options beside it for every performance ranking with easy to understand drop downs for each one.
Photo Viewer
View photos in a modal
Log In
okgold
There's no free lunch, every single stat in the performance rank effects performance. There's already clear guides on what those limits are. We don't need every user to make up their own standards on what's acceptable.
Misaki Ki
I know it's not as clean, and would require further work, but I still would like to see a 'custom' field to manually set values for some of these too. The current controls are heavily skewed to 80 player instances, and different groups are going to have different views on what is acceptable.
These set of options only push you further into the green direction, but I want to be able to set upper limits on the worst for the entire instance.
Either way, I'm all for more options, so I definitely support the current proposed option here too.
よぜ［4oZEF］
These features will definitely be necessary.
Setting aside for now that ridiculous claim by the dev team that they “set the PerformanceRank limit at 70,000 polygons based on an assumption of 80-player instances”...
As I mentioned in the DevUpdate comments, what we users want to limit isn’t “VeryPoor avatars themselves,” but rather “VeryPoor avatars with extremely large uncompressed or download sizes.”
narazaka
This would also be effective for applying more relaxed constraints in everyday 20- or 10-player instances. I would really like to see this implemented.
narazaka
If introducing new constraints is difficult, I think it would be fine to start with existing per-avatar metrics such as VRAM, download size, and uncompressed size.
Zerithax
Most events I’ve been to that suggest or request “poor or better” still don’t end up contacting or removing people for being very poor because they’re not actually over whatever specific internal limits the group is actually monitoring for.
It would be much more robust if a group could specify what kinds of avatar limits they don’t want to allow. As-is, I can see many group hosts ignoring this feature addition because it blocks more people than they would want to.