Jump to content

ShippyLongstalking

Member
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ShippyLongstalking

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. okay let's not pretend having NPCs or AI in a game is some sort of mind-bender. it's a standard pillar of game dev...AI is present in virtually every game developed, MMO or otherwise. i think there's misunderstanding about what "run in client" actually means in the context of AI. physics happen in clients, that's normal -- servers just do sanity checks and syncs. that doesn't mean each NPC needs its own clients -- because those NPCs only need to care about real physics when they are being perceived by players...at which point they exist in each player's client. this is already how it works when you perceive other players -- those meshes that exist in your client are independent of the meshes that exist in every other client -- synced with the server, but still separate universes technically. And yes DU handles them as meshes, not voxels. your game is handling those meshes as if they were local just to your client. that's why there's things like rubber-banding or "skipping" -- because slight variations exist and your client realizes that a given object is "actually" somewhere else. Even basic movement is usually done through LERPs -- interpolated movement that exists in each client that loads an object, not just your machine -- so when I say "go forward" it has an illusion of smooth movement. the game already has to validate physics on the server -- otherwise there's nothing to stop a rogue client from throwing the server nonsense data and skipping across the universe. the game already has solved this issues in the context of multiplayer -- each player that you see on your machine is not just "using data from another client", it's using data from a server and running on your client the same as an AI would. It actually just has one more "hop" -- instead of the server feeding each client sync data to update their local data, it comes directly from the server. Multiplayer programming can be complicated. i probably made about zero sense here, but despite not knowing every facet of DU's dev, I feel headless clients would be far more complex than traditional AI. they did stress tests on headless clients is because in the context of stress tests it wouldn't make any sense otherwise
  2. look at it from a different angle: how will DU fill the (many) gaps in design left by a lack of NPCs? current answer: "no clue" "players do everything" is currently a vague aspiration, not a design -- it's an attractive, novel pitch...but one with no real plan behind it. IMO to fit with the civilization sandbox theme, AI would make the most sense as belonging to orgs. There's pirate NPCs, hauler NPCs, etc. Blowing up an AI wouldn't necessarily be mindless grinds -- you'd piss off the owners. Even PVE players would have to pick enemies. It wouldn't diminish groups like Boo, it would turn them into sprawling space 'rats feared like the plague. Builders would have a large role building AI constructs and NPCs would have a central role in civilization building. Industry would be needed to replace and repair destroyed constructs. Some areas might start to feel more secure thanks to patrols, without safe zone madness. considering JC has a PhD in AI, i don't understand why NPCs were never part of the design. NPCs could be such an incredible asset for the concept of civilization building...but instead we have this vague plan for "players must do everything" -- which has no actual game design rationale or plan behind it. It's different for the sake of different but has become more of a liability than an asset in terms of design.
  3. i for one am a big fan of turning all threads into "maybe just play Valheim" I love this image lol
  4. right...? people talk like all these changes are inevitable...IMO there's no inevitable future with DU at this point. Any one of these updates could realistically be among their last. they have a massive burn rate (~70 employees + expensive rented servers) and very little revenue. Mechanical/design changes are only one facet...and they have a lot to do to fix those...but based on the velocity of dev so far? there's no guarantee they will actually deploy such updates...and if they do, how bad will the lag be with more and larger battles? they can't just fix mechanics, they have to fix fundamental tech issues, too. attracting more players or bringing them back only works if the tech is scalable, which they haven't proven is the case. "when they release that" or "when this gets changed" are nice thoughts, but from what i can see from 0.23 and 0.24, I'd be shocked if future pvp updates have real substance to them...if they even land in the next 3-5 months.
  5. My sources say that NQ doesn't have any plans for the near future or the far future. They only have plans with a medium future, which to them means 2-3 months. wtf blaze you're such an optimist today. everything okay?
  6. ah that one...my favorite is the broken link because someone forgot a ":" in the URL. Novean engineering and testing at its finest! 😏 so basically the initial rollout is org wallets, jetpack tweaks, and a cone shape. They didn't create the textures themselves, so not giving them credit for buying an asset... That's 3+ months of work...? was it literally one developer working part time, or is the tech so messy that 75% of dev time is spent refactoring...? or will 0.24 fix every bug in the universe and bring DU to new levels of stability and performance...? maybe they are pouring all their effort into PvP and the last two updates are intended to be low effort...? It seems like a bad strategy if that's the route they are going. By the time they get there, they'll have fewer testers than they did during closed alpha.
  7. Sounds about right. TBH, I'm not convinced they will ever deploy 0.25. They have limited time to prove that DU can actually be finished. In the half-year since beta, they haven't done any substantial updates, and 0.24 doesn't look to be all that substantial either. I can see it leading to a bump in players if it brings massive stability/performance improvements, but even then i doubt that would be enough to keep players logging in for long. maybe i'm massively underestimated the appeal of their incomplete missions system and org wallets 🤷‍♂️ if they do manage to push to 0.25, that will realistically be their final chance to salvage the beta. obviously i don't know NQ's financials -- but scaling back support, having such slow dev, still dealing with the same bugs...none of that points to a game that's scaling up, it points to a game that's winding down.
  8. i said this before but be sure to turn off auto-renew on your sub. no point paying for a game that isn't interested in supporting players; you'll be able to log in for free anyway because nobody over there gives two fucks anymore.
  9. It might be a good place to learn programming, which also involves vector math. i'm showing my age here.....but one of my first experiences with programming was the original Neverwinter Nights toolset. it was a lot more interesting than fiddling with a console because i could easily see how my code impacted the game world. it's a great way to gain basic fluency with code and one of the reasons i have a career in coding today. although nowadays I assume they teach coding in grade school, so what do i know....? Cursive?
  10. honestly...there's nothing especially unique about Valheim. It is similar to many other games, but that's kind of why it shines -- they created a satisfying experience that is a refined representation of the genre. It might feel similar to games you've played before...because the same concepts that worked for other games work for Valheim. Many concepts feel familiar without feeling repetitive (IMO). i feel like that's the opposite approach that NQ took with DU -- there's a lot of novelty without purpose in DU. No NPCs or AI in an MMO -- okay, great...you've sold a lot of people on the concept of player-driven everything -- but how will that work, exactly? How do you balance all the game loops lost because "players do everything"? NQ was never able to really answer this question (and a host of other ones) -- sadly, i highly doubt they will ever be able to. it's like JC looked at the whole of MMO gaming history and thought "I can do much better" without really understanding the dynamics behind the design. Valheim does a fantastic job at cherrypicking the dynamics that work for survival games and creating a cohesively fun experience -- NQ goes the opposite route to be different without really understanding the nature of those differences.
  11. it is really not great. 1. Server infrastructure isn't theirs, it's AWS 2. Game engine isn't theirs, its Unigen2 3. Data pipeline isn't theirs, it's mongoDB and Amazon's DynamoDB (afik) 4. Voxel to mesh algorithm isn't theirs, they implemented a known algorithm that other devs could implement for less cost and with the knowledge it is actually robust 5. It hasn't scaled. There's no evidence that DU's tech can scale other than in advance of pre-planned events. Tech with no real-life proof of performance isn't worth anything because it is basically gambling that your devs can fix the issues for cheaper than it would cost to implement yourself. The thing about their tech is that it is fundamental to how a similar game would work, and no responsible dev would purchase that hoping to just plug it and and make it go. You need real proof that a purchased architecture is robust -- proof DU hasn't been able to materialize. If DU is "just a glorified tech demo", it isn't a very compelling one. there's no way investors could take DU's tech and sell it for anything that would make it worth their time. It's one thing to buy Unreal Engine and use their code vs. making your own engine...whole different ballgame to buy unproven code from a game that hasn't scaled and seems mired in dev difficulties. Would end up costing you way more than it is worth, even if it only cost $1,000 it wouldn't be worth it for serious devs looking to make a similar game.
  12. If you like the concept of building a massive factory but Dyson Sphere Program is too....point-click-third-persony....check out Satisfactory. It might be more your thing as a first person title with much better immersion and some really great gameplay concepts. I've played way too much Satisfactory and it is the reason why I thought industry in DU was extremely crude and why i couldn't get into DSP. My partner saw Valheim and was like "no i can't get into this game" -- doesn't want third person, wasn't sold on graphic style, didn't like the building system. 30-40 hours of play time later...he's 100% addicted.
  13. yeah but it was absurd for investors to throw $20+million behind a first-time dev with no experience to begin with... NQ had plenty of time and money to deliver a basic premise. the fact that investors let them stay in closed alpha for so long (to me) says they were fairly patient and reasonable with timelines. Yeah they pushed them to become revenue generating after ~6 years of "closed alpha" because they would have stayed in closed alpha forever otherwise. i don't think it is fair to say that DU's issue is "unreasonable timelines" or investors "not getting them" -- that investors jumped into a game dev with no track record for that sum is already enormously benevolent. DU isn't going to become stable no matter how long they spend on it -- it's a big house of sand built on sand piled atop more sand. As for the OP...i don't think it was needlessly harsh or mocking. DU is a textbook "don't do this" case of game dev from top to bottom. They acknowledge that the mistakes made aren't easy things to avoid. Not like they are supposed to be warm fuzzy friends -- they are rival companies. Not like NQ is so innocent and needs to be defended.
  14. - tutorials still sometimes broken, trapping new players until they figure out how to skip steps. You'd think NQ would care about the some of the first things players experience in the game, but still can't figure out how to make functioning tutorials... Edit: more details --
  15. glad you are once again free kind of silly to leave tutorials broken -- people have had issues since the start of "beta". I remember getting stuck for a while too, was one of the worst first impressions of any game i've ever played.
×
×
  • Create New...