Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 12/4/2018 at 9:23 PM, Lethys said:

Min 15

 

@Warden @Vulcore

 

FTR did a video in that one too i think 

 

For me  that's exactly what it is about. I want huge battles and not just 1000 ppl running around on a planet or some bs. 

 

Oh and I never played SC and probably never will, to me it all sounds....meh ("pvp switch" lol fucking pathetic imho)

AFAIK, it was always going to be that way.  Early numbers were as low as "maybe" 100 people in an instance.

 

They've toyed around with the idea of instances for a looong time.

 

I've always wondered why they insist on capital ships with such high player counts.  Not really sure how those are going to work lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 11:29 PM, Kuritho said:

You don't understand my statement.

With DU's current proposed combat mechanics, it'd be a game of rock-paper-scissors.

Plus, DU probably couldn't handle battles larger than 200 people regardless of what the benchmarks say.

Even with economics involved, the bigger org should always win if they aren't ran by baboons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvUTlunPtN8#t=52m

 

It is interesting to hear some numbers. It is not a lot to hear but it is enough for interest. SC there is so much said, but so little that makes sense to boomerang back to the OPs intention with this thread. On that note, I do not wish to get in the way of discussion on topic, and must bow out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Borb_1 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvUTlunPtN8#t=52m

 

It is interesting to hear some numbers. It is not a lot to hear but it is enough for interest. SC there is so much said, but so little that makes sense to boomerang back to the OPs intention with this thread. On that note, I do not wish to get in the way of discussion on topic, and must bow out.

Don't let anyone bully you out of a discussion, unless you're part of TU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital ships were always intended as "end-game-tier" and workload-type of ship or asset. If numbers cannot go notably up per instance to make them feasible to use (more than one), I can imagine them adding automation to reduce max crew slots, so you can do the same with less people. Or actual people. You could as well fill existing ship positions with NPCs so you save space for players.

 

Just a thought or assumption, time will tell what comes out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 9:40 PM, Vulcore said:

Yeah even with server meshing each server/instance only capable of 50-100 players all meshed into one server(this is the plan as i understand it).  Sc's 3 largest orgs total over 40,000 members The biggest org >>Test Squadron<< has 17,000 members.Imagine, if they held an event or wanted have there own base anything that would bring them all together even if only 30% where on at any one time that's 5000 people in one place. Now inevitably org's are going to make alliances they will sooner or later fight there could be 100,000 or people all fighting in one place  if it works that would be something to see :)  I hope it does. 

Thanks for the numbers. Such large orgs might find DU's ships very fun and rewarding for carrying so many of their members? Does "Test Squadron" take interest in DU?

On ‎12‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 3:08 AM, Warden said:

Capital ships were always intended as "end-game-tier" and workload-type of ship or asset. If numbers cannot go notably up per instance to make them feasible to use (more than one), I can imagine them adding automation to reduce max crew slots, so you can do the same with less people. Or actual people. You could as well fill existing ship positions with NPCs so you save space for players.

 

Just a thought or assumption, time will tell what comes out of it.

I know I said I'd bow out earlier, but I saw the vid you linked on a youtube feed so decided to watch it: I have a problem with these "wannabe journos" who say they'll do the balance that no else wants to, then do exactly what everyone else does:

 

1. Much of the footage is VIDEO not GAME.

2. The narration is comfort food presentation. It's not logically organizing the game design into a whole view of what it actually is then breaking it down to dissect and discuss. The value or nutrition.

3. Little in the way of vital statistics.

4. No clear scope vs aspirational vs conceptual limitations

 

Eg the ideas you propose above are all woolly - not your ideas but CIGs communication of them. \Edit: My dog was biting my arm off dragging me out into the rain... just back.

 

What I'm boiling down to with the above is: SC NEEDS to provide hard information that is valid or matched successfully. What they provide is videos and advertisement that is vague. Hence imho they receive inordinate air-time, un-earnt undue discussion with respect to this. People are selling based off information that is far far from valid.

 

I am not accusing SC/CIG of scam, fraud or p2w that is anti-advertising. But I think they won't change: The demand for funds is too high - despite receiving 200m and apparently developing since 2011.

 

A lot of backers are putting a lot of energy into this above process: I hope it works out for them but it seems a great risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Borb_1 said:

Thanks for the numbers. Such large orgs might find DU's ships very fun and rewarding for carrying so many of their members? Does "Test Squadron" take interest in DU?

You would have to ask them :) But SC has so many many organizations over 1 million backers. It will be interesting to see how well there system holds up under the stress of so many players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Vulcore said:

You would have to ask them :) But SC has so many many organizations over 1 million backers. It will be interesting to see how well there system holds up under the stress of so many players. 

Amazing numbers!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 8:47 PM, Vulcore said:

Are you saying that CR stated that it will not be and open world MMO. If so how many will be in each instance? 

I am unaware of CR making such a statement. 

The plan is for Star Citizen to be single shard just like DU. AKAIK, they haven't started work on server meshing yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DaphneJones said:

The plan is for Star Citizen to be single shard just like DU. AKAIK, they haven't started work on server meshing yet.

Single shard only in terms of economics, but nothing else.

There is no way that you can play SC with 1000 or more players at the same time (or even 100).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Takao said:

Single shard only in terms of economics, but nothing else.

There is no way that you can play SC with 1000 or more players at the same time (or even 100).

Yet that is the plan.

 

As for "even 100", they've already done that with their current tech, although public servers are limited to 50 (and usually full)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DaphneJones said:

Yet that is the plan.

And they will fail with that.

SC has a significant higher hardware requirement as DU, so simply rendering all the ships will be not possible.

Also they don't use the 'lock and fire' mechanic, meaning that they calculate every bullet. How do they wan't to do that when like 1000 are shooting at the same time?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Takao said:

And they will fail with that.

SC has a significant higher hardware requirement as DU, so simply rendering all the ships will be not possible.

Also they don't use the 'lock and fire' mechanic, meaning that they calculate every bullet. How do they wan't to do that when like 1000 are shooting at the same time?

 

Chris Roberts has a pretty long history of doing things in PC games that "weren't possible" at the time. *shrug*

 

I suspect bullet calculations happen client side. How they'll do that is they'll have 1000 clients working on it when there are 1000 ships shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaphneJones said:

Chris Roberts has a pretty long history of doing things in PC games that "weren't possible" at the time. *shrug*

For example?

What he has is a history of beeing extremly greedy ($27,000 package) and not delivering what he promised.

 

3 minutes ago, DaphneJones said:

I suspect bullet calculations happen client side. How they'll do that is they'll have 1000 clients working on it when there are 1000 ships shooting.

So that everyone can cheat without any problems?

Also how do you compensate for high pings? When bullets from player A only exists on his game intance and he has a high ping, then other people will get shot behind cover from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Takao said:

For example?

What he has is a history of beeing extremly greedy ($27,000 package) and not delivering what he promised.

 

So that everyone can cheat without any problems?

Also how do you compensate for high pings? When bullets from player A only exists on his game intance and he has a high ping, then other people will get shot behind cover from him.

Like they say, that's why it's called game development and not game construction. Sure, it's not as easy to build as DU, but they keep solving these problems. I don't see any logic in thinking the next problem will stump them when the last 1000 problems haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this rate I think they will deliver, but 1,000 people per instance?

 

Plans or not, I will only believe it when I see it work in stable or live branches and would consider ~500 (or 350, etc) already huge groundbreaking milestone with the tech currently involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DaphneJones said:

The plan is for Star Citizen to be single shard just like DU. AKAIK, they haven't started work on server meshing yet.

Actually no, it's a server mesh. SC is not going to be a single persistent universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaphneJones said:

Chris Roberts has a pretty long history of doing things in PC games that "weren't possible" at the time. *shrug*

 

I suspect bullet calculations happen client side. How they'll do that is they'll have 1000 clients working on it when there are 1000 ships shooting.

He does? He has basically been on the same horse in like forever.

And SC does not do bullet calculations, that is Squadron42 which is a separate game and not the same as SC nomatter what CR says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DaphneJones said:

Like they say, that's why it's called game development and not game construction.

No.

When you only simulate a bullet on the client, then you ALWAYS make it easy to cheat and you ALWAYS have the problem, that you don't have lag compensation.

That is nothing that you can solve away.

39 minutes ago, DaphneJones said:

Sure, it's not as easy to build as DU, but they keep solving these problems. I don't see any logic in thinking the next problem will stump them when the last 1000 problems haven't.

You still lack the list of "unsolveable problems" that Roberts resolved.

 

Also, what lets you think, that they can solve the bandwith and hardware problem for a single shard universe that Novaquark couldn't?

Roberts picket incompetently a game engine that was in on way suitable for a MMO (but is shiny so...), while NQ picket the only game engine that is suitable for such large scales without any modification (it's the only 64 bit engine).

NQ first developed the server tech before even starting the Kickstarter campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

And SC does not do bullet calculations, that is Squadron42 which is a separate game and not the same as SC nomatter what CR says.

So only hit scan weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaphneJones said:

Yet that is the plan.

 

As for "even 100", they've already done that with their current tech, although public servers are limited to 50 (and usually full)

 

Just watch the video i linked. He himself said that you won't be able to play with a thousand players. That's an instanced Server and no single shard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Takao said:

NQ first developed the server tech before even starting the Kickstarter campaign.

 

This is the big one.. SC has yet to show/prove they can actually make their intended server tech work and from what I have seen they do not even know how to make it work. DU is built around/on top of the server tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

Actually no, it's a server mesh. SC is not going to be a single persistent universe.

A single persistent universe implemented with a server mesh. What other game does that? Oh... that's right... DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

This is the big one.. SC has yet to show/prove they can actually make their intended server tech work and from what I have seen they do not even know how to make it work. DU is built around/on top of the server tech.

That's true. Single shard wasn't in the original SC design, so they're playing catch up. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they buy a license for the tech from Novaquark. (Also won't be surprised if they do it all on their own.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A single persisent universe run on a server mesh is not the same as a server mesh.

Single persistent universe means that EVERY player is in the same universe and can potentially be at the same location. So no player limits or instancing at locations.

Server mesh only means that you have more than one physical server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×