Jump to content

Why DU needs BIGGER cores, not less cores...


 Share

Recommended Posts

The most demanding assets for the DU game engine are multi-core bases - and the likely reason for the imminent and disastrous core cap changes - with many of these structures located in more populated areas. Even to build a runway a player must add multiple cores to their base, even if buildings only occupy 1-2 cores. This is suboptimal for the game engine. Here's a clearly visible example:

 

Take this pyramid near market 13 on Alioth. The player is currently forced to use 17 separate L cores to form the structure, which means the LOD processing in the game engine is trying to optimise each of the 17 cores separately, impacting game performance. Meanwhile, a single very large core would enable the game engine to render it as a single optimised shape:

 

image.thumb.png.92a9434610f40f969a06c1f7dac2dc1e.png 

Edited by Megabosslord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.

And in the process your performance would be worse off.

I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.

 

Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way. 

 

- Deckard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NQ-Deckard said:

But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.

And in the process your performance would be worse off.

I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.

 

Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way. 

 

- Deckard

Easily fixed. XL cores cost 16x an L core (in this example). The player is still constrained by the cost of honeycomb making multiple XL cores prohibitively expensive.

 

[EDIT: Most bases on Alioth - excl. towers - fit in a 3x3 L core matrix. Even the marketplaces?]

Edited by Megabosslord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NQ-Deckard said:

But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.

And in the process your performance would be worse off.

I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.

 

Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way. 

 

- Deckard

 

This is sad news but not surprising seeing how difficult the devs appear to be finding it to fix even trivial things like input boxes that don't delete the initial zero shown therein.


If bigger cores are not a thing
pelase give us some formal way to blueprint a "nest" of cores.

Create formal links between cores.

Communicate between cores via databank.
Control smaller dynamic cores' engines thrusters and brakes etc from a master core.
Let us at the VERY LEAST link elevators between cores...
Or even increase elevators so we only need 2 to cross a large core corner to corner rather than 4...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Deleted said:

 

Then please give us some formal way to blueprint a "nest" of cores.
Create formal links between cores. Allow cores to control 

If they wrote a script to combine 3x3 L cores into 1 XXL core for the purpose of optimising all markets across the game, the same script could be used to consolidate players structures where multiple L cores are snapped together. (This only works where players used blank cores to build though, because the BPs snapping is still broken. However, in a perversely fortune outcome, because BP snapping is broken, most players were always forced to build on blank cores.) 

 

Another incentive for players to consolidate to the XL/XXL cores would be elevators travelling further. It's also a pain having multiple L cores stacked and having to skip elevators at every core boundary.

 

[EDIT: ...Unless markets are already on a secret dev-only XL core which would be even more disappointing.]

Edited by Megabosslord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Megabosslord said:

If they wrote a script to combine 3x3 L cores into 1 XXL core for the purpose of optimising all markets across the game, the same script could be used to consolidate players structures where multiple L cores are snapped together. (This only works where players used blank cores to build though, because the BPs snapping is still broken. However, in a perversely fortune outcome, because BP snapping is broken, most players were always forced to build on blank cores.) 

 

Another incentive for players to consolidate to the XL/XXL cores would be elevators travelling further. It's also a pain having multiple L cores stacked and having to skip elevators at every core boundary.

I accidentally pressed ctrl+enter while posting... went of half cocked, so to speak.  full post is now posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what the OP is saying, but players will always be in conflict with devs because given the option, players will build at the maximum scale that they can. 

 

This is perhaps one reason why major studios aren't that interested in the "MMO builder" concept -- because compared to single player, you'll never be able to build at the same scale and compared to a traditional MMO, a builder game will be far more expensive to support.  

 

The only way a multiplayer building game will work is if there are hard limits...the idea of an MMO builder game where you can build structures of any size is a nice one, but not one that can exist in today's world with today's technology. 

 

IMO, expect more limits and harder limits...especially as NQ moves forward in 2022 and needs to cut costs more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:

But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.

And in the process your performance would be worse off.

I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.

 

Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way. 

 

- Deckard

Even if the XL core cost 100 core slots (and probably should) and cost equivalent of a warp beacon to produce… gimme gimme!

 

I don’t even care if the construct looks like melting play dough in build mode when looking across.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Physics said:

Even if the XL core cost 100 core slots (and probably should) and cost equivalent of a warp beacon to produce… gimme gimme!

 

Speaking of 100 core slots, what's the news on the org slot nerf? The OP said "Not less cores" implying that NQ are reducing the allotment of cores.

 

 

4 hours ago, Physics said:

I don’t even care if the construct looks like melting play dough in build mode when looking across.?

 

Yeah, it already does degrade triangular sections or thin slices of voxel within your build cube, so I'd be fine with that.

 

@NQ-Deckard

If they can't make larger cubes, how about shaped isovolumes?

 

L x W x H

Cube :       4 x 4 x 4
                 Current shape:

                 Great for general use, most flexible.
Shoebox:   8 x 4 x 2
                  Twice as long, half as high:
                  Great for general freighters and low structures etc.

Pizzabox:   8 x 8 x 1
                  Double the length and width, quarter the height

                  Great for ground structures, plazas, landing pads.

Posterbox: 16 x 2 x 2

                  4 x the length, half the width and height.
                  Great for roads, bridges and infrastructure.  Could prevent static posterboxes from being stacked vertically to prevent needle towers if required.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deleted said:

 

Speaking of 100 core slots, what's the news on the org slot nerf? The OP said "Not less cores" implying that NQ are reducing the allotment of cores.

 

 

 

Yeah, it already does degrade triangular sections or thin slices of voxel within your build cube, so I'd be fine with that.

 

@NQ-Deckard

If they can't make larger cubes, how about shaped isovolumes?

 

L x W x H

Cube :       4 x 4 x 4
                 Current shape:

                 Great for general use, most flexible.
Shoebox:   8 x 4 x 2
                  Twice as long, half as high:
                  Great for general freighters and low structures etc.

Pizzabox:   8 x 8 x 1
                  Double the length and width, quarter the height

                  Great for ground structures, plazas, landing pads.

Posterbox: 16 x 2 x 2

                  4 x the length, half the width and height.
                  Great for roads, bridges and infrastructure.  Could prevent static posterboxes from being stacked vertically to prevent needle towers if required.

 

For now we only have clues: the Panacea announcement included core cap changes, and comments from Deckard above and elsewhere suggest they're trying to reduce load. This quote implies it will only impact solo players and those using multiple orgs... But I have pretty low faith right now in NQ's "we think we've found a very good solution":

PS: This remark that orgs are an "infinite fountain" is also a bit off. Esp. for those of us who just had a single org and expended the 2 mth wait time to max the org specific skills. 

Edited by Megabosslord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, blundertwink said:

I get what the OP is saying, but players will always be in conflict with devs because given the option, players will build at the maximum scale that they can. 

 

This is perhaps one reason why major studios aren't that interested in the "MMO builder" concept -- because compared to single player, you'll never be able to build at the same scale and compared to a traditional MMO, a builder game will be far more expensive to support.  

 

The only way a multiplayer building game will work is if there are hard limits...the idea of an MMO builder game where you can build structures of any size is a nice one, but not one that can exist in today's world with today's technology. 

 

IMO, expect more limits and harder limits...especially as NQ moves forward in 2022 and needs to cut costs more. 

Inversely, it's utterly self-evident that static cores should (a) be bigger than dynamics - since you need to land/park a dynamic on a static. Even markets use a 3x3, and (b) statics and dynamics should have different caps. They're entirely different in terms of purpose and use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NQ-Deckard said:

But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.

And in the process your performance would be worse off.

I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.

 

Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way. 

 

- Deckard

If this is the case, you should remove XL core and weapon referencing from the gunner modules as they show we can sort between XL - XS cores and XL -XS weapons.  It doesn't make sense to have this in the game if there is no intention of adding XL cores and XL weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be very happy if there were bigger cores. My main building alone measures 27 space cores. What bothers me most is that I can't link from core to core, so I had to divide my factories among several cores.

It ruins the design and at the same time makes a factory unnecessarily complicated. I've already reached the point where I've deleted all my interior construction and only the shell is left.


What I would be interested in with XL and XXL cores is how exactly these "gigantic" cores should be displayed in the radar. now I fly up to my station (180 Space-Core-L) and this is then loaded little by little. So I only see the core badges in front of me at the beginning. With enormously large cores, however, you would probably already be in the structure, since the core boundaries are much further away from the actual visible core centre.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who doesnt like big ? 

But if the devs are telling us not possible then performance is the key ! Performance ,performance performance ... 

Better have a 1600cc normal working car than having a  500 horsepower one that doesnt work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Habitant said:

Who doesnt like big ? 

But if the devs are telling us not possible then performance is the key ! Performance ,performance performance ... 

Better have a 1600cc normal working car than having a  500 horsepower one that doesnt work.

 

I think the devs have made it very clear that bigger cores aren't going to be coming -- that the issue is definitely performance.

 

Bigger cores means bigger constructs. That costs NQ more money to store, more bandwidth to load, and more client-side resources to render.

 

We've seen that NQ is keen to reduce the cost per player...even to the point where they massively refactor how mining works. There's no way they will reverse course now to give players more space to build -- if anything, they'll be applying even more and harsher limits down-the-road...especially if the game fails to attract new players with their next marketing push. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see cores go away completely so for static constructs you can just build anywhere on the tile you desire, right can be controlled from the tcu or with some new block specifically for access control, no need for those square restrains let the sandbox out.

 

Dynamic core should be change to be actually dynamic by growing as you build... dynamically... no need for all those cores. Simplify and streamline the blocks require and allow builders room to do more.

add structural integrity for shits and giggles when you do that double digit G turn in your stick ship

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Habitant said:

Who doesnt like big ? 

But if the devs are telling us not possible then performance is the key ! Performance ,performance performance ... 

Better have a 1600cc normal working car than having a  500 horsepower one that doesnt work.

 

But then you shouldn't advertise a 500hp car either, but say up front that there are limitations to building the sandbox. Once in the quantity and once in the size of what you have as a building project.  

I can no longer implement my building project - accordingly, I have to make everything much smaller - but then it no longer looks right in terms of the size ratios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Kurosawa said:

I would like to see cores go away completely so for static constructs you can just build anywhere on the tile you desire, right can be controlled from the tcu or with some new block specifically for access control, no need for those square restrains let the sandbox out.

 

Dynamic core should be change to be actually dynamic by growing as you build... dynamically... no need for all those cores. Simplify and streamline the blocks require and allow builders room to do more.

add structural integrity for shits and giggles when you do that double digit G turn in your stick ship

 

So...basically build without any limits...? And sprinkle some SI on top, which is even more demanding for performance? 

 

Sorry, but I don't really understand. There's no way to let people build in an MMO unless you have hard limits.

 

Someone has to pay for storage and bandwidth. If you let people build infinitely, your cost will grow infinitely, too. 

 

Yes, NQ greatly miscalculated how players would push the scale -- which is dumb to anyone that's ever played an MMO -- but these limits exist for a reason. You can't build as big as you want in a persistently online game. That's an immutable aspect of this genre that isn't changing anytime soon. 

 

DU would be much more fun with the system you describe, but it's just not physically possible with today's technology...not in an economical way, anyway. Unless you want to be charged based on how much volume your constructs use, DU needs these limits to function. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 7:31 AM, Megabosslord said:

The most demanding assets for the DU game engine are multi-core bases - and the likely reason for the imminent and disastrous core cap changes - with many of these structures located in more populated areas. Even to build a runway a player must add multiple cores to their base, even if buildings only occupy 1-2 cores. This is suboptimal for the game engine. Here's a clearly visible example:

 

Take this pyramid near market 13 on Alioth. The player is currently forced to use 17 separate L cores to form the structure, which means the LOD processing in the game engine is trying to optimise each of the 17 cores separately, impacting game performance. Meanwhile, a single very large core would enable the game engine to render it as a single optimised shape:

 

image.thumb.png.92a9434610f40f969a06c1f7dac2dc1e.png 

 

Yeah sure we had a hard geometry reset due to tunneling and now we need to do all that damage back to the game requiring a hard limit cap when everyone can fill it with 4x more voxels that basically is the same as voxel mining by putting that much more stuff into the game most eople dont care to see or lacks purpose to begin with for....what exactly?

 

I think if NQ ever rolls out XL cores, XXL cores, etc it really needs to be done via NPCs that use them with hax amount of weapons so that it takes effort to get them as drops so that the amount of them coming into the game is limited and worth it. Beyond say NQ military fleet carrier NPC ships or NQ based space station weapons platforms, etc I think that some kind of NPC race like aliens or replicant type race should have larger than XL as like raid type content if some kind of alien fleet comes rolling in with hax weapons actually requiring a mass amount of players to stop and then fight over the spoils is really the only way it should be even possible to get them.

 

Or if NQ comes out and drops XL static/dynamic cores it pretty much forces complete rebuilds of everything so in additiona to just irrisponsiby handing out cores they really need a way to quickly and easily dismantle cores so you dont have to tear down hundreds of cores by hand as much as having 10 link XL containts you can just pack as much as will fit with so much per pass as can go into it without lagging the game too much. That needs to happen before XL/XXL cores

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 2:37 PM, NQ-Deckard said:

But let's face it, there would just be 17 XL cores instead of the 17 L cores that are there currently with an even larger multi-core build placed there.

And in the process your performance would be worse off.

I'm sorry to say we unfortunately won't be introducing larger cores any time soon. For a number of reasons, most of which are technical related to performance and data.

 

Multiple smaller cores actually have a number of performance benefits as the load limits apply better that way. 

 

- Deckard


 

Are these technical problems or restrictions of a general nature or only due to current financial aspects?
 

I myself would very much like to know how DualUniverse will continue, how and where I can still build freely and to what extent I will be restricted, whether by limiting the number of cores, the core size or by a limitation through elements or, as some players assume, through energy systems.

Please don't get me wrong, I love this game, but it takes away the incentive to build something if I have to lose it or tear it down. I also don't manage to create many organisations in order to use all the cores there "just yet", because the number of space cores for my project costs an enormous amount of money (quanta and resources). 

 

Will there be a revision to change the number of cores? (Will there be fewer or more cores?)

Changes to the number for organisations?
Changes for the number of character?

Will it be possible in the future to book a premium subscription to unlock more cores or will you be forced by the number to use multiple accounts?

Is it possible to include this strong limitation of playful freedom in the information for the game and to delete such information that associates the opposite of a strong limitation?

 

You can still find false information about the game on Kickstarter, which can and will irritate interested players and raise false expectations. (that's what happened to me)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg?ref=discovery&term=dual%20universe

 

Quote

 ->> Everything in the game is player-made: ships, cities, orbital stations,... with no limit in size. The world is fully editable.
 ->> Build a giant space station the size of a moon with your friends
-> > Gather along with thousends of others in player-made cities
.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Zarcata said:

You can still find false information about the game on Kickstarter, which can and will irritate interested players and raise false expectations. (that's what happened to me)
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1949863330/dual-universe-civilization-building-sci-fi-mmorpg?ref=discovery&term=dual%20universe

 

That's definitely the most frustrating aspect -- because of course it isn't possible to build without limits. That was never going to work. It wasn't ever remotely realistic. 

 

It was pure marketing fluff that was never technically feasible. 

 

Yes, "technical" in this context means money...because AWS can physically handle this sort of scale. At one point, Netflix was responsible for about half the Internet's traffic by bandwidth...all hosted on AWS. Of course Amazon has the scale...but AWS can be very expensive depending on the services used and amount of money paid up front. 

 

Even if NQ was drowning in cash because they had obscene amounts of subscribers, they wouldn't likely ease restrictions because cost at scale would creep upward until it becomes unsustainable. 

 

Quote

Will it be possible in the future to book a premium subscription to unlock more cores or will you be forced by the number to use multiple accounts?

 

Wouldn't be surprised if NQ goes this route. The only way to support "build without limits" would be to charge players based on the voxel volume they use or charge them more for each extra core they want. Otherwise NQ will face dual issues with retention and monetization: churn from subs and slowly increasing costs due to more and bigger constructs.

 

If you want to play an MMO game where people can build without limits, it can't exist with today's technology unless it is heavily monetized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...