always love reading these comments that are still in dreamland (denial) and they think if this thing ever gets released there will be 'epic' battles and all the other stuff that games with a lot of people playing them can have.
Irony is no one is going to be playing anything they release anyway so worrying about massive amounts of people or disappointment' because they cant accomodate more than 3 people in their instances is a moot debate.
Core tech optimization (network culling), is something I'm worried about and have been from the start. You can't have a lot of detail in a game without turning it into a lag fest. I don't remember ever seeing a highly detailed game master that on land and in space. You don't keep pushing back major problems or they will make it into launch.
It's a core mechanic meaning a foundation for the game and pushing back a core anything for a game means at some point you will have to redo everything to conform to the fix or compromise and except the fact that you just have to learn to live with the problem to some degree. ESO still has problems with lag, poor optimizations, and long loading screens, especially after new DLC to this day because optimization appeared to be a low priority. TSW pushed back optimazed combat mechanics and now have the same problem, they did what they could to make it better but it's still a core problem with the game, imo.
Hopefully I'm wrong and the game will one day run as smooth as butter with 1000 pilot battles going on over cities but time will tell for sure.
Wait, 1000 pilot battles visible over a city full of NPCs and player characters isn't actually something they're trying to achieve, right? That was hyperbole?
I'm honestly asking.
Big battles in space is what a lot of people have been asking for. I think that 1000 ship battle was used more by Star Citizens than by CIG. But last I heard they were shooting for maybe 35 ships in the same area.
I think originally it was going to be 100 ships in 1 area but fans ran with the idea because CIG had said about orgs fighting orgs and battles spanning neighbouring zones etc. Then we had comments from CR about massive battles with 1000's of people in the same instance and then more comments from Erin about hundreds of thousands in the same instance etc.
It doesn't help that they are mixing up MMO terminology, ie saying instances when they're aiming for single shard, it doesn't help that none of this is even in game and they're talking about it as though it's a given thing.
always love reading these comments that are still in dreamland (denial) and they think if this thing ever gets released there will be 'epic' battles and all the other stuff that games with a lot of people playing them can have.
Irony is no one is going to be playing anything they release anyway so worrying about massive amounts of people or disappointment' because they cant accomodate more than 3 people in their instances is a moot debate.
There's always going to be people who love whatever CIG does. For me, the moment they showed how the Idris flies and that "capital" fight, I knew it was over. It looked so utterly crap with their engine and flight mechanics... like a brick moving through space pew pewing pieces of spaghetti. If it looks so utterly shit, it doesn't matter if their instances can't handle lots of players...
I think originally it was going to be 100 ships in 1 area but fans ran with the idea because CIG had said about orgs fighting orgs and battles spanning neighbouring zones etc. Then we had comments from CR about massive battles with 1000's of people in the same instance and then more comments from Erin about hundreds of thousands in the same instance etc.
It doesn't help that they are mixing up MMO terminology, ie saying instances when they're aiming for single shard, it doesn't help that none of this is even in game and they're talking about it as though it's a given thing.
I have never heard a comment of a battle of a 1000 people or more, not to confuse by what they mean as one instance in SCs intended network (a server mesh itself).
The max I ever heard about scale in a fight was with the logic of a server mesh there perhaps could be a large fight happening in a place, yet segregated in multiple servers using the distance/culling factor.
I think the expectation that SC is not about large-scale battles is the standard here, right now while technically there could be a 50 ship battle in the same physical space, it's not yet optimized for that.
I think originally it was going to be 100 ships in 1 area but fans ran with the idea because CIG had said about orgs fighting orgs and battles spanning neighbouring zones etc. Then we had comments from CR about massive battles with 1000's of people in the same instance and then more comments from Erin about hundreds of thousands in the same instance etc.
It doesn't help that they are mixing up MMO terminology, ie saying instances when they're aiming for single shard, it doesn't help that none of this is even in game and they're talking about it as though it's a given thing.
I have never heard a comment of a battle of a 1000 people or more, not to confuse by what they mean as one instance in SCs intended network (a server mesh itself).
The max I ever heard about scale in a fight was with the logic of a server mesh there perhaps could be a large fight happening in a place, yet segregated in multiple servers using the distance/culling factor.
I think the expectation that SC is not about large-scale battles is the standard here, right now while technically there could be a 50 ship battle in the same physical space, it's not yet optimized for that.
How much did they make on those multi player ships? When they figured out thy couldnt have more ghan a few people or ships in an isnatnce what happened? They said you coud 'hire' AI to help you run it aone. People spun that like it was a good thing. While others said 'this ist a solo game'. The debates and arfuents with all this get soun by guys like you how they see fit First you defend the price tag by saying 'its a corporation' ship which intimates a corporation of MULTILE people will pool their money together to buy it. So if 12 guys pitch in and onlt 3 can be in it what then?
You guys can defend every single stupid thing CIG and co do but it still cant hide the fact this is getting closer and closer to scam territory every time they make an announcement.
I cant wait for the next 25K 24 man ship comes out for sale. But I dont think even they have the bals to try and make that sales pitch. They have opeend up the planet and land floodgates now But sooner or later theyre going to have to admit the limitations on assets on land plots is going to be so low its ridiculous. Then they have to figure out something else to mmnetize to keep the money train chugging down the tracks.
How much did they make on those multi player ships? When they figured out thy couldnt have more ghan a few people or ships in an isnatnce what happened? They said you coud 'hire' AI to help you run it aone. People spun that like it was a good thing. While others said 'this ist a solo game'. The debates and arfuents with all this get soun by guys like you how they see fit First you defend the price tag by saying 'its a corporation' ship which intimates a corporation of MULTILE people will pool their money together to buy it. So if 12 guys pitch in and onlt 3 can be in it what then?
You guys can defend every single stupid thing CIG and co do but it still cant hide the fact this is getting closer and closer to scam territory every time they make an announcement.
I cant wait for the next 25K 24 man ship comes out for sale. But I dont think even they have the bals to try and make that sales pitch. They have opeend up the planet and land floodgates now But sooner or later theyre going to have to admit the limitations on assets on land plots is going to be so low its ridiculous. Then they have to figure out something else to mmnetize to keep the money train chugging down the tracks.
The multi-crew aspect of SC exists since the very pitch of this game on KS. That stands today as it stood before.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The crews inside ships, AI/player are not intended as what is the limiting factor on caps. What one Idris would mean to the pop caps is more related to the ship itself + 3~ ships it can dock inside.
Hence why one higher character pop than the ship pop is meant to handle it, it is currently was put as a 1:1 to prevent ship spawning queues, once the world population is spread through a server mesh, that is one of the ways to make it viable as intended.
How much did they make on those multi player ships? When they figured out thy couldnt have more ghan a few people or ships in an isnatnce what happened? They said you coud 'hire' AI to help you run it aone. People spun that like it was a good thing. While others said 'this ist a solo game'. The debates and arfuents with all this get soun by guys like you how they see fit First you defend the price tag by saying 'its a corporation' ship which intimates a corporation of MULTILE people will pool their money together to buy it. So if 12 guys pitch in and onlt 3 can be in it what then?
You guys can defend every single stupid thing CIG and co do but it still cant hide the fact this is getting closer and closer to scam territory every time they make an announcement.
I cant wait for the next 25K 24 man ship comes out for sale. But I dont think even they have the bals to try and make that sales pitch. They have opeend up the planet and land floodgates now But sooner or later theyre going to have to admit the limitations on assets on land plots is going to be so low its ridiculous. Then they have to figure out something else to mmnetize to keep the money train chugging down the tracks.
Try doing some research on the topic first before you post.
"....only 3 can be in it ...."
Its not like there are no YouTube videos with lots of players doing team matches in Starfarers already .... But we know you believe its all faked. Even those videos made by other players.
Try doing some research on the topic first before you post.
"....only 3 can be in it ...."
I think he is trying, with his usual over hyperbole to imply the cap of the servers are going to mean you can't have as much crew on a ship as what the ship supports.
And as I mentioned the crews of a ship are since quite long ago not to be what will be counted to what a game server can handle, we heard since quite early on it would be the ships taking the slots, and if capitals and so it would account the capital and the ships docked inside, and stuff as that. Of course, we don't know exactly if that same approach will be taken with the server mesh.
And they mentioned some interesting ideas to prevent you from putting 30 people on a ship with 6 max crew, such as the life support systems to fail if there are too many entities inside.
Your last paragraph doesn't make sense to me though. (And please correct me if I'm off base here.) But, didn't SC get a boatload of money upfront through their kickstarter? Something like 90 million? And wasn't that eons ago? To me, if KCD had a source pool, I doubt it was as much as SC, therefore, SC should be in a better place than KCD.
No, SC got 2 million in its KS, it took years until they got that amount of money. KCD is known to have been backed by that billionaire, I don't think it is known any numbers in that relationship.
And it's rather logical, KCD compares heavily to Skyrim even in terms of world and content, but when we compare Skyrim as 85million budget to KCD kickstarted numbers I'd say the real number must be far higher.
As for your last bit, disagreeing there, if SC was only and purely focused as the dev and release of SQ42, then sure I'd agree, and perhaps if that was the case that SQ42 would have been released by now.
So, how long did it take them to say, make 40 million - the amount needed for all the devs, HR, actors, etc. for Witcher 3? (Yes, I know they used 80 million, but 40 was for strictly publicity.) How long did it take them to get 40 million? How long ago did they achieve this?
I ask because if you state they have to approach the project differently, I understand and believe you. But, once you get 40 million, I assume you can approach it almost any way you want.
Try doing some research on the topic first before you post.
"....only 3 can be in it ...."
I think he is trying, with his usual over hyperbole to imply the cap of the servers are going to mean you can't have as much crew on a ship as what the ship supports.
And as I mentioned the crews of a ship are since quite long ago not to be what will be counted to what a game server can handle, we heard since quite early on it would be the ships taking the slots, and if capitals and so it would account the capital and the ships docked inside, and stuff as that. Of course, we don't know exactly if that same approach will be taken with the server mesh.
And they mentioned some interesting ideas to prevent you from putting 30 people on a ship with 6 max crew, such as the life support systems to fail if there are too many entities inside.
we have heard a lot of things that continually change. Either way until it is actully implemented its still all conjecture. (youtube videos notwithstanding) and the fact they hvnt yet made an announcement letting these people down shows they havent gotten close to vrifying or denying the abiity yet.
Basically this project isnt about what they actully release anymore its about what announcements they make on things they CANT do now (which they could never do but said they could to be more precise).
in he end having 5 or 6 guys on some sevrer somewhere all alone (still gtting crap frames) doesnt prove anything.
So, how long did it take them to say, make 40 million - the amount needed for all the devs, HR, actors, etc. for Witcher 3? (Yes, I know they used 80 million, but 40 was for strictly publicity.) How long did it take them to get 40 million? How long ago did they achieve this?
I ask because if you state they have to approach the project differently, I understand and believe you. But, once you get 40 million, I assume you can approach it almost any way you want.
The cost depends on many factors, hence why online games of MMO nature tend to be more expensive and long to make than that normal flow SP campaign game, then have the size of the studio, say the case of SC where on KS they had 5-6 people they had to build up the studio from scratch, and even with the 40m factor that was achieved in 2014, it won't deny as @gervaise1 mentioned the need to scale as you go because there isn't a fixed budget from the start (those 40m day-1 would most likely have faced a different approach), the technical challange (say how they increased scope they had to start refactoring and developing their own solutions because the stock solution wouldn't do as much), the engineering debt (hiring talent is no easy task, hence why they opened a new studio on Germany heavy on engineering in 2015, thanks to Crytek laying off many) and this would be more obvious when it comes to engine/tech and you using default code for your game vs literally refactoring/creating a engine to fit your needs would be the Assassin's Creed series, where their engine is already so optimized for those type of games, they literally can make a new entire game every year, if you scope out your game so it can use the already existent engine tech then you are saving yourself a lot of work (the opposite with SC). It's reasons as that when I look at such comparations in-depth you see there's far more than "oh this game cost X with Y devs and took Z time so yours should compare to the same numbers".
we have heard a lot of things that continually change. Either way until it is actully implemented its still all conjecture. (youtube videos notwithstanding) and the fact they hvnt yet made an announcement letting these people down shows they havent gotten close to vrifying or denying the abiity yet.
Basically this project isnt about what they actully release anymore its about what announcements they make on things they CANT do now (which they could never do but said they could to be more precise).
in he end having 5 or 6 guys on some sevrer somewhere all alone (still gtting crap frames) doesnt prove anything.
This one doesn't, it has been since early on a question because the nature of the network model of the game, hence this is just something that will be addressed, and is not any boogie man either. It will prob get addressed when balancing player ship and player/AI crew pops becomes necessary.
Now that Evocati is released, the current list for patch 3.1 features should be very close to final. Changes to their original plan are:
One item delayed to 3.2: -Network Bind Culling
One item finished earlier and moved from 3.2 to 3.1: -New Feature: Distress call
One new vehicle variant added: -Aopoa Nox: Kue variant
Three new improvements to existing systems added:
-Visor and HUD Display improvements
-Gallenon Tactical Systems GT-Series ship weapon update
-Amon & Reese Omnisky ship weapon update
Overall it looks like CIG has been able to stick to the plan well enough: 1 item delayed, but 1 item finished sooner than planned. However having to delay Network Bind Culling may create them trouble later on because it's base tech and needed for a lot of other later additions.
CIG adding some new improvements to visor and HUD display and updating ship weapons outside of development roadmap isn't very surprising. Those look like smallish improvements that will always get done outside the original plan as updating one part of the game reveals the need to make changes to other parts too.
New variant of Aopoa Nox coming outside the schedule was more surprising, especially since the vehicles originally scheduled for 3.1 aren't ready yet. Perhaps some of their vehicle makers had to interrupt their original work to wait for some tech updates?
Now that Evocati is released, the current list for patch 3.1 features should be very close to final. Changes to their original plan are:
One item delayed to 3.2: -Network Bind Culling
One item finished earlier and moved from 3.2 to 3.1: -New Feature: Distress call
One new vehicle variant added: -Aopoa Nox: Kue variant
Three new improvements to existing systems added:
-Visor and HUD Display improvements
-Gallenon Tactical Systems GT-Series ship weapon update
-Amon & Reese Omnisky ship weapon update
Overall it looks like CIG has been able to stick to the plan well enough: 1 item delayed, but 1 item finished sooner than planned. However having to delay Network Bind Culling may create them trouble later on because it's base tech and needed for a lot of other later additions.
CIG adding some new improvements to visor and HUD display and updating ship weapons outside of development roadmap isn't very surprising. Those look like smallish improvements that will always get done outside the original plan as updating one part of the game reveals the need to make changes to other parts too.
New variant of Aopoa Nox coming outside the schedule was more surprising, especially since the vehicles originally scheduled for 3.1 aren't ready yet. Perhaps some of their vehicle makers had to interrupt their original work to wait for some tech updates?
Didn’t they talk about network bind culling issues they were having not long ago where if the player was given a quest for say Miles and he’s over a certain distance away then he’s culled from the players view so they weren’t sure how to have a waypoint show because the npc doesn’t exist at that time.
Now that Evocati is released, the current list for patch 3.1 features should be very close to final. Changes to their original plan are:
<snip>
Overall it looks like CIG has been able to stick to the plan well enough: <snip>
Eeek.
CiG's plan was for quarterly releases going with whatever features / improvements were finished.
And in addition they released a guideline / roadmap - call it what you will which, as you say, they have pretty much managed to achieve.
Although a lot of the stuff on said roadmap are not "new" but "repeaters"; things like new ships, weapons, costumes etc. And after last years pains they should have gotten a decent handle on the rate at which they churn them out.
Stuff does happen though. Staff fall ill, move to new jobs, maybe have a partner that gets a new job elsewhere; building get exposed to toxic nerve agents and so on. And if something does happen they need to maintain the discipline of simply releasing whatever is finished. To avoid "if we just spend another week we will finish" trap.
The trap which - historically - they have fallen into once already. This is, after all, (at least) the second iteration of "incremental releases". Ultimately resulting in the saga that was 3.0!
So - assuming they get 3.1 out of the door - 100%. Although - as noted above - I don't think there are many "hard" targets on the roadmap.
Now that Evocati is released, the current list for patch 3.1 features should be very close to final. Changes to their original plan are:
<snip>
Overall it looks like CIG has been able to stick to the plan well enough: <snip>
Eeek.
CiG's plan was for quarterly releases going with whatever features / improvements were finished.
And in addition they released a guideline / roadmap - call it what you will which, as you say, they have pretty much managed to achieve.
I called that roadmap a plan.
"A technology roadmap is a flexible planning technique to support strategic and long-range planning, by matching short-term and long-term goals with specific technology solutions. It is a plan that applies to a new product or process..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_roadmap
Oh I know what the approach entails. The key word is "flexible" (as in not time bound). I suspect there will be some who will in the months ahead overlook this. Hence the eeek!
The biggest highlight is the release of Alpha 3.1 to the Evocati testing group last week, with now most of the features under polish.
Breakdown of the 3.1 changes:
Aside from most tasks undergoing polish, the new ship variant of the Nox was added to the release. What seems to be on track to release the PTU later this month.
The performance as usual first Evo releases are quite broken as the features are actively WIP, starts to being reported improvements over 3.0, peeps keep monitoring this patch after patch until it reaches the PTU.
Comments
Irony is no one is going to be playing anything they release anyway so worrying about massive amounts of people or disappointment' because they cant accomodate more than 3 people in their instances is a moot debate.
It doesn't help that they are mixing up MMO terminology, ie saying instances when they're aiming for single shard, it doesn't help that none of this is even in game and they're talking about it as though it's a given thing.
There's always going to be people who love whatever CIG does.
For me, the moment they showed how the Idris flies and that "capital" fight, I knew it was over.
It looked so utterly crap with their engine and flight mechanics... like a brick moving through space pew pewing pieces of spaghetti.
If it looks so utterly shit, it doesn't matter if their instances can't handle lots of players...
..Cake..
The max I ever heard about scale in a fight was with the logic of a server mesh there perhaps could be a large fight happening in a place, yet segregated in multiple servers using the distance/culling factor.
I think the expectation that SC is not about large-scale battles is the standard here, right now while technically there could be a 50 ship battle in the same physical space, it's not yet optimized for that.
You guys can defend every single stupid thing CIG and co do but it still cant hide the fact this is getting closer and closer to scam territory every time they make an announcement.
I cant wait for the next 25K 24 man ship comes out for sale. But I dont think even they have the bals to try and make that sales pitch. They have opeend up the planet and land floodgates now But sooner or later theyre going to have to admit the limitations on assets on land plots is going to be so low its ridiculous. Then they have to figure out something else to mmnetize to keep the money train chugging down the tracks.
You don't know what you are talking about.
The crews inside ships, AI/player are not intended as what is the limiting factor on caps. What one Idris would mean to the pop caps is more related to the ship itself + 3~ ships it can dock inside.
Hence why one higher character pop than the ship pop is meant to handle it, it is currently was put as a 1:1 to prevent ship spawning queues, once the world population is spread through a server mesh, that is one of the ways to make it viable as intended.
"....only 3 can be in it ...."
Its not like there are no YouTube videos with lots of players doing team matches in Starfarers already .... But we know you believe its all faked. Even those videos made by other players.
*** sigh *** *** shrug ***
Have fun
And as I mentioned the crews of a ship are since quite long ago not to be what will be counted to what a game server can handle, we heard since quite early on it would be the ships taking the slots, and if capitals and so it would account the capital and the ships docked inside, and stuff as that. Of course, we don't know exactly if that same approach will be taken with the server mesh.
And they mentioned some interesting ideas to prevent you from putting 30 people on a ship with 6 max crew, such as the life support systems to fail if there are too many entities inside.
CU and SC both have a C in so I suppose its only a 1 letter difference.
So, how long did it take them to say, make 40 million - the amount needed for all the devs, HR, actors, etc. for Witcher 3? (Yes, I know they used 80 million, but 40 was for strictly publicity.) How long did it take them to get 40 million? How long ago did they achieve this?
I ask because if you state they have to approach the project differently, I understand and believe you. But, once you get 40 million, I assume you can approach it almost any way you want.
Basically this project isnt about what they actully release anymore its about what announcements they make on things they CANT do now (which they could never do but said they could to be more precise).
in he end having 5 or 6 guys on some sevrer somewhere all alone (still gtting crap frames) doesnt prove anything.
This one doesn't, it has been since early on a question because the nature of the network model of the game, hence this is just something that will be addressed, and is not any boogie man either. It will prob get addressed when balancing player ship and player/AI crew pops becomes necessary.
One item delayed to 3.2:
-Network Bind Culling
One item finished earlier and moved from 3.2 to 3.1:
-New Feature: Distress call
One new vehicle variant added:
-Aopoa Nox: Kue variant
Three new improvements to existing systems added:
Overall it looks like CIG has been able to stick to the plan well enough: 1 item delayed, but 1 item finished sooner than planned. However having to delay Network Bind Culling may create them trouble later on because it's base tech and needed for a lot of other later additions.
CIG adding some new improvements to visor and HUD display and updating ship weapons outside of development roadmap isn't very surprising. Those look like smallish improvements that will always get done outside the original plan as updating one part of the game reveals the need to make changes to other parts too.
New variant of Aopoa Nox coming outside the schedule was more surprising, especially since the vehicles originally scheduled for 3.1 aren't ready yet. Perhaps some of their vehicle makers had to interrupt their original work to wait for some tech updates?
CiG's plan was for quarterly releases going with whatever features / improvements were finished.
And in addition they released a guideline / roadmap - call it what you will which, as you say, they have pretty much managed to achieve.
Although a lot of the stuff on said roadmap are not "new" but "repeaters"; things like new ships, weapons, costumes etc. And after last years pains they should have gotten a decent handle on the rate at which they churn them out.
Stuff does happen though. Staff fall ill, move to new jobs, maybe have a partner that gets a new job elsewhere; building get exposed to toxic nerve agents and so on. And if something does happen they need to maintain the discipline of simply releasing whatever is finished. To avoid "if we just spend another week we will finish" trap.
The trap which - historically - they have fallen into once already. This is, after all, (at least) the second iteration of "incremental releases". Ultimately resulting in the saga that was 3.0!
So - assuming they get 3.1 out of the door - 100%. Although - as noted above - I don't think there are many "hard" targets on the roadmap.
"A technology roadmap is a flexible planning technique to support strategic and long-range planning, by matching short-term and long-term goals with specific technology solutions. It is a plan that applies to a new product or process..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_roadmap
Breakdown of the 3.1 changes:
Aside from most tasks undergoing polish, the new ship variant of the Nox was added to the release. What seems to be on track to release the PTU later this month.
The performance as usual first Evo releases are quite broken as the features are actively WIP, starts to being reported improvements over 3.0, peeps keep monitoring this patch after patch until it reaches the PTU.
3.1 evo notes: https://pastebin.com/vXmzmWs0
And a patch: https://pastebin.com/raw/FV4SmbWZ
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6g98zu
The planet improvements as roadmap also show are WIP but it's improved terrain is already noticeable.
Mobiglas updated
The new Nox
The razor and cyclone were added on this one, some footage of them:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gdl7h
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gdl7e
Have fun