The Star Citizen Thread v5

[AJW]

And note how it is all about 'goals'. Not something they have already developed, or by the look of it even thought through fully. After all this time they 'still need to figure out' fundamental networking issues which will deeply affect gameplay. What have the magic Germans been doing all this time?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Over on Spectrum, a CIG employee answers the question 'How many people can be in an instance?':



https://robertsspaceindustries.com/.../how-many-people-can-be-in-an-instance/198078

So they will have a system that will 'scale without limit' by limiting how many people can actually be in the same place at the same time. Doh!

To be fair though - what they say they want to do is entirely possible. Banks do it all the time.

You won't get be able to do much with each connected client though, and X number of clients will only see fake Y clients for security and performance purposes, but for a glorious 15 seconds, CIG could actually have up to 128000 players in the same place at the same time

 

[McGlashan]

You will be able to see (and fire) across the boundary from one server to another, and, as you fly through space, will move seamlessly from one server to another

That's the bit I'll be amazed to see them get working properly (or, at all).

 

[n4p0l3on]

Once you realize how many global servers infrastructure the game can realistically have, then you would see how is that statement.

Servers switching may sound reasonable on the US or (western?) Europe, but how about other regions that have less servers? Like, no way australian players would get switched around among US servers.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Once you realize how many global servers infrastructure the game can realistically have, then you would see how is that statement.

Servers switching may sound reasonable on the US or (western?) Europe, but how about other regions that have less servers? Like, no way australian players would get switched around among US servers.

It doesn't quite work like that.

You have midpoint "overtakes" that are located between your main points of useage concentration. They absolutely would not be in the US, Europe, or Australia. All the overtakes do is pass high priority events to all servers, and it's left up to the servers themselves to decide wether a new incoming event from a client or overtake takes priority. They then wait for client answer, server answer, and if the high priority event doesn't make sense for both then the overtake shuts up and waits for the next opportunity to
try and speed things up.

Mind you - with CIG's Netcode(tm) in the state it is - I don't have much faith in their ability to deliver a tiered priority solution.

 

[Zetta]

Over on Spectrum, a CIG employee answers the question 'How many people can be in an instance?':



https://robertsspaceindustries.com/.../how-many-people-can-be-in-an-instance/198078

So they will have a system that will 'scale without limit' by limiting how many people can actually be in the same place at the same time. Doh!

So instead of getting the tech in place and scaling out their "fidelity" to what the design can handle they have decided to build to an unknown quantity and try to shoehorn everything into place. That sounds like it could go horribly wrong.

We joke about CR seeing other stuff and saying "I want that but better!" so perhaps he saw this video that the Dual Universe guys put out around 9 months ago

Spoiler

[video=youtube;QeZtqoydXpc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeZtqoydXpc[/video]

 

[Wylie28]

It doesn't quite work like that.

You have midpoint "overtakes" that are located between your main points of useage concentration. They absolutely would not be in the US, Europe, or Australia. All the overtakes do is pass high priority events to all servers, and it's left up to the servers themselves to decide wether a new incoming event from a client or overtake takes priority. They then wait for client answer, server answer, and if the high priority event doesn't make sense for both then the overtake shuts up and waits for the next opportunity to
try and speed things up.

Mind you - with CIG's Netcode(tm) in the state it is - I don't have much faith in their ability to deliver a tiered priority solution.

You realize you have yet to see much of CIGs "netcode" right? Most of that comes from the engine itself. They wont be using thiers until its completed and performs as good as it needs to.

 

[Asp Explorer]

You realize you have yet to see much of CIGs "netcode" right? Most of that comes from the engine itself. They wont be using thiers until its completed and performs as good as it needs to.

I see absolutely absolutely all of CIG's "netcode" as soon as it attempts to enter, traverse, or exit my boundary router. What special "netcode" delights do you think they have packed away for a rainy day? Are they really going to completely change their network architecture and implementation on a whim?

Oh wait, there is still Item 2.0 to come.

 

[AJW]

You realize you have yet to see much of CIGs "netcode" right? Most of that comes from the engine itself. They wont be using thiers until its completed and performs as good as it needs to.

Yes, we realise that CIG have as yet failed to demonstrate any ability to deliver the 'netcode' features they have promised.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Over on Spectrum, a CIG employee answers the question 'How many people can be in an instance?':



https://robertsspaceindustries.com/.../how-many-people-can-be-in-an-instance/198078

So they will have a system that will 'scale without limit' by limiting how many people can actually be in the same place at the same time. Doh!

So, they are now finally admitting that their early bold statements about hundreds or more players all in the same instance are not going to happen.

Also get a chuckle from all those ED players who have over the years claimed that a C/S architecture would allow hundreds of players together in the same instance in ED. See, its not easy to do that, even with C/S. P2P is not the only factor. Multiplayer for a game like ED or SC requires a lot of network traffic compared with point and click games. Even bigger chuckle from all those people who said they would switch to playing SC because they will be able to have massive space battles. Ho ho ho.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

This sounds somehow familiar...

You may have noticed a pattern emerging as you read these Kickstarter horror stories. Famous game designer launches Kickstarter to make a game based on their most famous work. Fans of said game designer pledge every penny they have to see a new installment of their favorite game. Famous game designer bites off more than he can chew and the fans are left to suffer.

 

[Asp Explorer]

So, they are now finally admitting that their early bold statements about hundreds or more players all in the same instance are not going to happen.

Also get a chuckle from all those ED players who have over the years claimed that a C/S architecture would allow hundreds of players together in the same instance in ED. See, its not easy to do that, even with C/S. P2P is not the only factor. Multiplayer for a game like ED or SC requires a lot of network traffic compared with point and click games. Even bigger chuckle from all those people who said they would switch to playing SC because they will be able to have massive space battles. Ho ho ho.

It is entirely possible though.

You can have thousands of players in one gaming instance. You can have thousands of events going on at the same time in those instances.

Genuine Roberts just has to invent faster-than-light-fibre, sign all his customers up to his special service, and let them all play the game!

The fibre still won't reach the rack though

 

[1500]

So much for the point of the Cutless.

Spoiler

 

[Asp Explorer]

You can pick up cargo but it won't fit through a docking collar?

Injured combatants are envisioned as being moved to safety in another ship when they bleed out in 5 seconds?

CIG want in-air refueling???

They envision moving items inside ships via EVA?

 

[Wylie28]

I am completely shocked Star Citizen is #2 "Failure To Launch: The 15 Biggest Kickstarter Fails"

Ill bet they have a list of "dead" multiplayer games with hundreds of concurrent players too. The gaming community cannot be trusted for game buying decisions anymore.

 

[1500]

Ill bet they have a list of "dead" multiplayer games with hundreds of concurrent players too. The gaming community cannot be trusted for game buying decisions anymore.

If a game only has hundreds of concurrent players, then it is dead.

Funny enough SC is having a hard time getting dozens.

 

[Cmdr-Wotherspoon]

If a game only has hundreds of concurrent players, then it is dead.

Funny enough SC is having a hard time getting dozens.

To be fair, it's not surprising they don't get many players as they haven't released more than a pale shadow of what they have theorycrafted. There's only so much floating around in space you can do. When they start adding gameplay, when there's actually something to play, there will presumably be more players.

How long they continue to play depends not on the prettiness of the environment, not on the net code, not on the amount they have paid for their imaginary space ship, but on what interesting and challenging activities have been added, to make the space simulator into a game.

 

[Knightshark]

So much for the point of the Cutless.

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/1JVCYD8.png

"We have a great plan but everything is subject to implementation."

Haha, you don't say!

 

[Stigbob]

So much for the point of the Cutless.

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/1JVCYD8.png

It might be easier if we speculate wildly on what actually will be in the MVP rather than try to keep track of all the rapidly dropping features.

 

[Toumal]

Heres my favorit from the comments so far....


Misunderstood Businessmodel


Why should somebody finish the game? In the end people are going to be unhappy about it anyway. It has bugs, its too simple, somethings overpowered, expensive ships, bad balancing, doesnt run on Linux....all the internet ever does is complaining....especially the gamers. It makes more sense to promise everything while delivering nothing. Money is still coming in nevertheless.

Unfortunately that's just about the most reasonably critical comment. 99% of the comments are utter praise, devotion and blind faith:

"They're building a universe, you ought to have patience!"

"I'm sick of having to read about SC never coming out. Who knows giant IT projects that cost more than 150 million $? I worked on one or two of those, and they usually take 10+ years with 150-200 employees! Look at Eve, ok they released a playable game after 3-4 years, but the complexity of software has increased since!"

"Everything I see and hear from the game is great. And even the Demo looks solid. The more money they get, the more money they invest. You can tell from the quality of the game, and I think that's very positive. I just don't get why the delays are seen as something bad, despite the developers always having very good reasons for them, and always having so much to show."

Just three examples. It just goes on and on. The critical voices are few and far between. And nobody mentions the whole grey market thing, or why ships cost so much money.