Even if you only need a modest bitrate connection, it certainly is not robust against lag. Something most ISPs don't even acknowledge or provide information for.
Frontier cant deliver.
- Thread starter Gypsy12
- Start date
It is hard to do that because one is speed ISP claims and what's actual *upload*/*download* speeds and *latency* is completely different matter and impact gameplay quite heavily.
Ideally for FPS games, and games like this it is either optic, or high end DSL with good upstream provider. Anything bellow is just don't have enough real time traffic between peers. It is also most guaranteed not to have dedicated upload and minimum speed limits.
People going about how bad peer to peer is and how excellent server/client is really have no idea how complex everything is. For FD long term goals peer to peer just ensures survival of the game. It is just that simple. And it allows lot of neat tricks you would have to do for server/client anyway. So...yeah.
Get better connections, optic is best, but ask for dedicated speed/upload/etc. when getting connection.
And if you are in US, I am so sorry.
Last edited:
Lag is unavoidable and heavily variable on the internet, even 2D-only player controlled movement games can have problems. It is mitigatable to a degree, but can never be completely avoided.
Another really good point- and because of the elimination of Net Neutrality here in the US (Thanks to a certain partisan group...) we may yet see even worsening conditions from ISP's here for gaming as well.
I think it has been other way around - Internet is complete shambles in USA, and it won't get better because of NN clause removal.
Telecommunication companies especially established monopolies are worst business out there, period. No wonder Google, Amazon, et. do their own fiber networking.
Actually, the point was that FD should declare a minimum bandwidth requirement for the 50 player stability claim. Whether an ISP can fulfil that requirement reliably is another matter.
I can fully believe 64 players are reliably sustainable on a 1Gb LAN (along with medium-low quality voice comms), but that is somewhat greater than your average internet connection. I am however probably being overly conservative in my off-the-cuff bandwidth assessment.
Last edited:
Can't really be bothered to quote all the well-thoughtout responses to my post because, well, there wasn't any. Seriously, I like a good discussion, but to counter my post with typically aggressive responses.. It would be nice to actually just have a discussion for a change.
Anyway.
I don't really care what some PR person from Frontier tells us. Their job is to pass on information, without confirming anything that might be deemed as confirmation of negative aspects of the game. You don't need to be a Frontier developer to know there are clearly issues and limitations with the game engine.
Comparing ED to Planet Coaster is completely pointless. Given they are both entirely different games, and one having no multiplayer at all (therefore no instancing), it's absolutely irrelvant if one can do legs and the other can't. Legs, as a phrase used in the ED game at least, is the ability to LEAVE THE COCKPIT. Walk in stations, planet surfaces, in space itself. (Personally I could care less about this
feature, I don't think it's needed.)
Legs, AKA FP, is obviously POSSIBLE, as it's just a change in camera angle - indeed, we already play in FP. But adding FP with the requried, interactive game assets WITHIN THE CURRENT GAME INSTANCES is highly unlikely. For example. Guardian ruins. Clearly, making an avatar walk around the ruins in FP is easy. But why? Things would need to a be a LOT more interactive, otherwise it's just another pointless feature noone really wants. Interactive 'things' increases the dataload for that instance. If multiple people are in that instance - as Star Citizen clearly shows - the data load becomes unmanagable, and slows things down to a crawl. It's slow enough as it is with multiple ships in an instance.
Oh and the claim instances can handle 50 ships? Sure, technically ED probably can... but I seem to recall, on many, many occasions, so many PLAYER ships in one instance was virtually unplayable. That's not much use now is it.
And one other thing - I simply mentioned Eve Valkyrie because it was the only example I could think of at the time. I hate Eve, my post history clarifies that... The point, is CQC is not the same scope as Valkyrie, (although Valkyrie isn't exactly what I am thinking of either) - but the game is specifically designed to handle large numbers of objects in one instance - ED clearly is not.
Oh, one last thing? I don't need to cite sources for my opinions. That's a ludicrous argument to try and make...
Anyway.
I don't really care what some PR person from Frontier tells us. Their job is to pass on information, without confirming anything that might be deemed as confirmation of negative aspects of the game. You don't need to be a Frontier developer to know there are clearly issues and limitations with the game engine.
Comparing ED to Planet Coaster is completely pointless. Given they are both entirely different games, and one having no multiplayer at all (therefore no instancing), it's absolutely irrelvant if one can do legs and the other can't. Legs, as a phrase used in the ED game at least, is the ability to LEAVE THE COCKPIT. Walk in stations, planet surfaces, in space itself. (Personally I could care less about this
feature, I don't think it's needed.)
Legs, AKA FP, is obviously POSSIBLE, as it's just a change in camera angle - indeed, we already play in FP. But adding FP with the requried, interactive game assets WITHIN THE CURRENT GAME INSTANCES is highly unlikely. For example. Guardian ruins. Clearly, making an avatar walk around the ruins in FP is easy. But why? Things would need to a be a LOT more interactive, otherwise it's just another pointless feature noone really wants. Interactive 'things' increases the dataload for that instance. If multiple people are in that instance - as Star Citizen clearly shows - the data load becomes unmanagable, and slows things down to a crawl. It's slow enough as it is with multiple ships in an instance.
Oh and the claim instances can handle 50 ships? Sure, technically ED probably can... but I seem to recall, on many, many occasions, so many PLAYER ships in one instance was virtually unplayable. That's not much use now is it.
And one other thing - I simply mentioned Eve Valkyrie because it was the only example I could think of at the time. I hate Eve, my post history clarifies that... The point, is CQC is not the same scope as Valkyrie, (although Valkyrie isn't exactly what I am thinking of either) - but the game is specifically designed to handle large numbers of objects in one instance - ED clearly is not.
Oh, one last thing? I don't need to cite sources for my opinions. That's a ludicrous argument to try and make...
Agreed, which is why FD need to develop protocols which robustly handle high lag times. As it stands, I hear loading times can be very excessive. I'm also not convinced we have as good as we can get when it comes to lag mitigation, which must be planned for in a P2P environment.
Bandwidth requirements are often not the biggest impact IMO, but I haven't had anything less than 10/2 Mbps for many years now, so you may have that point.
If the P2P networking/instancing/matchmaking can be made to work well without huge loading times, I'm all for it. Not holding my breath.
Rise above it man, and pay attention to the 3 or 4 posters who have been discussing civilly.
Atmospheric flight model is certainly doable, because the current flight model is already so oversimplified, you can't do anything really fancy. Tweak some numbers, maybe based on pressure and temperature and BAM! your golden
Oh I will quote here, because I didn't see your responses
IT's not the flight model that's the issue - it's the actual physics of the planets themselves. I mean, adding atmosphere to what we already have is trivial. No, PROPER atmospheric planets would be adding vegetation, climates, weather... that sort of thing. I don't believe that's possible with the current set up - maybe, if they rewrite a LOT of the planetary generation code, it might be.
Will they? I don't believe so, no. Why? Because.. they don't 'need' to.
(I just saw your response, and I aplologise - as I say, I never saw it - Rep duly given
Last edited:
This is the direct link to the topic we two are discussing right away,
a FINAL DECISION from FD AND THE COMMUNITY.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6371
If you read the original pledge on the kickstarter you see the price tag of 300 pounds
awarding you to be a member of the "deisgn decision forum".
As there are desgin decisions discussed and stuff got finalized,
the customer expects them to be integrated as discussed in the
Design DECISION Forum, righto?
Why not instead ask a suitable place with competences if what
was advertised in KS was binding by law?
I'm sure then alarm bells will ring.
Short search on the web:
Last edited:
64 players does not need a 1 Gb lan, at all, telemetry data doesn't take up that much space even with a lot of players, its low amount but highly time sensitive data, 'basically' say x, y, z coordinates, orientation, facing, weapon status, shield status, that sort of thing. And probably more but even say if that was raw text, we'd be looking at no more then what 10kb? (guess obviously, but 10kb can contain a lot of data) of data per second maybe per connection, I think you can actually get the numbers on bandwidth usage from elite itself,
So even with say 10kb per player per second, even at 100 players, we'd only be talking about 1000 kb/s, so 1mb/s of sustained data transmission.
Game data really doesn't take up much actual bandwidth, declaring a minimum in a game where the amount of players found is variable, really would make little sense though I suppose they could just write 10kb/s per player?
The problem though is that many ISP's do not measure reliability as part of what they provide, so sure they provide you say 10mbps, but the latency is unstable, so timing is thrown off, player 5 info might arrive significantly out of sync with another players info, causing stuttering and syncing issues.
Last edited:
With all due respect, anyone could say anything is feasible. Until I see concrete proof that it isn't just possible, but absolutely happening, I stand by my idea that while you could stick a FP Camera on a player, there is, and will never bem any point to do so.
Again, PC is a great looking game.. but only in a single 'instance' with limited data requirements - compared to ED I mean. I don't think for one second UPS would be used in ED, I mean, the idea of cities bustling with people would be superb, but realistically that isn't ever going to happen... No we're just going to get Mars, basically.
Oh yes, we don't want EVE with it's time dialation system
No, space battles between 16 players would be more than enough IMO. The point is even that is pushing things, because of the horrendous netcode being used (I was unaware it was separate to the Cobra engine), and unless this is somehow rectified... well, like I said, it's never gonig to be a thing.[/quote]Unfortunately, we also have to consider console players - which, with the risk of causing more ire towards me - would absolutely hold back any possibility of expanding the game much more than it already is - the PS4 version for whatever reason, was difficult to get working to a standard people were happy with - and is why we're not seeing PSVR.
( I seem to have missed a page of responses...)
Oh I will quote here, because I didn't see your responses
IT's not the flight model that's the issue - it's the actual physics of the planets themselves. I mean, adding atmosphere to what we already have is trivial. No, PROPER atmospheric planets would be adding vegetation, climates, weather... that sort of thing. I don't believe that's possible with the current set up - maybe, if they rewrite a LOT of the planetary generation code, it might be.
Will they? I don't believe so, no. Why? Because.. they don't 'need' to.
(I just saw your response, and I aplologise - as I say, I never saw it - Rep duly given
I think this is a bit mixup of communication. Atmospheric planets also mean atmospheric planets without life, gas giants, etc. This is where FD will go first.
DDF has disclaimer about what's being implemented or not....as "no guarantees" clause. So there's no basis for such expectations.
Well the 'point' would be to add more gameplay options? yes?, but if you break down all gameplay first person, in most any game yes, they all can be put into boxes with 'go get x' 'kill y of x' and so forth, but that doesn't mean the gameplay cannot be engaging, and frankly it is easier to make engaging gameplay on ground with terrain, in structures what have you, because unlike space, it isn't simply big and empty. So plenty of reasons.
Dunno, if the dataset is fixed, as in say the crowd moves in a preset but big pattern around the place, then sending that pattern to a client and telling them where people are in that pattern, should allow for accurate representation amongst all players as long as they can take the performance requirements of doing so?
But yes added onto the existing requirements it might need to be an option or such for performance reasons or simply a 'crowd density' like many open world games have? since, crowd would be at least most part of it, cosmetic?
I do believe in giving the benefit of the doubt.Oh I will quote here, because I didn't see your responses
IT's not the flight model that's the issue - it's the actual physics of the planets themselves. I mean, adding atmosphere to what we already have is trivial. No, PROPER atmospheric planets would be adding vegetation, climates, weather... that sort of thing. I don't believe that's possible with the current set up - maybe, if they rewrite a LOT of the planetary generation code, it might be.
Will they? I don't believe so, no. Why? Because.. they don't 'need' to.
(I just saw your response, and I aplologise - as I say, I never saw it - Rep duly given
That goes to Frontier as well, but it is frustrating when they are doing such a see-saw job with balance and story.
Here's the thing, Frontier's other games is an excellent indicator of things Frontier can and may do with Elite. You can tell though, that's not what they are focused on, it's gameplay balance, and so far they haven't done very well at it.
I think we can have a look at how the thargons work and how crowd mechanics can work in a similar way, all online with multiple commanders.
Do you have a link to that somewhere around?
I'm pretty curious about this topic.
Last edited:
If I were a betting man, I would bet they used similar techniques. Maybe even copy pasta.
Possibly. If it works, use it.