Why doesn't Frontier invest in dedicated servers?

dedicated servers that support the p2p system more efficiently?
It is a bit of oxymoron the way you put it. Otherwise, they absolutely have dedicated servers supporting their p2p infrastructure and they are even adding a new one specifically for missions in 3.3.
 
I think it's a general thought that when we hang out with your friends it takes too long to see each other. Hence my question, why not invest in dedicated servers that support the p2p system more efficiently?


In the last pre-launch trailer they showed us ships flying together, making us believe that we are going to be able to fly. Is there a real solution or is it just another little lie by Frontier?

[video=youtube;EvJPyjmfdz0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0[/video]
 
I'm pretty sure the "Solo players are taking over the BGS" conspiracy theory is a myth, with the possible exception of bots. Now the "PS4 players are taking over the BGS" theory has some merit, since we have at least one platform-specific player faction that you can't touch via traditional PvP means on your PC or XBox :p

Spot on.

Our little group recently had an Xbox group introduced very close by. Never gonna get attack/defend PvP scenarios as we are all PC. Tactical choices are removed.
However the same operational (BGS) choices are still there, as are the strategic options - i.e. compete or come to terms with each other.

Simon
 
I think people misunderstand how central p2p is to how ED works. It isn't as if they can make the decision tomorrow to throw some money at it, flick a switch and suddenly it is all client/server. In the end it is about what kind of game ED is. And that is a game where youu play by yourself or with a small group of friends, and occassionally encounter others. It isn't about massive pvp battles or some such, and making that happen would be a massive investment of time and resources. In the end I feel by far most players would much rather see atmo planets, space legs and more gameplay options rather than FD focusing on massive multiplayer infrastructure changes. Especially if the latter would result in subscriptions, which they promised they'd never do. So 10-15 people max is going to be a practical limit I guess.

^ I'm afraid this is spot on. I would love to see 50-100 player battles - full on wars. Unfortunately, this will never be the game for that.
 
^ I'm afraid this is spot on. I would love to see 50-100 player battles - full on wars. Unfortunately, this will never be the game for that.

To be fair, no game can do that. Even EVE, which is known for enormous battles, only manages by slowing down time to let the servers catch up with all the activity.
 
To be fair, no game can do that. Even EVE, which is known for enormous battles, only manages by slowing down time to let the servers catch up with all the activity.

Actually Time Dialation occurs only when the players are overloding a node, and at the time, it took CCP to manually assign a space region to a dedicated node to run the hairball of a fleet engagement.

CCP has since then developed an automated system that after a certain period moves the battle from the populated system nodes to their own node.

from the clients point of view Time Dialation starts, gets heavy for a while, then suddenly stops and things go back to normal flow.

Now if the hair ball gets even bigger then TD comes back after a fashion, but from what I hear CCP has been pondering not only making more dedicated node spaces, but even creating a multi-node situation for really large fleet battles, but these are edge cases and there haven't yet been a reason to create them.

Of course all of this is based on the extent of the hardware, and the fact that with the advent of the 7mm and even 5mm processes that server technology may advance again before CCP even needs such dedicated multi node network connectivity.

But to go with Commander Danicus's desire, I would say EvE is the ONLY game capable of the space battles that he's looking for.

That being said, my opinion is that EvE's battles are TOO big, but that's just me. But their wars are historic, both in a lore sense and in a video game history sense.

The Fountain War being made into a book for god's sake. I wish Elite was capable of even a tenth of that.
 
I'm pretty sure the "Solo players are taking over the BGS" conspiracy theory is a myth, with the possible exception of bots. Now the "PS4 players are taking over the BGS" theory has some merit, since we have at least one platform-specific player faction that you can't touch via traditional PvP means on your PC or XBox :p

Brilliant, Old duck! +1

(screams for cross-platform integration!)

Never realised that the different platforms shared the same BGS. Didn't occur to me.
 
So Elite Dangerous is a multiplayer game or a single player?

Elite is Multi-player Solitaire.

Wait, you're not familiar with Multiplayer Solitaire and don't understand how that works? It's simple.

Fire up a game of Solitaire on your PC in a room with a spouse, significant other or child/children and try to play.

They will be drawn to your side, and point out moves you either don't want to make, or haven't seen yet the entire time.

You are now playing Multiplayer Solitaire.

Elite is like that too.

You try to do what it says on the website, and "Play your own way", and along comes the community to tell you you're doing it wrong, "exploiting", or otherwise not playing how They play, and Bob's your uncle.
 
To be fair, no game can do that. Even EVE, which is known for enormous battles, only manages by slowing down time to let the servers catch up with all the activity.

GW2 Managed it just fine in wvw battles with crazy particle effects, twitch combat, and aoe interactions involving combination layered effects.
 
Back
Top Bottom