Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Hm, it's fairly entertaining timing that ED came out right around that time, using a model not dissimilar to that "galaxy server"... Guess it suddenly wasn't good enough for Star Citizen.
ED has loading screens to cover the gap. SC backers didnt want loading screens. Would be the obvious short term solution..
I've never said that. It's just to illustrate that "persistent universe" doesn't mean "massively persistent universe".
CIG did not use precise terms concerning a massive aspect of the PU before 2015. After 2015 they started using MMO and more recently they said they will attempt to have an unique server. They started to use those terms after 2015 because the plan about the server aspect of the game was rebooted.
I've found the initial concept of CR about his PU.
Chris Roberts on Multiplayer, Single Player and Instancing - Roberts Space Industries | Follow the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42
Roberts Space Industries is the official go-to website for all news about Star Citizen and Squadron 42. It also hosts the online store for game items and merch, as well as all the community tools used by our fans.robertsspaceindustries.com
So the Galaxy server was intended just to be a lobby with no action that send you to temporary multiplayer instances with your friends. That's not what they plan to do now. The lobby is gone and the temporary multiplayer instances are gone too. Instead they plan to have an unique server with full rendering from A to Z, full persistence and no loading at all.
The whole server architecture of the 2012 plan was of no use for the actual plan.
That's why I talk about a reboot in 2014/2015.
In other words they have no clue nor plan. While the network design is fundamental to a MP game.
Agony_Aunt said:
No, read carefully the document. The initial server structure of SC in 2012 was waaaay simplier than what ED had done. It was just a lobby, nothing more.
"As the Galaxy server isn’t handling any realtime action".
"You will also be able to see the full list of players in the room if there are more players than there are slots."
The Galaxy server wasn't intended to host any action.
Last edited:
What? I have no idea how you get any of that from what was written.
That is not a game that would get backers to open their wallets in the amounts of tens of millions.
The galaxy server isn't handling real time action in the same way as the matchmaking server and the BGS server in ED are hosting any action.
Go ahead, reread the whole thing. Read his other output at the same time.
Its all about being a hotshot pilot in a dangerous universe, flying around doing stuff.
So, they would have had loading screens between areas (which is funny considering how many backers actually didn't understand this was the plan early on and used to badmouth ED for having loading screens - which it does and doesn't have), but within those areas the action would go on, and you'd meet other people and interact with them, then travel on to another area before doing other things.
You seem to be confusing having discrete areas with somehow not being an MMO like game. You're trying to define what an MMO is in order to meet your requirements for when you want to count development really starting, which by itself is a silly idea, because it doesn't discount all the work they did prior to that anyway. Nor do we have any proof of what was done at any point in time except for that which was released publicly, and what was publicly released to date has only been for SC. Nothing has been publicly released for SQ42.
MMOs can absoloutely have discrete areas, loading screens, transitions. All that matters is that you can meet other people, usually lots of people, sometimes at the same time depending on sharding/instancing/etc, in some sort of open world environment.
I can imagine if you tried posting the sort of argument you are making back in 2012 the SC fans would have called you a FUDster and downvoted you to hell.
Last edited:
I've sometimes wondered what would happened if DS's 90s game would have been slightly more succesful and he instead of Roberts would have launched a modestly succesful KS campaign in 2012. Imagine DS would be surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people claiming he is the messiah of gaming, showering him with hundreds of millions of dollars. Would he set realistic and attainable goals this time, despite his earlier grandiose projects? Would he have the humility and insight to admit he was wrong if things went awry? Somehow I am not too convinced of that.
But there is a broader issue too. I've been reading up on General Aviation incident reports/analyses. So very often you see the same pattern over and over: a pilot files a flight plan, usually fairly routine or slightly ambitious given the circumstances. Then during the flight stuff happens, changes have to be made, and the plan becomes increasingly unrealistic. In practice pilots in GA can almost always literally opt-out of increasing dangers and say:"Nope, I'm playing it save, lets turn around and land.". So often this is clearly the right thing to do: things happened, sometimes out of your control, and continuing is not going to end well. And 'not ending well' in this case doesnt mean 'not finishing a computer game while people shower you with more endless money' but 'you are going to die very soon.'. Whats the worse that can happen if you just simply stop? Looking sheepishly while traffic control tut-tuts your failed flight plan? Having to spend $100 for overnight accomodation? Missing that birthday party of a good friend? There are not tens of thousands of angry nerds whose dream will be broken if you simply stop. Nothing truly bad will happen. And the alternative is almost surely death.
And still so many people can't admit things are not going well. No matter how obvious. No matter how easy it is to stop. No matter how little you gain by continuing. People still can't do it. These pilots aren't scammers, or hardened criminals, or cynical frauds. They are victims of a cognitive defect that most of us have to some extent.
In contrast CR has so much to gain by continuing, so much to lose by quitting, and so many people cheering him on both online and IRL. Is it really that impossible that he simply makes the same cognitive mistake so many others make every single year, with the primary difference that he is continually rewarded and encouraged to keep making the mistake instead of getting a little obituary on page four of the local newspaper?
Let's assume that revision is true. The reboot changes the plan to have servers talking to each other in 2015 / 2016. 4 years later they finally start working on that. It makes no sense. It's the first thing you'd need to do. Without proper connections the MP won't work. No body-dragging your buddy with head-canoned class 3 wound to your medship to treat them there. It's total bulldogs.
Whoa there. Getting butthurt when we make a characterisation, but outright ascribing cognitive defects as generalisation around.
I also don't see how not following a flight plan is comparable to embezzling hundreds of millions of other people's money for one's own gain.
Sorry, I've wrongly typed PU. I was talking about the Galaxy server.
Can I have your point of view about the initial server structure intended by CR in 2012 vs the actual server structure planned for SC ? Reboot or no reboot for it ?
Pilot aimed for the moon, took off, landed back and took off again for reasons, now is heading towards Jupiter and I'm still waiting for the meal I was told I could eat weeks ago but is probably rotting so much it probably is gnawing the hull of the plane. Yesterday I noticed some flight attendants and the co-pilot jumping out of the plane, while one of company's representative is tweaking the flight instruments so we can see where we are. Fortunately other passengers are still scooping the water out of the plane with their wallets (I forgot to mention we haven't taken off actually but are sailing... somewhere)
I'm confident.
Let's pull up some definitions of MMO and see if any say you can't have discrete areas in one.
en.wikipedia.org
www.dictionary.com
plarium.com
www.cyberdefinitions.com
By the way, many people considered Freelancer to be a kind of MMO, and it had a limit of 128 players per server. SC was meant to be Freelancer on steriods. So, are you suggesting that CR wanted to make something inferior to Freelancer?
I don't think so, since CR specifically talks about everyone playing in the same universe.
Massively multiplayer online game - Wikipedia
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.dictionary.com
What Is the Difference Between MMO & MMORPG? - Plarium
How do you tell MMO & MMORPG apart? The difference between the two genres is quite simple, but does get tricky if you don’t know the basics. Learn more here!
plarium.com
MMO | What Does MMO Mean in Gaming?
In a text, MMO means 'Massively Multiplayer Online' in a gaming context. This page talks about MMO and its meaning on gaming platforms (such as Discord) and in Role Play Games (RPG) and shooter games, particularly First Person Shooters (FPS).
www.cyberdefinitions.com
By the way, many people considered Freelancer to be a kind of MMO, and it had a limit of 128 players per server. SC was meant to be Freelancer on steriods. So, are you suggesting that CR wanted to make something inferior to Freelancer?
I don't think so, since CR specifically talks about everyone playing in the same universe.
As always with Chris, he tried to have his cake and eat it at the same time. From the same Nov 2012 post:
He implies he can replicate some of the best aspects of an MMO, even if relying on capped instances to achieve it.
And it certainly wasn't the first time, in those early days, that he tried to have it all ways, and give the impression of MMO functionality: (October 2012)
MMO is certainly a flexible term. And Chris pretty clearly embraced aspects of it right from the start
Incorrect, as seen above
You can draw arbitrary 'reboot' lines all over the place if you like. Why not chose the 'poll' endorsing continued stretch goals (that would still 'deliver the full functionality sooner rather than later', according to Chris, due to upscaled resourcing)? Or the move away from outsourcing after the Illfonic disaster? Or the full move into proc gen planetary art? (Hell, SQ42 has seemingly rebooted several times too. Throw those in as well
).Draw all the lines you like. That doesn't mean that the project hasn't been going for as long as it has. (Or that a succession of architectural flip-flops aren't likely to be a bad idea for an already complex project...)
Last edited:
My apologies if I am the one to inform you, but that meatsack in your and everybody else's skull is rather prone to errors. If you think you are free of cognitive defects: It's an entire field of science, in case you want to read up more.
So youre saying that CR is just too arrogant to accept his own faults and that will be the cause of the plane crash? When he should now say Stop, Sorry, Heres a refund, the flight cannot continue, Im sorry it was just too ambitious a plan.
You need all services to work before trying to establish a real contact between 2 serveurs. You can prepare the structure/scripts but to make it work, all services must be up to work too. CIG have just finished the iCache service which is the main brick.
Last edited:
That's what I mean - you need to design this beforehand when you don't have to use Procrust's bed to fit an existing game into another architecture.