Module Storage and Bookmarks Rising From 120 to 200 in Patch 7

the servers cost money per month
we pay the game once and play for years.

no wonder they try to keep servers costs to minimum
not only does it cost little effort and real money..
but do not forget the extras.
like any product, get the product out there, then watch the money roll in from all the extras.

bad math @ 10k players spending $50 a year on paint etc..$500,000
if anything, they shot themselves in the foot by giving arx out at 400 per week = 20,800 roughly $20 per cmdr per year
normal exchange = fake money for fake paint = no matter.
easily $20k a year they no longer generate.... probably about half of what staff coffee and snacks adds up to.

waste is relative.

even at half that, more than enough to increase the size of any variable and store it.
if the storage for modules or bookmarks even took as much as 1mb per cmdr(would be excessive) might come to a few gigabytes.
even if 20 6tb HD's had to be added, this is nothing.
Making excuses for planners inability to forsee future possibilities aka worst outcome(too many players) is a waste of time if all it means is plan better, buy bigger HD's.
we saw this in material storage, bookmarks, modules, ships per station.
code saved and compressed with checksums in place take very little space. it is small.

otherwise, cutting overhead is normal, till someone cuts the wrong thing.
 
if the storage for modules or bookmarks even took as much as 1mb per cmdr(would be excessive) might come to a few gigabytes.
even if 20 6tb HD's had to be added, this is nothing.

It doesnt work like that.
In hosting, storage is payed per capacity and per transactions. You cant go to the shop and purchase 5 more drives. 😂

and keep in mind they have to store the data for millions of accounts (and have it available even for random Joe that quit the game in 2015, but decided to give it a spin again today)
 
With bookmarks: If they were locally stored and I made on this machine would not be visible on my other - nor if I visit a friend who plays and log in to my account on his PC.
cloud.png
 
People would use Sidewinders as bookmarks back in the day.

They can still do - there is a limit of ships per station, but not per galaxy :D
And with EDO ship features in Galmap - it may make a better bookmarking system than their bookmarking management... which kinda !oops!
 
Because if they were stored locally and people reinstalled the game/installed on a new copy of Windows/tried to log in on a different machine all their bookmarks would be gone.

Also shared squadron bookmarks would no longer work because they need to be stored centrally to keep synchronised between players.
 
I would have trouble with just a 1,000. I don't have full bookmarks all the time, although I do have about 220 now and could do with lots more, but when I need them I need them. A jump to 200 seems........unnecessarily small!
 
12.717 space stations with large pad *40 type 10 defender=508.680 ships

508.680*29(sum of optional internal+hardpoints+utility mounts)=14.751.720 storage modules

80 only more
nicholas-cage-funny.gif
 
and keep in mind they have to store the data for millions of accounts (and have it available even for random Joe that quit the game in 2015, but decided to give it a spin again today)
Okay. Worst case, then:

12 million players.
200 bookmarks each, plus a personal squadron each with another 200.
A bookmark needs: a player ID (let's assume 64-bit), a system+body ID (64-bit int), and a text description (50 char limit, let's assume worst case UTF-8 so 200 bytes).
So that's 203 bytes per bookmark, let's round it up to 256 bytes for (really bad!) database overheads.

256 bytes * 12 million players * 400 bookmarks = 1144 GB.

"Hot" cloud storage seems to cost around 3 cents per GB per month, so the total cost here would be around ... 35 dollars a month, in the absolute worst case where every single player uses every single possible bookmark. Obviously the real usage is going to be substantially less than that.


I believe them if they say there are server limitations, because I don't know their infrastructure details, but it won't be in the cost of physically storing the data on the backend.
 
I believe them if they say there are server limitations, because I don't know their infrastructure details, but it won't be in the cost of physically storing the data on the backend.

Could be that small, could be much bigger - we have no idea how they're storing the data.
Or costs might not even matter for them - although i really doubt that since they're a business, not a charity and they're expected to churn out decent profits.
Could be other server related issues.
Or someone simply decided that "200 is enough for now if they did ok with 120 for so many years" (maybe they did a sweep and noticed that the vast majority of players never hit the bookmark caps - i know i didnt for example) *

Or a combination of all those factors and some more. 🤷‍♂️



* for example O365 E3 subscriptions (and up) gives 5TB of onedrive capacity with optional unlimited capacity, increasing in 25TB steps.
But to get the upgrade from the initial 5TB to 25TB you need to have the storage occupied for 98% for several weeks (one month iirc) 🤷‍♂️
 
It is for Odyssey only though. And when asked on stream "What happens if you have 200 modules stored in Odyssey but log into Horizons?", the CMs had no answer. "Good question" they said.

I suspect many game crashes incoming.
I guess that modules&bookmarks >120 just won't be synchronised with horizons servers and they won't be seen in horizons clients
 
I guess that modules&bookmarks >120 just won't be synchronised with horizons servers and they won't be seen in horizons clients
I think it will be on both as buying a double engineered FSD in Odyssey as stored module #125 and going back to Horizons and deciding to fit it to a ship... (remember we can buy and store as a 'new' addition in EDO)
 
Back
Top Bottom