I don't think that's very hard, now if you had said simultaneous instead I would be impressed.....that's what you meant right?
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
I don't think that's very hard, now if you had said simultaneous instead I would be impressed.....that's what you meant right?
Ah, right, you were talking about modded servers. Sorry, missed that.
Yes, they can define their own rules, just like SC's private servers should be able to do... should CIG ever allow them.
Yes.
Actually no. Some FiveM servers can handle over 1000 players. Default is 48 IIRC, with many being over 100. Basically depends on server power.
No idea how well it runs with 1000 players on a single map though.
Hey, remember when CIG talked about adding sign language to SC?
Never been done before!!! Right? Oh...
news.microsoft.com
Never been done before!!! Right? Oh...
Forza Horizon 5 introduces sign language support throughout in-game scenes - Source
Even though Cameron Akitt grew up hard of hearing, for him British Sign Language is a second language. English is his first. An avid gamer, subtitles supplement what he hears, correcting things he may have misheard or missed because of too much background noise. But he has friends who are deaf...
news.microsoft.com
The uncertainty about the existent of custom private servers, that I have complete control over and can run on my own hardware, is why I'm interested in what the mainstream game eventually defaults to.
I call nollocks.
Well, I was actually thinking of concurrent, not simultaneous, but since they mean the same thing in this case, simultaneous was close enough.
Or do you mean the ability to handle that many players? That is completely dependent on the server hardware and bandwidth, which in my limited experience, didn't seem particularly demanding. The current arbitrary limit is 2048, I believe, and according to the public server list there are two servers with more than 1k players up right now and a dozen more with more than 500. I can't personally attest to the experience on those servers, but since people are playing on them, they must find it acceptable enough.
No, concurrent and simultaneous is not just server hardware and bandwith. I call nollocks that 1000s of players can play together and interact. They get segregated and maybe play in different instances at the same time but that isn't really what PR and some "fans" like to portrait - they like to shill about as if 1000 players are playing in one shard / instance / whateveryoucallit, and it's utter nollocks. It can't be done and that what can be done isn't fun to play anymore. Because there is real-world infrastructure realities and physical hard caps.
But the average gullible doesn't take it to serious with realities.
I don't have enough experience with playing FiveM to know how accurate your assessment of that game is (though when setting up some systems to play it I've seen some very large synchronous client counts), but I have certainly played other games (Jumpgate, Shadowbane, Planetside 2, even modified Tribes 2, etc) where hundreds, or even thousands, of players could simultaneously interact in the same instance (and most of these games didn't support multiple instances at all).
Grumpy Eye got understandably triggered by this bit of Groundhog gloss...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6dAvp2xqEI&t=596s
Can't link to his sweary take, but this comment captures the issue:
Lando said:
Can't link to his sweary take, but this comment captures the issue:
Last edited:
Planetside uses nifty tricks to create the illusion and allow interaction where it matters. Illusion comes pretty close and is often good enough - I agree - but talking it up to thousands of players in the same place is not hones. And I am pretty sick of dishonesty.
No dishonesty here. If you think I'm mistaken about something, I'm willing to entertain actual evidence, or even a well reasoned mathematical proof, of the impossibility of high-three or low-four figure, single instance, interactive encounters, but the burden is on you.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-26-the-search-for-planetside-2s-largest-battle -- not my videos in the article, but I was playing for Vanu in the battle referenced, and it certainly seemed to be pushing upwards of a thousand players (I can both count and and multiply, to arrive at accurate approximations) in the same immediate area at the same time, at points. Shadowbane also had battles of similar, maybe even greater scale, in it's heyday, and I was in at least a dozen battles with 300+ identifiable players in Jumpgate during the time I played it.
MAG was a Playstation 3 game that supported 256-player combined-arms battles
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQ_1kpI99Q
I suspect a lot of smart culling, like in PS2. You see and can interact only with a subset of players, perhaps changing dynamically.
Smoke and mirrors. The shard next door has a battle. You can see the tower they are fighting about. Server generates artillery explosions and "boom, boom" sounds. But you're actually not playing with those guys.The conflict is resolved at the same time nevertheless. In the end it doesn't even matter whether the players are "in the same instance", because it just doesn't matter in the bulk of cases.
Except that I can also kill people in that tower, and take fire from them. And it matters a lot, because many weapons in PS2 (and other games) have ranges measured in kilometers.
It is still smoke and mirrors, you can be killed by a greande from a player you cannot see or otherwise interact with otherwise.
That sounds like the opposite of smoke and mirrors.
The render distance in PS2 is/was 350-400m for most infantry and 750m-1000m for most vehicles, but if they can still direct fire at and destroy targets beyond that, what else is there really? They're still where they are and can still be affected by what would rationally affect them.
Its an interesting discussion, but none of it relevant to SC, which will never have that many players... or, at least, not in the coming years even assuming CIG stick to their plans.