Danger of no persistent MMO world, seriously?

[Sir.Tj]

Ok guys,

I'm happy to keep the thread open if it's being productive, informative and generating interesting points and discussion.

If the thread continues in the way it is either myself or one of the other mods may have to close it, we'd rather not, but will if it continues.

 

[DobrijZmej]

I think the question about the figure 32 in the game it's time to put an edge and get a response from the developers that they are actually meant.
Maybe if some people will ask this same question, he will get more chances to get the answer in the next issue of questions and answers developers? (link to PBF)

 

[Bungarus]

likely around 20

FD said "hundreds" of NPCs, let's say 300. If 20 equals one player in server load it would mean 15 more players, resulting in a limit of 47 instead of 32 - already a significant improvement. Now considering you are biased against my opinion and everything that would support it, with correct numbers the result might be significantly better than 47. Should "hundreds" mean 400 or 500 the limit will be even better if they are dropped in online multiplayer.

If NPCs were as expensive (networking-wise) as players, they'd simply have fewer NPCs in more densely populated systems.

Only systems can't get more densly populated when they are already full of NPCs which means as soon as player No. 33 arrives he gets send to another instance. (Of course I do not think NPCs are equally expensive but I don't think the difference to players is as enormous as you claim, especially in battle situations.)

As always, it's hard to discuss something with someone who ignores data.

There will, on launch, be thousands of players in Lave and the Founder's system.

I did not ignore it, I already said several times that I think this is a bad concept and if it won't be changed the game must rely heavily on instancing which I will then consider a serious flaw.

Even breaking the systems into lots of smaller zones won't fix this, as all the interesting stuff is located in a few choke points (i.e. Earth, Founderworld, etc.)

"Founderworld" could be a region of the galaxy that has more than one system. If people won't have better ideas in the game than Earth spotting I suggest the Thargoids come and destroy it. Or the Thargoids use a wicked new weapon on the space-time continuum of the the Sol system which since then gets randomly split it into parallel universes, the result being so hideous that even the Thargoids feel pity and won't use it ever again. (Sol being the only instanced system).

Breaking systems into smaller zones and having several similar interesting zones (like several station zones with similar trading options) will of course also help fixing the problem.

Are you a programmer? If you are, do you work for FD? Because, on the one hand, you keep pulling 70-100 out of your, umm, hat, whereas the 32ish relates to something FD said when they were touting for money.

Well what explanation do you have then why the limit in 2014 should be the same as a decade ago in Jumpgate with 28.8 k dial up connection if it's not the NPCs, which Jumgate did not have in hundreds?

If the thread continues in the way it is either myself or one of the other mods may have to close it, we'd rather not, but will if it continues.

Could you please be a bit more precise concerning the changes that are necessary to avoid closure? - I have the impression repetition has already been reduced since your last post - with the exception of one lengthy post that was 100 % repetition without a single new thought. So perhaps some clear words towards specific users should be considered before closing the entire thread. Otherwise there is the danger now that someone who doesn't like the thread might simply go on with plain repetition in order to achieve it's closure.

 

[Darren Grey]

Otherwise there is the danger now that someone who doesn't like the thread might simply go on with plain repetition in order to achieve it's closure.

I wouldn't worry about that - no one's really that mean-spirited. People may disagree with each other, but they're not going to go to petty lengths to silence others.

 

[Bungarus]

I hope so, Darren - and we will see.

The main thing I've gathered from reading this thread is that I don't want to play the game that Bungarus wants to play.

You don't need to, because your single player mode or restricted CoD-like multiplayer mode will be safely in place. So I don't see why having the game ruined for people like me who would like to have a fully persistent MMO mode as well should be any advantage for you.

 

[Bromley86]

Bromley: Are you a programmer? If you are, do you work for FD? Because, on the one hand, you keep pulling 70-100 out of your, umm, hat, whereas the 32ish relates to something FD said when they were touting for money.

Bungarus: Well what explanation do you have then why the limit in 2014 should be the same as a decade ago in Jumpgate with 28.8 k dial up connection if it's not the NPCs, which Jumgate did not have in hundreds?

IANAprogrammer, merely someone who can read . I sincerely hope your wish comes true, as even if I'm dead-set against your queuing idea, I'd prefer instances to be as large as possible (lag permitting).

I'm also fairly certain that FD wouldn't be including hundreds of NPCs if doing so had a noticeable effect on the player numbers in each instance. Sure, people do illogical things all the time, but best to assume that's not the case here unless you have evidence to the contrary.

For myself, assuming that the system is one big instance rather than zoned, I'd rather have 32 players + 200-300 NPCs than 64 players + 0 NPCs. Remember how empty space was in FFE? That's the most important thing to avoid IMO.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

So I don't see why having the game ruined for people like me who would like to have a fully persistent MMO mode as well should be any advantage for you.

Strange comment.

Facts as we know them (sources: FD themselves)

The game will have hundreds of players online simultaneously.
The game will have P2P links between players to help reduce lagg
The game will have instanced regions of space to limit the number of players per zone to around 32 (subject to change)

What does this mean ?

Hundreds of players could all be docked at Lave - they could all launch at once - assuming the servers didn't crash then you would all be split up into groups of 32 and instanced into the region of space outside the space station. This number might change post Alpha / Beta, and not all slots will be filled immediately as some will be reserved for your friends. The rest of the space will be filled with NPCs.

Best way to think of this game is CoD / BF3 in space - lobbies are the stations where you can all meet; the instances in space are the maps you play limited to 32 humans and countless NPCs; all using P2P and P2Server links to help communication. Everything you do irrespective of where you are / instance you're in affects the back end servers which in turn affects everyone else - buy lots of goods and over time the prices rise for everyone; help build the space station and it's built quicker for everyone; etc.

That's as close to MMO as you're going to get.

It's won't be like EVE with hundreds of players in the same region of space; it won't be like Dark Age of Camelot with hundreds of players all rushing to the same place in PvP land; it will be more like WoW with all the players meeting each other in the stations (especially when the walk about addon is produced) and when you go off playing you're in 32man instances (think the 25/40 man instances in WoW)

 

[Darren Grey]

Bigger instances would be cool. I think FD need to play down expectations though - if they promise 100s in an instance from the start and run into major trouble with this... well, players won't be happy. Better to upset us now with the hope of surprising us later

 

[Slawkenbergius]

You don't need to, because your single player mode or restricted CoD-like multiplayer mode will be safely in place. So I don't see why having the game ruined for people like me who would like to have a fully persistent MMO mode as well should be any advantage for you.

The idea of a galaxy you can share with friends and strangers is where I'm coming from. All the elements that you would need to make a brilliant single player game, but with a multiplayer twist to it. I want to meet other players, but I'm not sure I like the idea of large guilds 'organising' space.

What you're asking for would ruin the game for me, just as much what I'm asking for would ruin it for you. I don't think we'll find a compromise.

 

[Kerrash]

...

It's won't be like EVE with hundreds of players in the same region of space; it won't be like Dark Age of Camelot with hundreds of players all rushing to the same place in PvP land; it will be more like WoW with all the players meeting each other in the stations (especially when the walk about addon is produced) and when you go off playing you're in 32man instances (think the 25/40 man instances in WoW)

Exactly what I was thinking. And to be fair WoW is the most popular so Blizzard are obviously doing something right with that model

 

[Muadiib]

This game doesn't need to be like wow to be great (wow is my fave game ever but I don't want a sci-fi clone), imo they should take more cues from games like Dark Souls, a game where you can solo everything if you want, but you see real people wandering the world for atmosphere and to give the world the sense that it's alive, also you can pvp or coop with players whenever you want as long as you meet certain criteria.

It doesn't need to have hundreds of players on screen, as considering how big space is, it wouldn't make sense anyway. I prefer the idea of being alone with others, a sense that the world wants you dead and when you do see others out in the wild (which should be rare) then you should be worrying "are they friend or foe?".

Hub type areas would be different obviously but if the game uses a mega server like Eve then you should only see a fraction of the people that are really there anyway, preferably your friends/enemies and those that live in the same region (irl). Anything more is not viable with the budget that Frontier has for this game.

 

[DigitalDuck]

FD said "hundreds" of NPCs, let's say 300. If 20 equals one player in server load it would mean 15 more players, resulting in a limit of 47 instead of 32 - already a significant improvement. Now considering you are biased against my opinion and everything that would support it, with correct numbers the result might be significantly better than 47. Should "hundreds" mean 400 or 500 the limit will be even better if they are dropped in online multiplayer.

Again, this is 20 worst-case scenario. I very much doubt the NPCs will require that level of synchronisation.

Only systems can't get more densly populated when they are already full of NPCs which means as soon as player No. 33 arrives he gets send to another instance. (Of course I do not think NPCs are equally expensive but I don't think the difference to players is as enormous as you claim, especially in battle situations.)

They can't get more densely populated either way. The point is that if they could (reasonably), there would simply be fewer NPCs.

And I think it's worth interjecting here: Bromley86 asked

Are you a programmer?

For what it's worth, I am.

I did not ignore it, I already said several times that I think this is a bad concept and if it won't be changed the game must rely heavily on instancing which I will then consider a serious flaw.

You said

I want to have ONE world where things that happen mean something, not just a shallow illusion of one world where in truth everyone is in his own bubble, at the most together with always the same "friends".

which you hope to achieve by doing this

tweak the number and location of starting systems such that it won't be any random system out of billions and not some very few systems, but many enough to have them not crowded and few enough to avoid loneliness.

Pick one.

"Founderworld" could be a region of the galaxy that has more than one system. If people won't have better ideas in the game than Earth spotting I suggest the Thargoids come and destroy it. Or the Thargoids use a wicked new weapon on the space-time continuum of the the Sol system which since then gets randomly split it into parallel universes, the result being so hideous that even the Thargoids feel pity and won't use it ever again. (Sol being the only instanced system).

Immersive, and certainly not controversial.

Breaking systems into smaller zones and having several similar interesting zones (like several station zones with similar trading options) will of course also help fixing the problem.

Glad we're on the same page. That's more-or-less instancing.

Well what explanation do you have then why the limit in 2014 should be the same as a decade ago in Jumpgate with 28.8 k dial up connection if it's not the NPCs, which Jumgate did not have in hundreds?

Because the limit wasn't 32 in Jumpgate, and probably won't be a hard 32 in Elite Dangerous. As already stated, Jumpgate didn't enforce a limit, instead subjecting its users to lag whenever too many people are in the same sector. In a P2P system, this is almost entirely down to the slowest players' bandwidth. It is likely that most players had a higher bandwidth than 28.8kbps, and it's quite likely that the "limit" was less than 32.

Additionally, information is still sent at the same speeds, because it's physically impossible for us to send it any faster, so latency can't improve at all.

Otherwise there is the danger now that someone who doesn't like the thread might simply go on with plain repetition in order to achieve it's closure.

I thought you wanted the thread to stay open?

 

[SAB380]

Honestly, the vast majority of Elite: Dangerous won't be instanced anyway and will be exactly what Bungarus wants.

My whole game will be travelling solo out through the far reaches of space. Many of the places will have 0 people in them. At 100 billion star systems, how many are going to crowded?

People are using the 32 number and fair enough because thats all we've got to go on, but at the same time, Frontier have also said this will increase over time. If they find everything is running and stable at launch this number may increase very quickly. Who knows, within a few months of play the instances may be at 100 ....

 

[SuperG]

I don't know wat they are planning or will work out. But I remember they said it would be more like COD then EVE.
The diverence would be, massive online with mmo gamemechanics vs masive amount of server sessions alone or handful or few dozen players. It also mean you can should and could browse for open servers and follow and join friend with closed servers.


The differenc between a NPC and player is.
Server side AI computing and syncronising with clients vs clients side player input.
While a player has not AI but instead clientside input and clientside observing.
So NPC don't add to number of clients, but do add to what needs to be sync and computing AI.
So npc do take net load but also serverside computing. And clientside it need to be rendered to.

Most MMO are RPG based with related game mechanics. Cod has a bit of RPG like leveling. But leveling there doesn't mean your much more powerfull. A 1 level can kill a 55 level player with ease. But the higher thelevel the more unlocks so you can adopt classes to your prefered playstyles. The more power is very subtile. While in RPG the differens between 3 to 5 levels could be extreem. Wich lead to grinding leveling adictive play.

Also more focus simulation doesn't go well with massive with rpg focus.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Honestly, the vast majority of Elite: Dangerous won't be instanced anyway and will be exactly what Bungarus wants.

All of ED's space will be instanced, it's just that you won't notice it as much as you think - travel out into deep space and you're in an instance on your own (maybe with NPCs - depends where you are). If another player happens to enter the same region of space as you then you will join the same instance (assuming your group settings match)

The only time you might notice instancing is when following someone who ventures into a new part of space that becomes "full" and when you follow them you end up in a new instance without them.

On the whole though it will be seemless.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Could you please be a bit more precise concerning the changes that are necessary to avoid closure? - I have the impression repetition has already been reduced since your last post - with the exception of one lengthy post that was 100 % repetition without a single new thought. So perhaps some clear words towards specific users should be considered before closing the entire thread. Otherwise there is the danger now that someone who doesn't like the thread might simply go on with plain repetition in order to achieve it's closure.

Hi Bungarus,

As you have said the repetition has reduced helping the thread to continue to explore the subject matter in more detail, which is where ideas and inspiration comes from.

The main concern was in the nature of certain comments made. Although none of the comments were excessive and warranted any immediate action by the Moderators, It was felt that a simple request to be civil and polite to each other would hopefully pre-empt any action being required.

Debate, proposals and counter proposals are the cornerstones of these forums and where the great ideas come from.

As stated before as long as the thread continues to be constructlive and progressive without any negative comments about other posters qualifications to comment, there will be no need to close it.

 

[Bungarus]

Thanks T.J.

For myself, assuming that the system is one big instance rather than zoned, I'd rather have 32 players + 200-300 NPCs than 64 players + 0 NPCs. Remember how empty space was in FFE? That's the most important thing to avoid IMO.

To me it would be even more strange to have a limit of 32 in a full scaled star system, which is huge. That's why I assume the systems will be zoned at least.

Concerning a whole system there would not be a big difference between 32, 64 or 200, in all cases it would be basically empty (of souls anyway). The only thing that could help the feeling of empty space for me then would be a system-wide scanner range (plus a scanner mode that shows humans only and no NPCs) and powerful in-system FTL.

buy lots of goods and over time the prices rise for everyone; help build the space station and it's built quicker for everyone; etc.

That's as close to MMO as you're going to get.

It's won't be like EVE with hundreds of players in the same region of space; it won't be like Dark Age of Camelot with hundreds of players all rushing to the same place in PvP land; it will be more like WoW with all the players meeting each other in the stations (especially when the walk about addon is produced) and when you go off playing you're in 32man instances (think the 25/40 man instances in WoW)

Thanks for once more providing a clear description of a game I would not play. (Not because I would need hundreds in one place but because I want a limit beyond 32 in 2014 without instancing.)

All the elements that you would need to make a brilliant single player game, but with a multiplayer twist to it. I want to meet other players, but I'm not sure I like the idea of large guilds 'organising' space.

You can most easily avoid noticing guilds by not setting your mutiplayer slider to "All" but only bubbling yourself together with like-minded players.

What you're asking for would ruin the game for me.

Why? Simply don't touch "All".

Exactly what I was thinking. And to be fair WoW is the most popular so Blizzard are obviously doing something right with that model

Sure, the most popular games are the best games, the most popular food is the best food, the most popular music is the best music etc. (-;

They can't get more densely populated either way.

47 means a more densely populated zone than 32, that being the result with your very own proposal for expensiveness of NPCs.

Glad we're on the same page. That's more-or-less instancing.

No. Dividing a system into zones is something completely different to having the same system in parallel universes.

Because the limit wasn't 32 in Jumpgate, and probably won't be a hard 32 in Elite Dangerous. As already stated, Jumpgate didn't enforce a limit, instead subjecting its users to lag whenever too many people are in the same sector.

I never experienced any lag in Jumpgate, but I never noticed an awful lot of people in the same place there. The one user here who reported lag in Jumpgate said:

Each instance (sector) of Jumpgate would choke and lag if you got more than 32 players in it, due to the net code.

Honestly, the vast majority of Elite: Dangerous won't be instanced anyway and will be exactly what Bungarus wants.

The vast majority of places won't reach 32 players with billions of systems, but people must meet in systems of increased interest or be put to starting systems not to far from each other if you ever want to see another player.

 

[DigitalDuck]

EDIT: Just in case I'm accused of any kind of hypocrisy, I've added some more points.

To me it would be even more strange to have a limit of 32 in a full scaled star system, which is huge. That's why I assume the systems will be zoned at least.

But the limit isn't 32, it's a potential minimum of 32 human players.

Thanks for once more providing a clear description of a game I would not play. (Not because I would need hundreds in one place but because I want a limit beyond 32 in 2014 without instancing.)

Then I suggest you try and make it. After all, it should be easy, right?

---

47 means a more densely populated zone than 32, that being the result with your very own proposal for expensiveness of NPCs.

That being the result of my very own proposal for your absolute worst-case, and your very own proposal of a number pulled out of misconstruing a comment. And, not only that, but once again, you failed to read what I actually wrote. But I won't repeat it, because apparently that makes it more difficult to discuss, so maybe we should all just completely ignore it instead. That'll clearly help.

No. Dividing a system into zones is something completely different to having the same system in parallel universes.

That depends on your definition of "zone".

I never experienced any lag in Jumpgate, but I never noticed an awful lot of people in the same place there. The one user here who reported lag in Jumpgate said:

Each instance (sector) of Jumpgate would choke and lag if you got more than 32 players in it, due to the net code.

Okay, so Zebarmy said more than 32 players. I'm assuming that was an estimation, like pretty much everything else in this thread.


And once again, I am unable to continue discussion as I have made several other points that have been ignored. Including, but not limited to, the fact that the actual number of players allowed per instance makes absolutely no difference, as that limit is applied to both models.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Thanks for once more providing a clear description of a game I would not play. (Not because I would need hundreds in one place but because I want a limit beyond 32 in 2014 without instancing.)

32 is the number bandied around by FD .. subject to change.

However this isn't the game for you I guess - cya !

 

[Bungarus]

Then I suggest you try and make it. After all, it should be easy, right?

It should be possible for professional game programmers today since others made persistent space sim MMOGs without big ressources many years ago - VO even today has only four developpers.

of a number pulled out of misconstruing a comment.

What? The other number was "300" because I needed, well, a number to do some math so gave an example for "hundreds". Would you like to have the results for 200 and 400 as well?

the actual number of players allowed per instance makes absolutely no difference, as that limit is applied to both models.

Differences are my model does not split people into different parallel universes, has a better limit from reducing NPCs in "All"-mode, and includes various measures to decrease the number of situations where the improved limit may be reached, like thought out distribution of starting systems.