Elite Dangerous need to get serious about Cross Platform.

[Zorvan]

So far FDev has not added anything to make this situation any better. Worse, they adopt the "gun maker's" argument for related issues like PvP -- "we only make the guns [you can hide in Solo\PG if you don't like PvP], we don't make people use them in any particular way". Lame; way to wash your hands of the problem FDev.

Gun makers have a right to that argument, as it is valid for them. They make the guns, they don't design the world the guns go into.

FDev cannot wash their hands of anything as they are literally responsible for everything in the game world.

Just for context and reference, Dual Universe managed to have 30,000+ (simulated) players inside the same world, at the same time. EVE reaches around 3.000 and WoW around 120 in a region.

There's only one world in EvE and it has been as high as 50,000 online at once in the past.

 

[Viajero]

Just for context and reference, Dual Universe managed to have 30,000+ (simulated) players inside the same world, at the same time. EVE reaches around 3.000 and WoW around 120 in a region.

War Thunder aerial battles are limited at 32 players theoretical by default. That should already tell you something. Sim-like games like WT or DCS (or Elite) do not seem to have the capacity to replicate EVE like populations in a single instance/battle, server based or p2p. And at around 20-25 is quite usual in general to start encountering all kinds of network issues, rubberbanding, desynchs etc in these types of games. Server based.

 

[Midian Cabal]

There's only one world in EvE and it has been as high as 50,000 online at once in the past.

I stand corrected. Current PCU record is 65,503.

 

[Midian Cabal]

War thunder aerial battles are limited at 32 players theoretical by default. That should already tell you something. Sim-like games like WT or DCS (or Elite) do not seem to have the capacity to replicate EVE like populations in a single instance/battle, server based or p2p. And at around 20-25 is quite usual in general to start encountering all kinds of network issues, rubberbanding, desynchs etc. Server based.

It only tells me that companies widely differ in their competence regarding netcode.

 

[Viajero]

It only tells me that companies widely differ in their competence regarding netcode.

Well, you seem to be too sure of that. I do not know. I am not a netcode expert I am afraid. But I can remark that the player limit condition is very specific to sim-like games such as War Thunder, IL2 Sturmovik, Elite, DCS etc that probably have a much larger data realtime bandwidth requirement per player given they need to account for things like, speed, acceleration, relative attitudes, proyectile colision and trajectory, specific craft internal module spatial location etc that games like EVE or WoW do not need.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Just for context and reference, Dual Universe managed to have 30,000+ (simulated) players inside the same world, at the same time. EVE reaches around 3.000 and WoW around 120 in a region.

Just for context and reference, EvE does it by slowing down time when things get busy and is point and click, requiring a lot less communication between clients. WoW, again, point and click. You can get away with a lot more with point and click. Lag is less of an issue and you can use some fancy tricks so its not as apparent.

I guess FD could have hundreds of people in the same instance, just so long as you don't mind shooting at someone, thinking you are hitting them, but them actually not being where you are seeing them.

Could FD improve their netwoking and get more people in an instance? Probably, maybe?

 

[B1rdy]

Yes, it is much less of a bandwith, than a latency and general connection quality issue. The more a game relies on timing critical interactions (with higher player movement speed, weapons with high projectile speed or low rof and so on), the more impact a bad connection has on the game. Neither client-server nor P2P nor hybrids of both versions can overcome these issues, as all bring their own drawbacks.

 

[CMDR Tony]

Yes, it is much less of a bandwith, than a latency and general connection quality issue. The more a game relies on timing critical interactions (with higher player movement speed, weapons with high projectile speed or low rof and so on), the more impact a bad connection has on the game. Neither client-server nor P2P nor hybrids of both versions can overcome these issues, as all bring their own drawbacks.

Infinity: Battlescape (IB) supports hundreds to thousands of players per server without instancing in one huge battle spread out across a simulated solar system. Their netcode is extremely impressive.

[And BTW: IB has seamless transitions to atmospheric planetary surfaces and atmospheric flight. So don't fall for the 'it's too difficult' argument commonplace here with ED.]

FDev could do better. A lot better if they wanted to. Others have. The last thing they need is more apologists.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Infinity: Battlescape supports hundreds to thousands of players per server without instancing in one huge battle spread out across a simulated solar system. Their netcode is extremely impressive.

FDev could do better. A lot better if they wanted to. The last thing they need are more apologists.

Infinity Battlescape? Potentially hundreds of thousands of players?

Infinity: Battlescape - Steam Charts

An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.

steamcharts.com

All time peak = 219

Ummm....

Easy to make claims of greatness when those claims are never tested.

 

[B1rdy]

Infinity: Battlescape supports hundreds to thousands of players per server without instancing in one huge battle spread out across a simulated solar system. Their netcode is extremely impressive.

Do you have so more background information? I am genuinely interested.

FDev could do better. A lot better if they wanted to. The last thing they need are more apologists.

Sure they could. Their main goal, however ,was to create a cost effective system.

 

[Viajero]

Infinity: Battlescape supports hundreds to thousands of players per server without instancing in one huge battle spread out across a simulated solar system. Their netcode is extremely impressive.

FDev could do better. A lot better if they wanted to. The last thing they need are more apologists.

I agree with the sentiment in this post, including the fact FDEV can do better. Although I do not think this is a matter of apologism or lack thereof in this particular discussion. It is a matter of also being realistic and realizing that the player limit issue is not just a limitation in Elite but it is something quite widespread across most sim-like games out there, server based or not, including behemoths such as WarThunder, DCS or IL2.

Regarding Infinity Battlescape I have actually played it in early access since I am a backer, and it is true the battles there were spectacular. And something FDEV network devs may be interested in looking at. It is probably about the only sim-like game out there that I have seen so far manage a decent number of crafts in the same location.

Now having said that I never saw hundreds, nevermind thousands, of players in the same location or battle. At most the battles I took part in had a few tens of players at any given time, maybe 30-40 in the best of cases? (very smooth all of it though) Although maybe I missed the really big battles, so this is just anecdotal for me. Infinity Battlescape can host hundreds of players in the same scenario but most of those players were spread out quite far appart across the whole system and the netcode logic probably does not need to update your client as often for those ships far away not interacting with you at all etc (which is in essence no different from what Elite does). Also the ships themselves did not strike me as onerous as Elite´s or DCS´s in terms of quantity and complexity of systems and modules, which is info that I suspect also takes part in real time data exchanges during a battle etc.

 

[Zorvan]

Infinity Battlescape? Potentially hundreds of thousands of players?

Infinity: Battlescape - Steam Charts

An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.

steamcharts.com

All time peak = 219

Ummm....

Easy to make claims of greatness when those claims are never tested.

Infinity: Battlescape is primarily sold through its own website. So, like most games not tied directly to steam, steam charts means pretty much nada.

 

[varonica]

Recently we lost our station and control of a system of a PC player faction to a PS4 player faction in an election/war . How do you fight a "player faction" if you cant see them as they are on a different platform.

Oh those poor PS4 players fighting an invisible enemy, they can't see or know what it's doing, they have to work out a strategy in the dark guessing what that invisible enemy is doing and work out a way of defeating them without ever seeing any of them.

See, that works both ways, if you can't see them they can't see you, and whatever strategy they used for taking over worked better than the strategy you used to defend, therefore what you do is change your strategy to better oppose them, not come to the forum complaining. In fact by the looks of it, even if you could see them they could have probably defeated you, what would you have to complain about then?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Infinity: Battlescape is primarily sold through its own website. So, like most games not tied directly to steam, steam charts means pretty much nada.

Like ED, and naturally i was wary about quoting Steam numbers, but Steam is a very popular platform and i'd be very surprised if there were significantly more players playing via other channels.

Unfortunately, google doesn't show me any information about actual player numbers not on steam, not even an indication. All i can see is anecdoal posts on forums with some people declaing the game to be dead with others claiming their are hundreds or thousands of players.... even thousands of players isn't a particularly resounding claim for a game that is meant to be able to host thousands at the same time.

Therefore i question the claim of being able to host thousands at once with decent results.

As i said earlier, maybe FD could increase the number of players in an instance... by how much, in return for how much effort and at what cost, no idea.

I'd be pretty suprised if they could get more than 100 in an instance with good performance. All those clients sending constant updates to each other over tiny changes in trajectory, weapons fired, and more, especially with P2P where the amount of information grows exponentially the more clients you add to an instance (every client needs to talk to every other client), i don't think the internet and networking in general is up to handling that sort of traffic yet.

ED has had over 100 people in a system, but there were issues with connectivity, obvious lag, and no combat going on, as well as no NPCs.

 

[Northpin]

Let me add another stick beating on the dead horse:

Recently we lost our station and control of a system of a PC player faction to a PS4 player faction in an election/war . How do you fight a "player faction" if you cant see them as they are on a different platform

How?
Simple - you don't "fight". At least not with your fists.

You learn to play.
As in: you find out what BGS is about, you learn how influence works in BGS.
And then you outplay them.

In the end it is not a pew-pew game, it's a game of numbers.
If you can produce bigger numbers (by having more players or by being more effective) you will beat them.
If you are outnumbered and/or outsmarted - you will lose.
So accept the loss or call for help.

SImple as that.

And yes - Crossplay really works in BGS. If you ask for help, it may even come from a XBox squadron

 

[Midian Cabal]

Just for context and reference, EvE does it by slowing down time when things get busy and is point and click, requiring a lot less communication between clients. WoW, again, point and click. You can get away with a lot more with point and click. Lag is less of an issue and you can use some fancy tricks so its not as apparent.

I guess FD could have hundreds of people in the same instance, just so long as you don't mind shooting at someone, thinking you are hitting them, but them actually not being where you are seeing them.

Could FD improve their netwoking and get more people in an instance? Probably, maybe?

Alright, let's ignore point and click games. The Guinness World Record for most players in a single battle is 1283 and it's held by PlanetSide 2.

I can't find any reliable information how many players can ED handle. During DWE they managed to squeeze 103 players in one instance before it became unstable, but after that the organizers were contacted by FD and were asked not to do it again because it seriously impacted the backed servers and caused problems for all players. Please bear in mind that they only floated there, without any shooting.

NB I'll never ever play another P2P shooter, after experiencing it in ED, Warframe and Destiny.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Alright, let's ignore point and click games. The Guinness World Record for most players in a single battle is 1283 and it's held by PlanetSide 2.

I can't find any reliable information how many players can ED handle. During DWE they managed to squeeze 103 players in one instance before it became unstable, but after that the organizers were contacted by FD and were asked not to do it again because it seriously impacted the backed servers and caused problems for all players. Please bear in mind that they only floated there, without any shooting.

NB I'll never ever play another P2P shooter, after experiencing it in ED, Warframe and Destiny.

Yeah, if talking about shooters, which is in the same ballpark, planetside has it pretty good.

Personally i don't care about P2P or C/S for games. It works well enough for the games i like to play. For PvPers its a different matter of course.

 

[Brrokk]

Yeah, if talking about shooters, which is in the same ballpark, planetside has it pretty good.

Personally i don't care about P2P or C/S for games. It works well enough for the games i like to play. For PvPers its a different matter of course.

I'm a bit of a cheapskate. I'm more likely to pick a game because it has no monthly subscription than because it has good server architecture.

 

[Old Duck]

I'd be pretty suprised if they could get more than 100 in an instance with good performance. All those clients sending constant updates to each other over tiny changes in trajectory, weapons fired, and more, especially with P2P where the amount of information grows exponentially the more clients you add to an instance (every client needs to talk to every other client), i don't think the internet and networking in general is up to handling that sort of traffic yet.

ED has had over 100 people in a system, but there were issues with connectivity, obvious lag, and no combat going on, as well as no NPCs.

I never understood why Frontier forces every player to bring their own NPCs to things like stations and tourist spots. THIS is what kills performance more than anything, and it breaks the game in general when there are 100 NPC Belugas jostling to land. The number of NPCs should go DOWN as more players enter an instance. We are VIPs, and the streets need to be roped off and the rift-raff (NPCs) kept at a distance when a bunch of us enter town. In other words, instancing performance out in the middle of nowhere is significantly better than it is anywhere NPCs gather, especially stations, to the point where I've done CGs in solo because the NPC "clutter" and subsequent framerate drop griefed me more than any player could.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I can't find any reliable information how many players can ED handle. During DWE they managed to squeeze 103 players in one instance before it became unstable, but after that the organizers were contacted by FD and were asked not to do it again because it seriously impacted the backed servers and caused problems for all players. Please bear in mind that they only floated there, without any shooting.

Though that was way back in 2.0 and FD did improve large-instance performance after that.

In 2.2 we had a few 70-person meetups on the Galactic Nebula Expedition, while landed on a planet. It wasn't great performance and people on weaker network connections tended to fall off if people launched chaff, but anything up to 50 seemed pretty solid, and we could probably have gone higher if we'd had more people online. (Whereas in 2.0 there seemed to be a hard cap of about 20 per-instance planetside no matter what we tried) Frontier didn't even mention it as a "by the way, no more than that many" issue, which they presumably would have if it our weekly meetups were still making the servers struggle by then.

(The exception was our meetup at Colonia Hub where we struggled to get more than about 12 into an instance at once. The NPCs seriously add to the amount of network traffic required, especially for the instance 'host'.)