Suggestion: System-wide Instances

Bambi

Bambi
After thinking about it for a bit. I think this would make a lot of sense. In regular play I have never seen more than 4-5 other players in a given instance. Supposedly the engine can handle up to 32 connections per instance. With the current player density this would only make better use of that capability. It would allow for supercruise to have smooth transitions at all times, and only hide matchmaking delays behind the witchspace jump, which is longer and more infrequent. And it would allow for NPC's to be more persistent, instead of supercruising into a system that is completely empty for 20-30 seconds while the server re-populates it.

It would also in theory allow for signal sources to be more persistent as well, possibly even revealing signal sources containing other players that are not part of your wing. Although in practice I don't know if this would be easily implemented.
 

Marc_Hicks

Marc_Hicks
Bambi said:
After thinking about it for a bit. I think this would make a lot of sense. In regular play I have never seen more than 4-5 other players in a given instance. Supposedly the engine can handle up to 32 connections per instance. With the current player density this would only make better use of that capability. It would allow for supercruise to have smooth transitions at all times, and only hide matchmaking delays behind the witchspace jump, which is longer and more infrequent. And it would allow for NPC's to be more persistent, instead of supercruising into a system that is completely empty for 20-30 seconds while the server re-populates it.

It would also in theory allow for signal sources to be more persistent as well, possibly even revealing signal sources containing other players that are not part of your wing. Although in practice I don't know if this would be easily implemented.
Click to expand...

In the CG down at Arque, I saw well over a dozen commanders at the same time.
 

Sardu

S
I'm for it. Anything to get more CMDRs in the same space as myself. This could also lead to system chat which I've been actively supporting for months.
 

Privata

Privata
Bambi said:
Oh? I was under the impression 32 was the max. All the more reason to do it then.
Click to expand...
32 is the soft cap.

However , system wide might not work as well.
Think of Navbeacons , USSs , RESs , CZs and stuff going on planets , and of course starports... that would be a lot of NPCs being synced.

It would be amazing , but given that we can have issues with all the sync that would be needed
 

Bambi

Bambi
In theory NPC's still wouldn't have to exist in those places until a player goes there, while the supercruise "overworld" would stay persistent. That wouldn't be many more NPC's than are already in play I don't think.
 
Last edited:

Mark Lock

M
System-wide is a bad idea, it would force clients to connect to people far away from you, maybe on another planet or another station, it would be a waste to do that simply cause you wouldn't see them anyways cause they are too far away from you, limiting instances to local space means you free bandwidth and system-wide there are more people in the same system just you only see players in your local space , there can be 1000 people in one system or more but you only see a limited number of them but there are , just the local space you are at is limited to 32 or so, that's fine, you hardly see 32 people at one location, only in supercruise, the rest are either at a station or at some corner of the system, maybe on planet surface, result is your bandwidth will not be saturated by tons of concurrent connections but just connections from people at your current location, as I see it, it's very well optimized to provide the best possible experience
 

Bambi

Bambi
That's the current excuse yes, but it doesn't actually work that way because constantly matching and rematching significantly slows the game down and leads to more real world connection problems such as not reliably being able to follow a player. You should try reading the OP where I talk about exactly this.
 
Last edited:

OriginalBadBoy

O
I can see both sides of the argument on this one. The system wide makes more sense to me. Whether it makes more sense from a technical point of view is a different matter.
 

Mark Lock

M
Bambi said:
That's the current excuse yes, but it doesn't actually work that way because constantly matching and rematching significantly slows the game down and leads to more real world connection problems such as not reliably being able to follow a player. You should try reading the OP where I talk about exactly this.
Click to expand...

Not an excuse at all, it's just the best way to optimize a game in such a huge gameworld, it's not a few square kms map we are talking about, the only one option was to have server connect people to eachother only when close enough, instancing was the only one option considering the size of everything and the number of people playing. No other online game is this big.
 

Bambi

Bambi
The map size at no point comes into play, the question is a matter of how many connections can the system support. Currently it can easily support many more than what is needed. So it is an excuse, and a poorly thought out one at that.
 
Last edited:

Mark Lock

M
Bambi said:
The map size at no point comes into play, the question is a matter of how many connections can the system support. Currently it can easily support many more than what is needed. So it is an excuse, and a poorly thought out one at that.
Click to expand...

The system handles more connections but your connection doesn't, the game is completely Peer2peer, if you had to stay connected to 1000 people all the time you would get your bandwidth flooded, that would degrade your experience to unplayability
 

Bambi

Bambi
Considering 32 is the soft cap, 1000 connections will never happen. Now go troll somewhere else instead of disrupting legit discussion.
 
Last edited:

Mark Lock

M
Bambi said:
Considering 32 is the soft cap, 1000 connections will never happen. Now go troll somewhere else instead of disrupting legit discussion.
Click to expand...

1000 is a number I said to explain to you why peer2peer with local instances was used ... I'm not trolling, I'm explaining you facts
 

Mark Lock

M
Many people don't understand why they made it work like this and criticize FD for that, turning it from local to system would be the worst thing they could do, better keep things locally instanced so that game doesn't require Mbps of bandwidth , I don't care about being notified about a pilot farting on a planet on the other end of the system LOL

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Bambi said:
Fact: 1000 players will never be in the same instance. Your example is stupid.
Click to expand...

1000 is an example , I exagerated it to help u understand my point
 

Bambi

Bambi
Even 100 players would not require a single megabit of bandwidth. Games are not that bandwidth heavy. The overhead is in the lag of sending and receiving a lot of data.

I understand why they made it work like this better than you do. Don't parrot propaganda and slogans you don't understand. This applies to all areas of life by the way. And there wouldn't be much of a difference making it system wide because you'd maybe see 10 or 15 players instead of 4 or 5. If an instance approaches the player limit such as in the case of community goals and whatnot, then just make more instances. Not hard.

Why do you post? Just stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom