OMG How rude, just because I don't agree LOL, your method just wouldn't scale right ...
Suggestion: System-wide Instances
- Thread starter Bambi
- Start date
OMG How rude, just because I don't agree LOL, your method just wouldn't scale right ...
Chill. It's your thread, so lead by example.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No idea.
It might even have had some FD jiggery-pokery going on to make it a thing - it all depends on the matchmaking server after all - but there are videos on Youtube even 3rd party gaming websites with stories about it.
Ultimately, latency is important, but there are still a lot of players (in allegedly developed nations like the US and the UK) who play on "broadband" connections barely worthy of the name. My father used to get 3mbps on his connection. A busy instance with ten or so players might pull 1mbps depending on what's going on in it. Busier instances will therefore obviously require more bandwidth.
Last edited:
I don't have the technical background to say something constructive in this. The only thing I understand is how the current instancing system works.
I would love to have system wide instances but the only thing that's problematic for me is that it's virtually impossible to actually sync supercruise with normal space. The speed difference doesn't make sense since an object in normal space won't be in visual or otherwise physical interaction distance with an object in supercruise for longer than a split second.
If this is possible though, the game could benefit from it greatly.
Maybe a dynamic instancing system which makes the instances progressively smaller the more people there are in a single system? Is this asking for something too good to be true?
I would love to have system wide instances but the only thing that's problematic for me is that it's virtually impossible to actually sync supercruise with normal space. The speed difference doesn't make sense since an object in normal space won't be in visual or otherwise physical interaction distance with an object in supercruise for longer than a split second.
If this is possible though, the game could benefit from it greatly.
Maybe a dynamic instancing system which makes the instances progressively smaller the more people there are in a single system? Is this asking for something too good to be true?
Last edited:
The problem is packet loss.
It would become too heavy to handle, many home connections are not good enough to handle hundreds of entities synchronized, that's why the local instances are in place, to prevent excessive lag and avoid overloading the server at the same time
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
yeah that's another aspect
Even if they don't change anything like "syncing" normal and cruise, there'd still be benefits such as instantly "connecting" to wakes, signal sources, stations etc. Instead of having to stare into infinity while the server sorts itself out.
I'd also say 32 is more than enough for most systems so you wouldn't need to make instances smaller. That's the entire basis of the proposal, systems just don't fill up to anywhere near their capacity so there's room to widen the net so to speak.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say anything.
First of all you continually ignore the key point of the discussion which is that the player density is so low that wider instances would not result in significantly more players appearing. Then you continually ignore the second key point of the discussion which is that limits are in place to prevent excessive amount of connections in high population systems such as community goals. Then you make up stories about bandwidth and player counts that aren't true. Finally, you bring up technical terms like packet loss with no understanding. Packet loss would adversely affect the experience even with a single other player, and is a separate problem entirely.
Just stop.
I'd also say 32 is more than enough for most systems so you wouldn't need to make instances smaller. That's the entire basis of the proposal, systems just don't fill up to anywhere near their capacity so there's room to widen the net so to speak.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say anything.
First of all you continually ignore the key point of the discussion which is that the player density is so low that wider instances would not result in significantly more players appearing. Then you continually ignore the second key point of the discussion which is that limits are in place to prevent excessive amount of connections in high population systems such as community goals. Then you make up stories about bandwidth and player counts that aren't true. Finally, you bring up technical terms like packet loss with no understanding. Packet loss would adversely affect the experience even with a single other player, and is a separate problem entirely.
Just stop.
Last edited:
I see in other games where you connect directly to your opponent very often gameplay is degraded cause of distance and the other player has a bad connection, maybe not even fully broadband, in ED the limit is 32 players per instance or so, I think they simply limited it based on the average bandwidth nowadays people have at their disposal, also we have to consider npc synchronization, so it's correct to conclude Op's idea would not work at all, it would just flood our bandwidth as well as server that would have to synch everything systemwide including every single npc, technically it would just degrade our experience
Elite Dangerous the way it is now is no different. So what's your point? Oh that's right, you don't have one.
I think you missed a step in your reasoning that went from "it's limited to 32 to prevent lag" to "having more than 5, but less than 32 players would create lag". The servers already track dozens of NPC's per player, so the difference there again, is neglible.
Stop posting.
Last edited:
OMG again you are rude, I don't think I'm doing anything to deserve this treatment, I'm polite to you, I come in peace
, also I know exactly what I'm talking about LOL also low player density is only result of the Galaxy being so big, we probably have the same amount of players as EVE ONLINE or other MMOs but you see players rarely cause we are all spread around, however I see players on daily basis flying around so they are not so a few, density is low cause we are not all playing in the same area.OMG again you are rude, I don't think I'm doing anything to deserve this treatment, I'm polite to you, I come in peace
You are disrupting the discussion with ignorance and pretending to be helpful. That makes me mad. Elite is nothing like EVE, do not compare them.
You also don't seem to understand what density means. Try a dictionary.
You are ruining the thread with your harassment , not me, I'm being polite even if you keep attacking me without a valid reason
I made 5 or 6 polite posts explaining why you were wrong before it came to this. Your continued and willful ignorance is the cause of this.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Knock if off you two.
It's the weekend, go outside or something
It's the weekend, go outside or something
I personally have never seen more than 2, maybe 3 players at the same time in my 360 hours with elite. Really disappointed. Waiting for them to fix the netcode and deploy some proper servers before paying for their shameful DLCs. Could hardly keep a wing of 2 others in same instance back when we used to play.
I saw many more people together than that at some stations, I think it depends on where you are, space is huge and sometimes you don't encounter people in lys but there are places where there are more people, I also played in wings and we've never run into bug, we've always seen eachother wherever we go, I remember it only happened once me and a friend didn't get added to the same instance but it was many months ago.