Modes The Solo vs Open vs Groups Thread - Part the Second [Now With Added Platforms].

[rckstr]

Per player, a traditional Server/Client networking model would require more Server throughput (i.e. cost / capacity / number of servers) than the P2P/Server-Lite model that we have.

Perhaps those other games do not have the amount of data-per-player-per-second throughput that E: D has.

Creating regional servers would absolutely guarantee that there would be players in Open that would not be able to be encountered as they would only ever play on their regional server - even if players in the other regions were playing at the same time, in the same place. Not seeing the benefit of that idea.

From the economic view it is understandable to take the P2P option then.
But whats with the amount of instances created at the same time? Don't they create in sum a larger throughput?

But i don't see what Elite might have as an "extra" amount of data needed to be synced that would lead to an increased throughput compared to other games.

Well the drawback of being unable to interact as an European player with an US player is in my opinion acceptable. Chances are lower to see you anyway since we have different times we play together caused by the timezones. On a serious note i would actually welcome this since you can "make friends" with more people sharing the same gametime. Now you might get "friends" with people you barely see- just because of timezones.

 

[Sgt Doom]

From the economic view it is understandable to take the P2P option then.
But whats with the amount of instances created at the same time? Don't they create in sum a larger throughput?

But i don't see what Elite might have as an "extra" amount of data needed to be synced that would lead to an increased throughput compared to other games.

The flight model, ballistics and collisions in particular comes to mind. As with an FPS game, higher latencies have a more profound impact on user experience than most usual MMOs; and time dilation as a server load coping mechanism is unacceptable or at least extremely unsavoury.

 

[rckstr]

The flight model, ballistics and collisions in particular comes to mind. As with an FPS game, higher latencies have a more profound impact on user experience than most usual MMOs; and time dilation as a server load coping mechanism is unacceptable or at least extremely unsavoury.

But the things you listed need to be synced on other games too. But on those other titles i can exclude regions far away from me. In Elite i might have to deal with a wing that is located far away of my location what leads to higher latency between me and them and also to a possible higher packet loss, etc.

 

[SteveLaw]

So where is the MMO?

There are hundreds of thousands of players (the MM part) all influencing the same shared galaxy (the O part).

 

[Ghostickles]

There are hundreds of thousands of players (the MM part) all influencing the same shared galaxy (the O part).

The sauce, it is very weak.

 

[Cody]

Onion sauce!

 

[rckstr]

Just FYI:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/MuchDifferent-Tanks-Robots-FPS-Guinness,14514.html
I know it is just an attempt and it is a different game, but still a honorable attempt to get 1000 players in the game.



And here out of the official faq on Arma:
This depends on the scenario that is selected. While there are no technical hard-limits, reasonable maximum player counts depend on the server hardware and available bandwidth. Typical scenarios cater from 2 to 64 players.

You see- no technical hard-limits. Only the the scenarios brought with the game cater up to a reasonable amount of 64 players doesn't exclude scenarios with more. The technical requirements exist.

 

[fergal]

Just because Elite supports only 32 players is is not said that this is the end of what is technically possible.

I'm saying it is, so is anyone who understands the technical limitations.
Why do you think it is limited to 32?

Please give me an example of a space shooter (or any FPS that has no walls or terrain to hide behind) with more players on the screen at once.

Maybe 64 is doable, maybe. Whats the maximum that you get in a "normal" fps? 128?

 

[SteveLaw]

He doesn't go there because they are what he said- useless. I go in from time to time just because SSS are indeed a bit challenging from time to time. But from a story perspective they are useless. There are no missions involved around them, nothing.

It all adds to my character's story and history exactly the same way as does trading backwards and forwards for several million credits, fighting in yet another conflict zone or RES with only the faction names that are different, moving coloured blobs around a map, pirating, mining, bounty hunting... All of them are useless from a story perspective, unless you integrate them into your story. Power Play attempts to add story elements but does it so one-dimensionally and with such a lack of cohesiveness to the rest of the universe that it's actually worse than useless, from a story perspective, for many players.

 

[Sgt Doom]

But the things you listed need to be synced on other games too. But on those other titles i can exclude regions far away from me. In Elite i might have to deal with a wing that is located far away of my location what leads to higher latency between me and them and also to a possible higher packet loss, etc.

EVE doesn't have ship collisions, and flight is done by issuing a command to go somewhere or orbit a thing. Ballistics are simulated as a combination of skills, equipment and the size and velocity of the target, at which point it decides whether it's a hit or a miss; which is a lot simpler than having to calculate e.g. multicannon shells as individual physical objects. Despite all that, they have to slow down in-game time considerably for large fights. Most other MMOs are even simpler, or in the case of games like Mechwarrior Online or World of Tanks, have limited instances.

 

[SteveLaw]

This is the way mechanics work just to please all solo players. Because they would feel excluded from the galaxy if they couldn't participate.

You say that like it's bad thing. We paid the same as you to be part of the same galaxy as you so we have every right to be included in it just as much as you.

 

[Spook]

I suspect with a traditional "map" like Arma - once everyone has downloaded the map, the plotting and position is fairly "simple" - x y z.

With Elite, as everything is in motion all the time - There's that pesky 1:1 real time galaxy, the frame of reference is always changing, be it a player, a centre of mass such as a planet/asteroid/star. When instanced with more than one player the base coordinate (Whichever player is master of the instance), is always moving so this adds another layer of complexity.

Then add in telemetry to combat cheating, determine who shlould be instance owner back up, etc etc.

(It made sense to me when typing it honest....)

 

[Seonid]

That is also the main problem, when playing in Open Mode: It just doesn't make sense to risk ship and cargo! When having the opportunity to do the same thing in Solo (or Gorup Play), you always HAVE to choose the safer way.

Complete nonsense, myself and many others have traded in Open since the start. Not everyone is as risk-adverse as you.

 

[SteveLaw]

Again i'll bring you an example. If i am about to cut your tire while you are standing next to me (logged in at the same time in the same instance) you would want to stop me. But if i choose your tire while i am in Solo mode (no matter the timezone or instance) you would have no option to stop me. Only thing you can do now is live with the fact that you have a flat tire that you have to switch with a new one.

I have to say rckstr I have to give you a prize (+1 rep) for the oddest and least logical analogies I've seen so far. I think I liked the cute checkout girl working in an invisible dimension best so far. I can't even understand what you are saying about tyres.

 

[SteveLaw]

The sauce, it is very weak.

Could you use real English please?

 

[rckstr]

I have to say rckstr I have to give you a prize (+1 rep) for the oddest and least logical analogies I've seen so far. I think I liked the cute checkout girl working in an invisible dimension best so far. I can't even understand what you are saying about tyres.

Least logical? Ok, i'll try again
I try to change the condition of something.
You don't want me to do this.
What i want is:
You are able to stop me from doing this action.
What we have:
I can change the condition because i do it in Solo mode. You have no chance to stop me from doing this, though you could if i would've attempted to change the condition in Open mode. No all you can do is deal with the change i made.
Got it now? no?

Please give me an example of a space shooter (or any FPS that has no walls or terrain to hide behind) with more players on the screen at once.

Maybe 64 is doable, maybe. Whats the maximum that you get in a "normal" fps? 128?

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/MuchDifferent-Tanks-Robots-FPS-Guinness,14514.html
I know it is just an attempt and it is a different game, but still a honorable attempt to get 1000 players in the game.



And here out of the official faq on Arma:
This depends on the scenario that is selected. While there are no technical hard-limits, reasonable maximum player counts depend on the server hardware and available bandwidth. Typical scenarios cater from 2 to 64 players.

You see- no technical hard-limits. Only the the scenarios brought with the game cater up to a reasonable amount of 64 players doesn't exclude scenarios with more. The technical requirements exist.

 

[SteveLaw]

You see- no technical hard-limits. Only the the scenarios brought with the game cater up to a reasonable amount of 64 players doesn't exclude scenarios with more. The technical requirements exist.

Up to 64 yes, FROM 2. So anything from 2 to 64 (which includes 32, and 16). By limiting it at the halfway point of that range FD have tried to ensure that they deliver a quality experience for the majority of players. Even so, even with the limits we have you will regularly see players taking about various lag effects ("rubber-banding" etc.). Systems are often given limits below what they can actually achieve in favour of stability. Imagine if FD upped the limit to 64, or 128, or 1024 and then everyone in Open (it wouldn't affect Solo) started to complain about lag and disconnects...

 

[SteveLaw]

Least logical? Ok, i'll try again
I try to change the condition of something.
You don't want me to do this.
What i want is:
You are able to stop me from doing this action.
What we have:
I can change the condition because i do it in Solo mode. You have no chance to stop me from doing this, though you could if i would've attempted to change the condition in Open mode. No all you can do is deal with the change i made.
Got it now? no?

Not from that no. How about I try?

Open and Solo players can both influence the game in exactly the same way. Some Open players want to be able to influence it further through the use of force directly against other players.

 

[rckstr]

Up to 64 yes, FROM 2. So anything from 2 to 64 (which includes 32, and 16). By limiting it at the haflway point of that range FD have tried to ensure that they deliver a quality experience for the majority of players. Even so, even with the limits we have you will regularly see players taking about various lag effects ("rubber-banding" etc.).

You missed the part with no technical hard-limits.
The rubber banding is caused by P2P. Because your peer needs to sync with every other peer. Bandwidth limitations come into play. Does your ISP really provide you with you theoretical maximum Up/Down bandwidth?

- - - Updated - - -

Not from that no. How about I try?

Open and Solo players can both influence the game in exactly the same way. Some Open players want to be able to influence it further through the use of force directly against other players.

You seem to be just too ignorant to accept that a scenario created with PP would benefit from players trying to stop others from unwanted actions.

 

[Roland2]

Least logical? Ok, i'll try again
I try to change the condition of something.
You don't want me to do this.
What i want is:
You are able to stop me from doing this action.
What we have:
I can change the condition because i do it in Solo mode. You have no chance to stop me from doing this, though you could if i would've attempted to change the condition in Open mode. No all you can do is deal with the change i made.
Got it now? no?

This still doesn't make sense, since I can stop you, even in solo mode, by doing the opposing action as implemented in PP. Just like in the voting scenario given before, I can counter your vote by voting for the other faction. Of course, the opposite is true also, I can support your vote by voting for your faction. The fact that neither of us knows how the other voted has no effect on the outcome. Your definition of "chance to stop me" seams to be shot them. Voting isn't designed to work that way, though it has been tried in the past, and neither is Power Play, though it has been tried.