Why doesn't Frontier invest in dedicated servers?

Genar-Hofoen

Genar-Hofoen
TheMegaTurnip said:
Don't even try OP.

Most on here will try to blame either your internet or indeed claim FDev's P2P networking is fine.


You're barking up the wrong tree.

The game needs dedicated servers more than anything else I agree. If they can do it for the mission boards, they can do it for instancing. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Hey Frontier, here's an idea for you...

Fork Elite: Dangerous. This time with dedicated servers and a client-server architecture. Charge a subscription fee to kee those multiple and worldwide servers running. I'm sure the ones like MegaTurnip above will flock to that.

Meanwhile, make a single-player version of Elite. I'd pay you good money - again - for such a thing.
 

Rat Catcher

Rat Catcher
As long as even 2 people (think about it :) ) believe ED is primarily an action space combat game there will be suggestions to improve instancing with a 'proper' server structure, I'd also be completely in favour of a 2 tier system where those who feel the need pay a 'server' subscription and the others continue to play as normal. As the BGS is mode independent we could all be catered for nicely I think.
 

who?

who?
I've always thought a limited number of "super instances" could add a lot to the game, and might not be a massive code undertaking.

I.e. the game remains P2P, as now; but if you jump into certain systems, then the 'peer' you connect to won't be another player's session, but rather an FD hosted session on a high performance server. This would allow a higher per-instance number of players, but make it easier to support more persistent events (e.g. destroyable megaships - don't have to worry about people destroying it in one instance yet others seeing it intact in another).

These "super instances" could be used for big events, such as the Gnosis battle, community goals etc.
 

Rafe Zetter

Banned
Rafe Zetter
sleutelbos said:
I think people misunderstand how central p2p is to how ED works. It isn't as if they can make the decision tomorrow to throw some money at it, flick a switch and suddenly it is all client/server. In the end it is about what kind of game ED is. And that is a game where youu play by yourself or with a small group of friends, and occassionally encounter others. It isn't about massive pvp battles or some such, and making that happen would be a massive investment of time and resources. In the end I feel by far most players would much rather see atmo planets, space legs and more gameplay options rather than FD focusing on massive multiplayer infrastructure changes. Especially if the latter would result in subscriptions, which they promised they'd never do. So 10-15 people max is going to be a practical limit I guess.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken - the gray matter fades after 6 years - didn't FDev say the instances should be able to hold 32 players?

I think the OP's issue is the same recurring one as before - connection issues due to slow or poor connections, which despite the news recently saying that 3.2 billion earthlings now have "access" to the internet, for a great many that access is still pretty bad, sometimes even in developed countries.
 

Han_Zen

Han_Zen
who? said:
I've always thought a limited number of "super instances" could add a lot to the game, and might not be a massive code undertaking.

I.e. the game remains P2P, as now; but if you jump into certain systems, then the 'peer' you connect to won't be another player's session, but rather an FD hosted session on a high performance server. This would allow a higher per-instance number of players, but make it easier to support more persistent events (e.g. destroyable megaships - don't have to worry about people destroying it in one instance yet others seeing it intact in another).

These "super instances" could be used for big events, such as the Gnosis battle, community goals etc.
Click to expand...

I think a hybrid system like that, is the way to go. Could be dynamic with servers created ‘on demand’, in high trafikk regions.
 

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Rafe Zetter said:
Unless I'm mistaken - the gray matter fades after 6 years - didn't FDev say the instances should be able to hold 32 players?
Click to expand...

There is a 'soft' and a 'hard' limit AFAIK, and it depends on where you are. In deep space there is no hard limit, and the soft limit is above 100. Within the bubble the hard limit is (I think) indeed 32, but actually getting to that limit is generally impossible unless you have a dedicated group of 32 people who are pretty close to each other using excellent connections. In practice though (IMHO) 10-15 is what you should reasonably expect without bending over backwards trying to make things work.

Cagman said:
TL,DR: Shared Galaxy between different game modes?

I wonder if MMO in the context of Elite: Dangerous is related to BGS, Powerplay and now the upcomming Codex?
Click to expand...

It is.
 

Old Duck

Old Duck
sleutelbos said:
In practice though (IMHO) 10-15 is what you should reasonably expect without bending over backwards trying to make things work.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, we had 27 CMDRs gathered at the "finish line" of the Enigma Expedition on PS4. Once we got into the mid 20s, framerate started to take a hit and randomly a player might get disconnected from the group, but I was quite surprised how well it held up even then. The only "bending over backwards" we had to do was use wing beacons to get everyone into the same instance.
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
masCh said:
Seriously the Private Group and Solo game modes need to be retired. It brought up numerous issues that tied developer's man hours when they could have been better used to implement floating around your ships, or generating artificial gravity while your crew mate attempts to walk to your FSD module.
Click to expand...

So long as FD offers refunds to all those whose games.get ruined due to bait and switch ;)
 

Sterling MH

Banned
S
Incorrect assumption

"it would significantly overestimate PvP. If it got promoted heavily to Exploration groups ... it would significantly overestimate Solo"

Since there's no difference hen you're the only one within 10,000ly of your system between solo and open, and open is the default choice, meaning solo requires more clicks to no effect, there's nothing in exploring that would require you to expect an explorer-guild promotion of a mode use survey to prefer solo-mode players. most explorers use Open, only swapping to solo when they're back in the bubble. Go to an explorer thread and check.

ANY form of community will self select for those who want to be garrulous and play with others. There is no online discussion that would preferentially select for those who wanted a solo standalone game to play. By definition, they won't be on line to even see such a survey.

Only the game can make a selection. And even then, those who want change are much more liable to make some noise and complain, since if it's all fine, why bother with the trouble of clicking? Only AFTER the status quo changes will they have reason to make themselves heard.

So you'd have to make it mandatory in the game to answer such a poll.
 

Sterling MH

Banned
S
Solo and PG caused issues???

Get rid of open. If it becomes solo only, you don't need balancing, since you will only be playing what you want. You don't need crime and punishment. You don't need to nerf credits per hour. You can include mods, since there's no need for balance, remember. CQC didn't need to be done, squadrons can go, fleet carriers can end, wing missions and the netcode can be chucked. No worries with instancing or board hopping.

etc

If any time is being wasted on a mode of game play, it's open that needs to be culled, not solo. And with PG if it is unbalanced, then it is a private server and everyone agrees to the balance that server has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom