George_Black wrote: » Sharding is lame. How will they deal with it? By not rushing to release.
superhero6785 wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Sharding is lame. How will they deal with it? By not rushing to release. Sharding is lame. But rushing to release has nothing to do with it. The hardest part of development is planning for edge cases. In this case, with a server pop of 10k, you THEORETICALLY need to have a way to handle 10,000 players piling into one city, which I highly doubt they plan to support no matter how long they take. If we know there's no sharding, then Day 1 Asmongold says "Ok boys! We're all going to Node X!" and then they crash the server. As much as I want them to support 10k players, they will probably have to support sharding to some degree. My suggestion? If they target 500 v 500 sieges as "playable", then allow double that before it shards the population. Allow the lag to keep increasing until 1,999 players, then split them into 1k/1k, rinse, repeat. So that just means they have to be able to support 2k players in a single zone before the server crashes and dies. A much more doable feat than 10k.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Let's say the server can handle that... can your computer and internet connection handle a battle where you have 1000 players fighting in your field of view?
Depraved wrote: » ive done 500 vs 500 in l2 at barakiel. its not that bad honestly. ofc l2 has a lower gpu requiremnt but this was also over 10 years ago with a not soo good pc xD
NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » ive done 500 vs 500 in l2 at barakiel. its not that bad honestly. ofc l2 has a lower gpu requiremnt but this was also over 10 years ago with a not soo good pc xD It was also made on UE3 and was barely even optimized to run those kinds of fights. Yes, there was definitely lag, but considering smth like WoW that allegedly broke servers when too many people were in one place ("too many" meaning a few hundred afaik) - L2 was a god damn miracle of dev engineering back then. And iirc Steven (or someone else) said that UE5 is much better for mmo-sized fights than the previous versions. And I think I heard smth about them make good progress on their netcode too? Not sure about that one though. Oh, and UE5 is just optimized much better overall. In other words, there's a high chance that we'll see low amounts of lag during big gatherings.
George_Black wrote: » Your suggestions have been showcased in development streams years ago. Have faith. Also, some people should rearch a tiny bit before posting. The following isnt relevant to just this thead, but... Doesnt it make more sense to read from the official sources, watching official videos, rather than creating 20 topics a day, suggesting changes, questioning the viability of designs without even understanding the direction of the game?
worddog wrote: » People talk about lag in really old MMOs back before we had tech like sharding and say it wasn't that bad. Those games are not even close to the same scale as Ashes of Creation. You get 10 guilds together in one node and the game is going to break. Why would they all be in one node? You don't need a reason, if it's possible it will happen, gamer's will always do things randomly for fun.
NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » People talk about lag in really old MMOs back before we had tech like sharding and say it wasn't that bad. Those games are not even close to the same scale as Ashes of Creation. You get 10 guilds together in one node and the game is going to break. Why would they all be in one node? You don't need a reason, if it's possible it will happen, gamer's will always do things randomly for fun. This vid has been posted in some other thread too, but still. This is probably 2-3 hundred people (maybe a bit more). All in one location (pretty much instanced) in a game from 2003.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgBQ1Vvx5HI Here's another 300+ (144 on just one side) people now in not an instanced locationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLrccSBRG_w Netcode, optimization, player hardware - all have become much better since those days. And Intrepid are pushing them even further (allegedly). You need shards on poorly optimized games that weren't built for this shit. BDO should've been a great representation of that, but their engine is a bit fucky afaik, though even then, I'm fairly sure their sieges happen on just one server so they still do it.
worddog wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Sharding is lame. How will they deal with it? By not rushing to release. Sharding breaks immersion for sure. But from a technical level it's actually really awesome. Sure I'd love a game that doesn't need sharding, but there is a reason it exists. Servers can't handle 2000+ people in the same location, they just can't. People talk about lag in really old MMOs back before we had tech like sharding and say it wasn't that bad. Those games are not even close to the same scale as Ashes of Creation. You get 10 guilds together in one node and the game is going to break. Why would they all be in one node? You don't need a reason, if it's possible it will happen, gamer's will always do things randomly for fun. Now if the server crash around a node how will that affect it's economy? Will lag during trades cause duplication exploits? Will lag cause world pvp exploitds? A lot of people have voiced their hatred for exploits at me on this forum, but this is an example of why the average player isn't great at preventing exploits. Massive scale server lag is a great way to find new exploits. And the ability to force server lag through player actions is a massive mess just waiting to happen. I just want this game to have a smooth launch, and not be like new world and have game breaking issues that taint the majority of players view of it. I'm coming from a place of love here people
Depraved wrote: » worddog wrote: » George_Black wrote: » Sharding is lame. How will they deal with it? By not rushing to release. Sharding breaks immersion for sure. But from a technical level it's actually really awesome. Sure I'd love a game that doesn't need sharding, but there is a reason it exists. Servers can't handle 2000+ people in the same location, they just can't. People talk about lag in really old MMOs back before we had tech like sharding and say it wasn't that bad. Those games are not even close to the same scale as Ashes of Creation. You get 10 guilds together in one node and the game is going to break. Why would they all be in one node? You don't need a reason, if it's possible it will happen, gamer's will always do things randomly for fun. Now if the server crash around a node how will that affect it's economy? Will lag during trades cause duplication exploits? Will lag cause world pvp exploitds? A lot of people have voiced their hatred for exploits at me on this forum, but this is an example of why the average player isn't great at preventing exploits. Massive scale server lag is a great way to find new exploits. And the ability to force server lag through player actions is a massive mess just waiting to happen. I just want this game to have a smooth launch, and not be like new world and have game breaking issues that taint the majority of players view of it. I'm coming from a place of love here people sharding has existed for decades, and as far as mmorpg go, it has been in use in ultima online, probably before that as well. i played l2 in retail and private servers. the 500 vs 500 i was talking about happened in a private server called rpg club. there were 15,000 players on day 1 in that server and there were hundreds of players everywhere you looked since everybody had to go through the same leveling process. the version was gracia final. the 500 vs 500 happened basically every day, people trying to kill this one boss... the server never exploded. ppl with bad pc suffered a little bit tho --- duping due lag can be solved by good atomicity and node updates. probs easier said than done
worddog wrote: » Why are you giving examples of 300+ players? We all understand that at the minimum ashes expects to have at least 500 in the same location? And they hope for 1000 from what I hear.
NiKr wrote: » worddog wrote: » Why are you giving examples of 300+ players? We all understand that at the minimum ashes expects to have at least 500 in the same location? And they hope for 1000 from what I hear. I was giving an example of what was possible to have in one location nearly 20 years ago and said that tech has gone a long way since then. Here's 1300 bodies animating a fight in one place (1:08:00)https://youtu.be/HB7gWTpeB08?t=4083 And Intrepid is still working on bettering this. Again, tech has come a long way and good devs can push it even further. And afaik there's some potential server (netcode?) trickery that lets Intrepid to have seamless splits of a location onto several processing servers, so that the overall load is shared across them. But I'm not well-versed in that and don't remember where I heard that from, so take that with a huge bag of salt.
