worddog wrote: » Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » So far the only response I've gotten is: "Ashes of Creation is a very high tech game that will be able to provide an experience that currently is not possible in other MMOs" Seeing as no one has provided any evidence to support that statement, I've explained that I don't believe that to be an acceptable answer. I'm curious. Since Intrepid have said they will not have sharding, and since they have said they are working on tech to make sure they can have enough players in one are while maintaining stability of servers, exactly what is it you WOULD consider to be an acceptable answer? Keep in mind, Ashes are developing the game with Amazon levels of compute in mind, something no one has yet done - not even Amazon. Everyone else has had to limit the compute needed to run the game to what their server hardware can handle - Ashes can scale up if needed and can basically assume to have as much computing power as they need. They've talked about being able to support 500 v 500 battles. Which I think is a reasonable claim, it's ambitious but not unreasonable. It can also be scaled down, if they can't handle 500 v 500 they can make them smaller. What I'm referring to is the possibility of thousands of players gathering in the open world. That is not something you can just hand wave as "something we're working on." And you cannot scale that down unless you lower server populations, which I don't think they want to do. Sharding ruins immersion, so it's totally fine to complain about it and not want it to be present in Ashes. But if you don't want sharding, you need to provide an alternative.
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » So far the only response I've gotten is: "Ashes of Creation is a very high tech game that will be able to provide an experience that currently is not possible in other MMOs" Seeing as no one has provided any evidence to support that statement, I've explained that I don't believe that to be an acceptable answer. I'm curious. Since Intrepid have said they will not have sharding, and since they have said they are working on tech to make sure they can have enough players in one are while maintaining stability of servers, exactly what is it you WOULD consider to be an acceptable answer? Keep in mind, Ashes are developing the game with Amazon levels of compute in mind, something no one has yet done - not even Amazon. Everyone else has had to limit the compute needed to run the game to what their server hardware can handle - Ashes can scale up if needed and can basically assume to have as much computing power as they need.
worddog wrote: » So far the only response I've gotten is: "Ashes of Creation is a very high tech game that will be able to provide an experience that currently is not possible in other MMOs" Seeing as no one has provided any evidence to support that statement, I've explained that I don't believe that to be an acceptable answer.
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » So far the only response I've gotten is: "Ashes of Creation is a very high tech game that will be able to provide an experience that currently is not possible in other MMOs" Seeing as no one has provided any evidence to support that statement, I've explained that I don't believe that to be an acceptable answer. I'm curious. Since Intrepid have said they will not have sharding, and since they have said they are working on tech to make sure they can have enough players in one are while maintaining stability of servers, exactly what is it you WOULD consider to be an acceptable answer? Keep in mind, Ashes are developing the game with Amazon levels of compute in mind, something no one has yet done - not even Amazon. Everyone else has had to limit the compute needed to run the game to what their server hardware can handle - Ashes can scale up if needed and can basically assume to have as much computing power as they need. They've talked about being able to support 500 v 500 battles. Which I think is a reasonable claim, it's ambitious but not unreasonable. It can also be scaled down, if they can't handle 500 v 500 they can make them smaller. What I'm referring to is the possibility of thousands of players gathering in the open world. That is not something you can just hand wave as "something we're working on." And you cannot scale that down unless you lower server populations, which I don't think they want to do. Sharding ruins immersion, so it's totally fine to complain about it and not want it to be present in Ashes. But if you don't want sharding, you need to provide an alternative. Literally the only practical reason for players to be that localized is if they are trying to test the server hardware. In that case, both lag and crashes are acceptable. If thousands of players are working together and pushing to see if they can lag or crash a server, lagging or crashing the server should be one potential result. However, keep in mind what I said earlier in this thread. You are assuming server resources are being allocated to in game zones, which is the way 90%+ of online games do it, but is not the only way to do it (again, Rift was the pioneer in allocating resources to players rather than zones, meaning they could literally have an entire server in one city). Intrepid haven't gone in to specific details about their back end, nor should they. We know compute isnt an issue due to using Amazon, we know they intend to support as many people being in one spot as will likely be in one spot. We do not need more details than this.
worddog wrote: » Surely guilds wouldn't purposefully start lagging out areas for malicious intent. That's never occurred before...
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Surely guilds wouldn't purposefully start lagging out areas for malicious intent. That's never occurred before... There is literally no other reason for that number of people to ever be in the same location.
worddog wrote: » Reason doesn't matter. The ability for players to break the game shouldn't be possible in the first place. That's like saying if you jump 15 times next to a specific tree and your character gets deleted, it's not a big issue because it's such an unlikely event. Can we just get games that don't break please?
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Reason doesn't matter. The ability for players to break the game shouldn't be possible in the first place. That's like saying if you jump 15 times next to a specific tree and your character gets deleted, it's not a big issue because it's such an unlikely event. Can we just get games that don't break please? There isn't an online game that I couldn't break if that is what I wanted to do. It's not like it's hard - if you are actually trying to do it. No product is able to protect against everything. They protect against the most likely things to happen, and the things they know about with the worst consequences. If a game has a bug where a character will be deleted if they jump next to a specific tree 15 times, then the developer will likely not want to spend the time (and thus money) on fixing this, and instead will simply copy/paste any characters lost to this from server backups. When it comes to what you are talking about, why would Intrepid spend millions on making it so an entire server of 10k people can be in one place, when instead they could spent 10% of that to ensure that 10% of that population can be in one place at the same time, knowing full well that there is never likely to be any more than that in one location. It would be financially irresponsible of Intrepid to put resources in to anything more than is needed in this regard.
