@DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

General discussion about Life is Feudal MMO and Life is Feudal: Your Own, The main section and backbone of the forums.
User avatar
Arebon
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 81
Joined: 04 Dec 2016, 19:50

@DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Arebon » 22 Sep 2017, 20:32

realy bad news, now you come to a point who will be critical for the game, and you will loos more and more players and community! You promissed us a game with open world PvP!
first you start with "IB system", well we can live with it, because you say :"siege will be live". and now you come with "IB-Siege"? are you serious? why sould we play a open world sandbox pvp game, without openworld pvp?! wtf?
Instance here, instance there, where is the sandbox? its not a damn Instance hopping game like WoW!!!

Why the fuck we build a base? why need townclaim? why build a big castle? if the atackers build "Siege tents" wich will count nearly equal or what?

No sense behind bilding a strong base and stuff like this when the end start in a "IB"!

Why should someone build on a mountain or in the wather or where ever, just put a monument and build max of small hut and you get a max of "INSTANCE TIKETS"!

great job, if you hold on this and go strait forword this direction, i know at least 100+ Players they will refound the game and go away, because you breake your promisses!


Chettone
 
Posts: 15
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 02:16

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Chettone » 23 Sep 2017, 22:04

Im pretty sure that DEVs have little to cero knowledge about network coding and they promised things that were out of their league way too early.

A few games TODAY can barely support up to 100 players on a single map with no lag. Even those that support 100+ players (Planetside 2 is the only one), they use advanced techniques that involve limiting what the player sees on their screen in order to not saturate their server performance and many other things that they learnt from their 10+ year experiences with Planetside 1 and other games.

Im betting that the "openworld mmo" devs promised will be another instanced player-capped game. Basically it will be just like LiF:YO (in terms of player limit) and when you reach the map limit to go to another region you will be "transfered" to another server (with player cap too). If that region has too many players you will be forced to wait in queue or asked to go to a different location.

The sooner devs admit their limitations, the faster they will be able to save the game.

User avatar
Azzerhoden
Alpha Tester
 
Posts: 1621
Joined: 08 May 2014, 17:44

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Azzerhoden » 24 Sep 2017, 01:09

Neither of you have a clue about what you are talking about.
| - Alpha Tester and Zealous Believer
Image

Kingdom of Hyperion founding Duchy - A practical RP Community est. 1999 - Apply Today!

User avatar
Knar
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 33
Joined: 20 Sep 2014, 15:38

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Knar » 24 Sep 2017, 04:10

Azzerhoden wrote:Neither of you have a clue about what you are talking about.

Great insight...


Mybrainisanut
True Believer
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 21 Oct 2016, 18:50

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Mybrainisanut » 24 Sep 2017, 08:02

Image
https://corporate.gameforge.com/games/?lang=en

Tourqe Devs and users said it themselfes, the engine can handle 256 players easily, 512 might become and issue due to hardware limitations. In general hardware limits stuff currently more than the software does.
EVE is the game with the most experience in this matter but they also get heavily supported from a lot of companies in order to do so. Even if it's not offical. The last time I checked they only had one server for their whole game, so heavily upgraded and optimized with their slow-mo tech that it works.

Looking at the pic, for each move you do the server receives data, approves said data and sends it back to the important figures. E.g. people fighting. Movement, positioning, animations, items etc. are loaded within the render distance and maybe checked every few ms but for 100 people the server has to check a lot and resend data 100*99-> 9900 times within milliseconds (just for the lulz, 234 ppl fights are freaking 234*233=54522 times). Ofc the shit is gonna lag if the fighting depends on a lot of factors like weight, speed and strength of characters or else. That's however just explained plainly.

Chettone wrote:The sooner devs admit their limitations, the faster they will be able to save the game.


I think they got a clear idea but they also are bound to certain things. Maybe their knowledge as you said, maybe it's the hardware with their server partner, engine limitations or whatever.
I can also imagine that they work hand in hand with garage games because LiF should be the biggest game done with their engine (or at least that I know). And the fun part many of you don't understand, Torque is free to use and a lot of indi devs use it, even well known devs recommend using it.
Still a game should be released at some point and then worked on in the progress to optimize. That's what Digital Extreme did with Warframe, EVE, Blizzard with WoW and so on ...
I mean WoW could hardly support large city raids in the beginning (300ppl+). Maybe sitting around in the city or selling works but not fighting while all the items have to load, too.
A lot of games work with diffrent instances and around max. 20-30 players per map, like PoE. But that's nothing for LiF in the open world setup. So there have to be limits to not interrupt the daily gameplay.

Edit: Does anyone have an idea why we need the combat stance? For not acidentially start to dig a hole with my shield during combat?
Gefangen vom Kreise lichten Scheins,
von unsichtbarer Pflicht nicht zu befrein,
sieht Tage lang das selbe Treiben,
ein Student zu Prüfungszeiten.


Gruber
 
Posts: 168
Joined: 28 Oct 2016, 23:12

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Gruber » 25 Sep 2017, 09:10

Mybrainisanut wrote:Looking at the pic, for each move you do the server receives data, approves said data and sends it back to the important figures. E.g. people fighting. Movement, positioning, animations, items etc. are loaded within the render distance and maybe checked every few ms but for 100 people the server has to check a lot and resend data 100*99-> 9900 times within milliseconds (just for the lulz, 234 ppl fights are freaking 234*233=54522 times). Ofc the shit is gonna lag if the fighting depends on a lot of factors like weight, speed and strength of characters or else. That's however just explained plainly.


Latency is the biggest problem with growing player numbers. Usual server performance is good enough to support 200 or even 500 user. But even with a very good connection of 50ms for every user from europe, what is nit realistic at all, Client1 -> Server(calculating data Client3-250) -> Client2 connection adds up to 100 ms.

Server is calculating data in order it gets data, which cause a greater gab between good and slow connection. This causing problems like the rubberband effect or complitly desynchronized data respond. desynchronized data is not a real problem with 50 players but is getting a real problem with 150+ players. Someone swinging is blade in the air 5 meters away from you, still hitting you.


Bubba
Zealous Believer
 
Posts: 94
Joined: 26 Oct 2015, 14:05

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Bubba » 27 Sep 2017, 13:47

just an FYI, EVE's "One server" consists of 100's of computers linked together. When large battles are anticipated, they "reinforce" the solar system of the battle by dedicating more servers to it.

One server, means one game world; it still requires 100's of individual computers to make the server.

the way people rant and rave with speculation and uneducated conspiracy theories is quite pathetic.

i suggest the trolls google how something works before spewing false knowledge.

To those who are not trolls, ignore the whining of the neckbeards.

Much like Jon Snow, They know nothing.
My Rig:
CPU: Intel i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon 4.0 GHz
Cooling: CORSAIR H100i Water Cooling
Case: Cooler Master HAF XB EVO
MOBO: MSI Z97-Gaming 7
RAM: 24GB G.Skill DDR3 2400MHz
GPU: 2xGigabyte 1080GTX 8GB
Disk 1: Kingston HyperX 240GB SSD (system disk)
Disk 2: 2xWD 2TB HDD RAID 0 (data disk)
Screen: 27" Asus Monitor

User avatar
Hodo
True Believer
 
Posts: 472
Joined: 12 Mar 2014, 21:49

Re: @DEVs Instance hopping or Sandbox, wich is the way you want to go?!

Post by Hodo » 27 Sep 2017, 16:43

Mybrainisanut wrote:
Edit: Does anyone have an idea why we need the combat stance? For not acidentially start to dig a hole with my shield during combat?


Combat stance makes sense. People dont just walk around with a weapon out everywhere they go. It is impractical and not at all realistic.

Return to General Discussion