But there’s already over 100k registered users on the official boards.
Yes it took 7 years to get around 50k
But with the recent video, beta signup and 2008 release date it jumped rapidly over 100k
And I’m sure it will continue to increase as pre launch hype and forms of advertisement attract more, and interest might significantly jump again if more progress is made like open beta starts or release date is announced or Darkfall is launched at ADW.
And you have to factor in DF will apparently be simultaneously available to buy on the shelf’s of 50 European countries if AVE does their job.
And don’t forget the “oh free game to play” open beta factor, that gets a huge amount of people interested in any game no matter what it is.
So if Darkfall is everything its been promised and there are no problems for the 2008 launch then I can easily see them getting at least 50-100k people buying and playing.
Like Eve online at launch and they can then continue to grow from there, like Eve has.
Of course whether or not Darkfall will be everything promised, and everything else will go to plan for the 2008 launch remains to be seen.
An whether or not 50-100k or more subscribers will remain long term subscribers and if they will be able to build on that or not will also remain to be seen.
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve. Fantasy is more popular than sci-fi and many people just cannot identify with a ship as the major representation of their character.
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve. Fantasy is more popular than sci-fi and many people just cannot identify with a ship as the major representation of their character.
Just my opinion of course.
That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out.
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve. Fantasy is more popular than sci-fi and many people just cannot identify with a ship as the major representation of their character.
Just my opinion of course.
That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out.
It must be nice to be able to split up the world into two categories. Darkfall Success Believers and Vapor-Trolls. That's all there is, eh?
If you think EVE is passive, then you haven't participated in a real War yet. If you think people who put forth concerns and possible problems are all haters/Trolls, then you have a very one-track mind.
Just because someone doesn't believe everything Aventurine says until it is actually proven fact doesn't mean they hate DF or don't believe in its release.
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve. Fantasy is more popular than sci-fi and many people just cannot identify with a ship as the major representation of their character.
Just my opinion of course.
That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out.
It must be nice to be able to split up the world into two categories. Darkfall Success Believers and Vapor-Trolls. That's all there is, eh?
You're right. I should have said:
People that don't think so either don't believe the game's coming out or don't believe it'll deliver on its promises in an effective manner.
However, as I will explain at the end of this post, there's a reason I don't say this, because the basic tenet of the meaning of the latter portion of the statement was already a factor in the conversation.
If you think EVE is passive, then you haven't participated in a real War yet. If you think people who put forth concerns and possible problems are all haters/Trolls, then you have a very one-track mind.
You're right, I only spent 6 months playing and was only involved in 20-30 fights, including helping take down a mothership. Go look up the word passive, what are you twitching around shooting through a reticle or are you pressing keys and setting orbits through passive means? I am not bashing EvE, just saying there's no ACTIVE combat.
Again, I did not mean to divide everyone into believers/trolls. I like Polarization, who's hopeful yet pessimistic. I think that there will likely be problems in the initial stage of the game, as there are with every game. However, I still think it'll be wildly popular.
Just because someone doesn't believe everything Aventurine says until it is actually proven fact doesn't mean they hate DF or don't believe in its release.
You're right. However, HERE'S WHAT I QUOTED:
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve.
This basically covers your concerns, and doesn't leave much left to be said other than "it won't deliver!" or "it'll deliver and be popular!"
This basically covers your concerns, and doesn't leave much left to be said other than "it won't deliver!" or "it'll deliver and be popular!"
And I mostly disagree with your generalization of people who do not already celebrate the game as though it has delievered everything it promised. Your words:
"That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out. "
This portion is what I was not so happy about. Because I do believe it will come out, I just don't see it garnering more subscribers than EVE nor do I believe it will deliver everything just because the Dev's say it will. I want proof, and while I -hope- the game succeeds, I will not say it will succeed until it actually releases.
As for EVE...well, I flew an Interceptor for most my career and I had my hands full and always felt very -active- during my fights. So no, you don#t aim and fire yourself, but there's more activity than aiming and firing, now isn't there? Of course though, I am very sure DF will be more "active" if that is your definition of it. But to qualify EVE as passive is simply wrong in my eyes. Dunno, I had a lot to do, including directing my flight-path, choosing my targets, choosing my ECM's, choosing my trajectory, aligning the approach etc etc.
This basically covers your concerns, and doesn't leave much left to be said other than "it won't deliver!" or "it'll deliver and be popular!"
And I mostly disagree with your generalization of people who do not already celebrate the game as though it has delievered everything it promised. Your words:
"That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out. "
This portion is what I was not so happy about. Because I do believe it will come out, I just don't see it garnering more subscribers than EVE nor do I believe it will deliver everything just because the Dev's say it will. I want proof, and while I -hope- the game succeeds, I will not say it will succeed until it actually releases.
Argh I know you weren't happy with it, I already rephrased it JUST FOR YOU! (All for you!)
As for EVE...well, I flew an Interceptor for most my career and I had my hands full and always felt very -active- during my fights. So no, you don#t aim and fire yourself, but there's more activity than aiming and firing, now isn't there? Of course though, I am very sure DF will be more "active" if that is your definition of it. But to qualify EVE as passive is simply wrong in my eyes. Dunno, I had a lot to do, including directing my flight-path, choosing my targets, choosing my ECM's, choosing my trajectory, aligning the approach etc etc.
I will rephrase this one for you: It's not passive fighting, but passive interaction with the client. It makes it less exciting (though 250k people prove that EvE can be exciting at times, I basically left because I'm an adrenaline junky).
Maybe their servers have the ability to take care of 10k people online and doing battle in one spot. However our PCs are quite a ways away from being able to display all this information on our screens. Even if their server clustering technology can handle it, our PCs can't.
So in short, who cares? Its not going to matter to us until several years down th line when our PCs can display this information in a timely manner.
So even IF, what they are claiming is true, there will still be lag, its not going to be their fault though. Its just that your machine or bandwidth can't handle the information needed to display 10k people at once.
- - "What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?" - -
Thx for the link. Seems they settled for 10000. What you have to remember is that the game they is talking about in those 2001 interviews isnt the same game that is in development 2008. Darkfall 2008 have very little to do with the old Razorwax game. The gameworld is totally different, graphic engine is a totally new one. So interviews from Razorwax time isnt accountable as i see it.
Hmm... I'm confused.
When you doubted Polarization's numbers you used a quote from RazorWax circa 2001 to prove him wrong. Yet when he provided a link from that same time period in an interview with a Dev.; then that time-period is no longer valid? Then why did you use it as a counter-point?
Re-reading Polarization's original post... he clearly says:
"...years ago in other interviews it was a max of 50,000 -60,000 and they where planning for 30 to 40k".
His statement was indeed true as was evidenced by the link he provided. He was using an example of: just because something is said once doesn't mean it isn't subject to change. The numbers were once targeted to be 30k+. Now they are targeted to be 10k.
He is using that example to show that he believes (as in his opinion) that 10k number will be further down-graded before the game goes live. Considering the reasoning behind the opinion and what we know of current MMOs... that is not a far-fetched opinion.
On the flip-side...
There is the possibility that Aventurine might advance the server technology to allow lag-free play with the numbers they are currently aiming for. That is also a valid opinion as it is what the developers are saying.
Which one will be closer to reality? We'll have to wait and see what happens.
I linked the only one i found on the issue.
Where did i say it proved him wrong? I said they had 10000 as there aim 2001.
Since both his and my link was from a 2001 interview it's not accountable as i see it.
Darkfall of today is not Darkfall 2001.
So any statement after they started on "new" Darkfall could be relevant to the numbers. Older interviews on a game that doesnt exist today is just jibberish.
So provide some newer numbers of 30-60k playing on same server at same time and we can discuss from there.
And please explain how Polarizations numbers on a game that isnt arround anymore, old Darkfall, can have any relevance to this discussion?
I am sure he can speak for himself however...
What I understood the meaning to be and the relevance of establishing the truth of the higher number is that they (meaning the devs.) have changed their minds on a feature that was (in the past) given as a truth.
Therefore that would allow for one to logically deduce that other such divergences from said features may happen again in the future. Granted that would be someone's opinion based on their perceived relevance of the divergence from what was said then until now.
That was the point that I took away from establishing that the numbers he quoted were indeed stated by a dev. Whether or not that you decide to place relevance on such a divergence from said features in the past doesn't preclude other logical thinking players from doing the same.
Now how such discrepancies coorelate to the present and future development of the game... well that is open to discussion. Establishing a pattern of such divergences means that is necessary to look at past interviews and statements. How far back is it fair to look? Again... something that would be open to debate.
If we say that divergencies past a certain date are out of bounds... then is the same to be said of features that have not been confirmed to be in-game since said date as well? Interested paradox that a person creates for themselves if they arbitrarily decide to pick a date that is relevant; and then declare that is the starting point of the discussion.
Even the most recent Greek newspaper article put the development time at 7+ years (correct me if I am wrong)... that would seem to put in play anything said in 2001.
Thx for the link. Seems they settled for 10000. What you have to remember is that the game they is talking about in those 2001 interviews isnt the same game that is in development 2008. Darkfall 2008 have very little to do with the old Razorwax game. The gameworld is totally different, graphic engine is a totally new one. So interviews from Razorwax time isnt accountable as i see it.
Hmm... I'm confused.
When you doubted Polarization's numbers you used a quote from RazorWax circa 2001 to prove him wrong. Yet when he provided a link from that same time period in an interview with a Dev.; then that time-period is no longer valid? Then why did you use it as a counter-point?
Re-reading Polarization's original post... he clearly says:
"...years ago in other interviews it was a max of 50,000 -60,000 and they where planning for 30 to 40k".
His statement was indeed true as was evidenced by the link he provided. He was using an example of: just because something is said once doesn't mean it isn't subject to change. The numbers were once targeted to be 30k+. Now they are targeted to be 10k.
He is using that example to show that he believes (as in his opinion) that 10k number will be further down-graded before the game goes live. Considering the reasoning behind the opinion and what we know of current MMOs... that is not a far-fetched opinion.
On the flip-side...
There is the possibility that Aventurine might advance the server technology to allow lag-free play with the numbers they are currently aiming for. That is also a valid opinion as it is what the developers are saying.
Which one will be closer to reality? We'll have to wait and see what happens.
I linked the only one i found on the issue.
Where did i say it proved him wrong? I said they had 10000 as there aim 2001.
Since both his and my link was from a 2001 interview it's not accountable as i see it.
Darkfall of today is not Darkfall 2001.
So any statement after they started on "new" Darkfall could be relevant to the numbers. Older interviews on a game that doesnt exist today is just jibberish.
So provide some newer numbers of 30-60k playing on same server at same time and we can discuss from there.
And please explain how Polarizations numbers on a game that isnt arround anymore, old Darkfall, can have any relevance to this discussion?
Even the most recent Greek newspaper article put the development time at 7+ years (correct me if I am wrong)... that would seem to put in play anything said in 2001.
Read up on the game.
There is so many threads here, Darkfall Journals and threads over at Darkfall main site to read on the history of Darkfall and the two companies.
Its easier to discuss if your informed on the game and it's history.
Maybe their servers have the ability to take care of 10k people online and doing battle in one spot. However our PCs are quite a ways away from being able to display all this information on our screens. Even if their server clustering technology can handle it, our PCs can't. So in short, who cares? Its not going to matter to us until several years down th line when our PCs can display this information in a timely manner.
So even IF, what they are claiming is true, there will still be lag, its not going to be their fault though. Its just that your machine or bandwidth can't handle the information needed to display 10k people at once.
They make no claim about 10k people doing battle in one spot. The most they've said is that 200 v 200 battles are possible. They have a system to reduce graphics settings automatically to reduce lag. This has been done successfully with an oblivion mod, and I have to say it works rather well with that game.
Who knows if it will work out, but theoretically what they've claimed can be done.
Maybe their servers have the ability to take care of 10k people online and doing battle in one spot. However our PCs are quite a ways away from being able to display all this information on our screens. Even if their server clustering technology can handle it, our PCs can't. So in short, who cares? Its not going to matter to us until several years down th line when our PCs can display this information in a timely manner.
So even IF, what they are claiming is true, there will still be lag, its not going to be their fault though. Its just that your machine or bandwidth can't handle the information needed to display 10k people at once.
They make no claim about 10k people doing battle in one spot. The most they've said is that 200 v 200 battles are possible. They have a system to reduce graphics settings automatically to reduce lag. This has been done successfully with an oblivion mod, and I have to say it works rather well with that game.
Who knows if it will work out, but theoretically what they've claimed can be done.
A lot of people just don't think it's possible for whatever un-founded reason. In UO I regularly participated in 200+ vs 200+ battles on dial up on the server tech and a computer from mid to late 90's. We did have some lag here and there but it was never a slideshow. We also had people defending towns from NPC raids and there were so many people in one spot fighting off the advancing mob armies I couldn't count how many were out there. People act like this has never been done and can't be done by todays tech. It's sad that something that was done with 90's tech is believed to be impossible with late 2000 tech.
If UO could do it with the servers they had and the comp I had using Dial-Up oO then I have no reason not to believe Aventurine can do it for DarkFall just based on the tech they seem to have available.
People that repeatedly say this can't be done need to look at the fact that it has already been done with inferior tech lol.
I do admit that this only happend in UO's prime. When trammel came about and AoS hit the massive battles became a lot less massive.
Even the most recent Greek newspaper article put the development time at 7+ years (correct me if I am wrong)... that would seem to put in play anything said in 2001.
Read up on the game.
There is so many threads here, Darkfall Journals and threads over at Darkfall main site to read on the history of Darkfall and the two companies.
Its easier to discuss if your informed on the game and it's history.
Hmm... I thought it would take a bit longer to degrade into the "read up on the game" or "fanboi" argument. If you're done with the discussion that's fine. However, the "read up on the game" statement is kinda silly and has as much weight with me as the "fanboi" statement. In this case even more so... since I have read all those links you posted in the past.
Also, how does that counter what I asked about the most recent Greek newspaper article? If using the 7 year development cycle is so clearly wrong... then why didn't someone from Aventurine make that an abundantly clear statement in that article rather than letting them go with the 7 year date?
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you.
I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect?
Even the most recent Greek newspaper article put the development time at 7+ years (correct me if I am wrong)... that would seem to put in play anything said in 2001.
Read up on the game.
There is so many threads here, Darkfall Journals and threads over at Darkfall main site to read on the history of Darkfall and the two companies.
Its easier to discuss if your informed on the game and it's history.
Hmm... I thought it would take a bit longer to degrade into the "read up on the game" or "fanboi" argument. If you're done with the discussion that's fine. However, the "read up on the game" statement is kinda silly and has as much weight with me as the "fanboi" statement. In this case even more so... since I have read all those links you posted in the past.
Also, how does that counter what I asked about the most recent Greek newspaper article? If using the 7 year development cycle is so clearly wrong... then why didn't someone from Aventurine make that an abundantly clear statement in that article rather than letting them go with the 7 year date?
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you.
I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect?
Game started it's development in Norway 2001, thats right.
Then they restarted the game middle/late 2003.
Interviews from 2001 on Darkfall have very little to do with the game we see today.
So i wouldnt take whats in those old interviews as accurate information.
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you. I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect? It's not incorrect to use that date, though it is misleading to think that there's any DF code from '01. If you don't agree that the latest info is more relevant... well I don't know what to tell you, man, that's held as true in arguments in both scientific and non-scientific fields of thought.
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you. I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect? It's not incorrect to use that date, though it is misleading to think that there's any DF code from '01. If you don't agree that the latest info is more relevant... well I don't know what to tell you, man, that's held as true in arguments in both scientific and non-scientific fields of thought.
The only point that is being made here, and which is constantly ignored, is that the Developers changed their plans. That was what the original quote was all about.
And they did, didn't they? You yourself say that the DF of today has little to do with the DF of 2001. So they made adjustments (for whatever reasons). And, as Polarization pointed out, they reduced the number of players on a server from what they had originally planned.
I believe that was the point that people tried to make.
The only point that is being made here, and which is constantly ignored, is that the Developers changed their plans. That was what the original quote was all about.
And they did, didn't they? You yourself say that the DF of today has little to do with the DF of 2001. So they made adjustments (for whatever reasons). And, as Polarization pointed out, they reduced the number of players on a server from what they had originally planned.
I believe that was the point that people tried to make.
Ah, yes, you're right. There are conflcting quotes from that period of time, hopeful projections of "servers should allow 30k" as well as a 10k, perhaps 20-30k limit as a "what we're aiming for."
The person quoted was talking about relevance. I do think it's relevant that they once said 30k and now said 10k - to me that's a company scaling down from great expectations to good expectations based on what they've actually been able to accomplish - just as they've decided to allow for universal banks and "pocket" mounts rather than a more realistic approach (what they had hoped for.)
There are many aspects of this company that cause me to believe them more than I've believed other devs. Remember godager saying mobs in AoC had good A.I. and were different than mobs in other games? Totally not true... and you had to go by his discussion to think that that'd be the case... but he'd not discussed it in a more in-depth way, he'd not described it to a T as well as discussing the A.I. programmer's qualifications, he'd not gone through paragraph after paragraph of discussing just how mobs actually acted. My BS detector just doesn't go off as much when I read the dev interviews with Tasos.
But maybe Tasos is just better at BS - either way I've kinda gone off topic, sorry.
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you. I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect? It's not incorrect to use that date, though it is misleading to think that there's any DF code from '01. If you don't agree that the latest info is more relevant... well I don't know what to tell you, man, that's held as true in arguments in both scientific and non-scientific fields of thought.
I completely agree with you. I'm not arguing that current information is not more relevant... I would sure hope that it is! As has been pointed out again and again... the only relevance to using past statements and interviews is to show that there has been a change/migration from something that started as one thing and is now something else.
Since we all know that is indeed true... not sure why it is a big deal for some to admit that indeed things have changed from one thing to something else. When a person then sees that yes... there have been changes (which would be really silly for there not to be). Then why is it such a leap of logic to say that there might be in some people's opinion further changes before the game launches?
That is basically where this all began.
It was mentioned that it was the opinion of a forum poster that they thought a feature of the game currently stated at one number might be changed to a different number before release. As logic for coming to that conclusion they gave as evidence a similar change at a time in Darkfall's past development cycle.
That statement was then challenged. Then evidence was given for said statement proving that developers had indeed used those numbers. Then an ensuing discussion began about the relevance of using statements at the very beggining of Darkfall's dev. cycle.
The actual numbers or any code from any time period prior to what is now present was never the point at all. The point was to establish a precedence for the possibily of a change occuring. I've always thought it was pretty much a given that all MMOs change features as they get closer to release. If through testing it's determined something doesn't work... why wouldn't players want them to change it?
Anyway... it boils down to whether it's allowable to have an opinion differing from what the Devs have stated. Obviously there will be varying degrees of where each person falls on that spectrum. Some 100% in-line with everything as stated... some 100% opposite of what has been stated... the vast majority somewhere in-between.
The truly funny part is when some state (as in the title of the thread) that the discussion is over before the game has been released. I'm willing to give the devs. the benefit of the doubt if they say they can do something. That doesn't mean it's not healthy to still have discussion about it though. If so... these would be some very boring forums indeed.
I mean sure, it is possible everything they have said it true, and some how they have developed revolutionary groundbreaking technologies or new innovative ways of circumventing numerous technical problems that plague all online games but I just find that very hard to believe.
It's not that revolutionary. People have been using grid- & cluster-based approaches for decades now. To have applied it to an MMO is a novel application of this, yes, but it's not really revolutionary. the method they have developed for migrating server tasks and for managing real-time shared state may be, however.
most other MMOs just haven't tried to go for large persistant worlds, it's cheaper and considerably easier just to run with the 1-server-X-player model.
considering how long the game has been in development i don't see why some people are having trouble with this... the amusing thing is some of these people have criticised Darkfall for having taken so long.
you can argue all you want but until we get decent connections, better servers and even better programming we wont see lag free games. good luck to Darkfall and i can see maybe up to 100 at once (damn big fight) could be lag free (with those graphics and sparse landscape)
even today's MMOs only consume around 5 KB/sec. it's latency ("ping") that matters a lot more than bandwidth.
graphics complexity does not increase demands on the network; the only thing that makes any difference is the number of game objects -- players/NPCs/projectiles.
all the graphics and artwork already live on the client, and is never transferred over the network during a live game session. that's what pre-game patching is for.
Mobs are not player avatars. They don't require the same level of resources from server, client or network. You do realize the requirements for UO were trivial compared to todays MMOs don't you?
this is all very wrong.
mobs take more resources than players, because of the CPU demand for AI.
secondly, UO has quite complex server code because of all the world mechanics that game supported. UO would have had considerably more "world & gameplay" code than WOW does now for instance. the difference between UO and today's MMOs is: graphics and artwork (this i the biggie), and scripted content like quests, instances and raid bosses.
you can argue all you want but until we get decent connections, better servers and even better programming we wont see lag free games. good luck to Darkfall and i can see maybe up to 100 at once (damn big fight) could be lag free (with those graphics and sparse landscape)
even today's MMOs only consume around 5 KB/sec. it's latency ("ping") that matters a lot more than bandwidth.
graphics complexity does not increase demands on the network; the only thing that makes any difference is the number of game objects -- players/NPCs/projectiles.
all the graphics and artwork already live on the client, and is never transferred over the network during a live game session. that's what pre-game patching is for.
The more information a server needs to communicate to a client to have it display the proper graphics the greater the bandwidth required. That's why MMOs with fully customizable avatars are rare. That's a leading cause of load lag. You know the dead before you load syndrome?
you just restated what i said -- the more non-static game objects, the more bandwidth required. as you correctly said, it's easier and better for a game to predefine XX different faces and allow a choice between them rather than complex allow facial morphing because the first case only requires a "load face XX" message, the latter requires a "create face using variables X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H".
a player model with 10K polygons requires the same server bandwidth as a player model with 10million polygons -- just a few 3d points and vectors. the complexity is all in the rendering on the client.
It's not that revolutionary. People have been using grid- & cluster-based approaches for decades now. To have applied it to an MMO is a novel application of this, yes, but it's not really revolutionary. the method they have developed for migrating server tasks and for managing real-time shared state may be, however.
MMOs have been doing it for over a decade. It's nothing new but the limits of what it can do are very real. I won't say they can't do what they say because I don't know how far they're trying to push it.
No MMO that i know of has done dynamic load balancing and redistribution and clustering. feel free to prove me wrong though any. Eve is clustered but doesn't do dynamic redistribution.
Andromedus1 if you read my reply’s to Aragon properly you will see I’m not talking about any of that or disputing it. May I suggest you read xzyax’s post number 20 who does not appear to have any difficulty understanding exactly what I actually said.
It doesn't matter how many circa 2001 quotes are pulled up, I don't care about any of them. That isn't even technically the same company, and the project today is completely different. Do you understand?? The only numbers worth using are those of the CURRENT PROJECT. Those number, which are clearly supported by TODAY'S DEV TEAM are posted on the Darkfall website, the link to which I provided in the OP. If you can find me a link from today's Dev team, since this project has existed (not as Razorwax), in which the Devs state "we will be able to support XXX (insert number above 10,000) players," then your arguement will have merit. I don't care about your back-and-forth with one another or which of you is more dense than the other.
Comments
But there’s already over 100k registered users on the official boards.
Yes it took 7 years to get around 50k
But with the recent video, beta signup and 2008 release date it jumped rapidly over 100k
And I’m sure it will continue to increase as pre launch hype and forms of advertisement attract more, and interest might significantly jump again if more progress is made like open beta starts or release date is announced or Darkfall is launched at ADW.
And you have to factor in DF will apparently be simultaneously available to buy on the shelf’s of 50 European countries if AVE does their job.
And don’t forget the “oh free game to play” open beta factor, that gets a huge amount of people interested in any game no matter what it is.
So if Darkfall is everything its been promised and there are no problems for the 2008 launch then I can easily see them getting at least 50-100k people buying and playing.
Like Eve online at launch and they can then continue to grow from there, like Eve has.
Of course whether or not Darkfall will be everything promised, and everything else will go to plan for the 2008 launch remains to be seen.
An whether or not 50-100k or more subscribers will remain long term subscribers and if they will be able to build on that or not will also remain to be seen.
You don't need to respond to tenspotting talking about subscription numbers, it's basically like throwing feces back at a monkey.
Oct 4th (not 4'th you failure monkey) - already in hardware beta
LOLZ
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve. Fantasy is more popular than sci-fi and many people just cannot identify with a ship as the major representation of their character.
Just my opinion of course.
That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out.
That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out.
It must be nice to be able to split up the world into two categories. Darkfall Success Believers and Vapor-Trolls. That's all there is, eh?
If you think EVE is passive, then you haven't participated in a real War yet. If you think people who put forth concerns and possible problems are all haters/Trolls, then you have a very one-track mind.
Just because someone doesn't believe everything Aventurine says until it is actually proven fact doesn't mean they hate DF or don't believe in its release.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out.
It must be nice to be able to split up the world into two categories. Darkfall Success Believers and Vapor-Trolls. That's all there is, eh?
You're right. I should have said:
People that don't think so either don't believe the game's coming out or don't believe it'll deliver on its promises in an effective manner.
However, as I will explain at the end of this post, there's a reason I don't say this, because the basic tenet of the meaning of the latter portion of the statement was already a factor in the conversation.
If you think EVE is passive, then you haven't participated in a real War yet. If you think people who put forth concerns and possible problems are all haters/Trolls, then you have a very one-track mind.
You're right, I only spent 6 months playing and was only involved in 20-30 fights, including helping take down a mothership. Go look up the word passive, what are you twitching around shooting through a reticle or are you pressing keys and setting orbits through passive means? I am not bashing EvE, just saying there's no ACTIVE combat.
Again, I did not mean to divide everyone into believers/trolls. I like Polarization, who's hopeful yet pessimistic. I think that there will likely be problems in the initial stage of the game, as there are with every game. However, I still think it'll be wildly popular.
Just because someone doesn't believe everything Aventurine says until it is actually proven fact doesn't mean they hate DF or don't believe in its release.
You're right. However, HERE'S WHAT I QUOTED:
If Adventurine delivers on what they promised and they don't make any major mistakes I can see Darkfall having a larger subscriber base than Eve.
This basically covers your concerns, and doesn't leave much left to be said other than "it won't deliver!" or "it'll deliver and be popular!"
And I mostly disagree with your generalization of people who do not already celebrate the game as though it has delievered everything it promised. Your words:
"That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out. "
This portion is what I was not so happy about. Because I do believe it will come out, I just don't see it garnering more subscribers than EVE nor do I believe it will deliver everything just because the Dev's say it will. I want proof, and while I -hope- the game succeeds, I will not say it will succeed until it actually releases.
As for EVE...well, I flew an Interceptor for most my career and I had my hands full and always felt very -active- during my fights. So no, you don#t aim and fire yourself, but there's more activity than aiming and firing, now isn't there? Of course though, I am very sure DF will be more "active" if that is your definition of it. But to qualify EVE as passive is simply wrong in my eyes. Dunno, I had a lot to do, including directing my flight-path, choosing my targets, choosing my ECM's, choosing my trajectory, aligning the approach etc etc.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
And I mostly disagree with your generalization of people who do not already celebrate the game as though it has delievered everything it promised. Your words:
"That and eve's much more passive. It's hard to get much excited about it. An active game like this, sortofan Oblivion Online, will most likely surprise everyone with its popularity. People that don't think so just don't believe the game's coming out. "
This portion is what I was not so happy about. Because I do believe it will come out, I just don't see it garnering more subscribers than EVE nor do I believe it will deliver everything just because the Dev's say it will. I want proof, and while I -hope- the game succeeds, I will not say it will succeed until it actually releases.
Argh I know you weren't happy with it, I already rephrased it JUST FOR YOU! (All for you!)
As for EVE...well, I flew an Interceptor for most my career and I had my hands full and always felt very -active- during my fights. So no, you don#t aim and fire yourself, but there's more activity than aiming and firing, now isn't there? Of course though, I am very sure DF will be more "active" if that is your definition of it. But to qualify EVE as passive is simply wrong in my eyes. Dunno, I had a lot to do, including directing my flight-path, choosing my targets, choosing my ECM's, choosing my trajectory, aligning the approach etc etc.
I will rephrase this one for you: It's not passive fighting, but passive interaction with the client. It makes it less exciting (though 250k people prove that EvE can be exciting at times, I basically left because I'm an adrenaline junky).
Maybe their servers have the ability to take care of 10k people online and doing battle in one spot. However our PCs are quite a ways away from being able to display all this information on our screens. Even if their server clustering technology can handle it, our PCs can't.
So in short, who cares? Its not going to matter to us until several years down th line when our PCs can display this information in a timely manner.
So even IF, what they are claiming is true, there will still be lag, its not going to be their fault though. Its just that your machine or bandwidth can't handle the information needed to display 10k people at once.
- - "What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?" - -
Hmm... I'm confused.
When you doubted Polarization's numbers you used a quote from RazorWax circa 2001 to prove him wrong. Yet when he provided a link from that same time period in an interview with a Dev.; then that time-period is no longer valid? Then why did you use it as a counter-point?
Re-reading Polarization's original post... he clearly says:
"...years ago in other interviews it was a max of 50,000 -60,000 and they where planning for 30 to 40k".
His statement was indeed true as was evidenced by the link he provided. He was using an example of: just because something is said once doesn't mean it isn't subject to change. The numbers were once targeted to be 30k+. Now they are targeted to be 10k.
He is using that example to show that he believes (as in his opinion) that 10k number will be further down-graded before the game goes live. Considering the reasoning behind the opinion and what we know of current MMOs... that is not a far-fetched opinion.
On the flip-side...
There is the possibility that Aventurine might advance the server technology to allow lag-free play with the numbers they are currently aiming for. That is also a valid opinion as it is what the developers are saying.
Which one will be closer to reality? We'll have to wait and see what happens.
I linked the only one i found on the issue.
Where did i say it proved him wrong? I said they had 10000 as there aim 2001.
Since both his and my link was from a 2001 interview it's not accountable as i see it.
Darkfall of today is not Darkfall 2001.
So any statement after they started on "new" Darkfall could be relevant to the numbers. Older interviews on a game that doesnt exist today is just jibberish.
So provide some newer numbers of 30-60k playing on same server at same time and we can discuss from there.
And please explain how Polarizations numbers on a game that isnt arround anymore, old Darkfall, can have any relevance to this discussion?
I am sure he can speak for himself however...
What I understood the meaning to be and the relevance of establishing the truth of the higher number is that they (meaning the devs.) have changed their minds on a feature that was (in the past) given as a truth.
Therefore that would allow for one to logically deduce that other such divergences from said features may happen again in the future. Granted that would be someone's opinion based on their perceived relevance of the divergence from what was said then until now.
That was the point that I took away from establishing that the numbers he quoted were indeed stated by a dev. Whether or not that you decide to place relevance on such a divergence from said features in the past doesn't preclude other logical thinking players from doing the same.
Now how such discrepancies coorelate to the present and future development of the game... well that is open to discussion. Establishing a pattern of such divergences means that is necessary to look at past interviews and statements. How far back is it fair to look? Again... something that would be open to debate.
If we say that divergencies past a certain date are out of bounds... then is the same to be said of features that have not been confirmed to be in-game since said date as well? Interested paradox that a person creates for themselves if they arbitrarily decide to pick a date that is relevant; and then declare that is the starting point of the discussion.
Even the most recent Greek newspaper article put the development time at 7+ years (correct me if I am wrong)... that would seem to put in play anything said in 2001.
Hmm... I'm confused.
When you doubted Polarization's numbers you used a quote from RazorWax circa 2001 to prove him wrong. Yet when he provided a link from that same time period in an interview with a Dev.; then that time-period is no longer valid? Then why did you use it as a counter-point?
Re-reading Polarization's original post... he clearly says:
"...years ago in other interviews it was a max of 50,000 -60,000 and they where planning for 30 to 40k".
His statement was indeed true as was evidenced by the link he provided. He was using an example of: just because something is said once doesn't mean it isn't subject to change. The numbers were once targeted to be 30k+. Now they are targeted to be 10k.
He is using that example to show that he believes (as in his opinion) that 10k number will be further down-graded before the game goes live. Considering the reasoning behind the opinion and what we know of current MMOs... that is not a far-fetched opinion.
On the flip-side...
There is the possibility that Aventurine might advance the server technology to allow lag-free play with the numbers they are currently aiming for. That is also a valid opinion as it is what the developers are saying.
Which one will be closer to reality? We'll have to wait and see what happens.
I linked the only one i found on the issue.
Where did i say it proved him wrong? I said they had 10000 as there aim 2001.
Since both his and my link was from a 2001 interview it's not accountable as i see it.
Darkfall of today is not Darkfall 2001.
So any statement after they started on "new" Darkfall could be relevant to the numbers. Older interviews on a game that doesnt exist today is just jibberish.
So provide some newer numbers of 30-60k playing on same server at same time and we can discuss from there.
And please explain how Polarizations numbers on a game that isnt arround anymore, old Darkfall, can have any relevance to this discussion?
Even the most recent Greek newspaper article put the development time at 7+ years (correct me if I am wrong)... that would seem to put in play anything said in 2001.
Read up on the game.
There is so many threads here, Darkfall Journals and threads over at Darkfall main site to read on the history of Darkfall and the two companies.
Its easier to discuss if your informed on the game and it's history.
A couple of useful links -
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/editorials/3222-Surly-s-Column-State-of-the-Game-Darkfall-
Razorwax-and-Aventurin
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devjournals/darkfalljournals/3331-Darkfall-Developer-Journal-1-About-Adventurine
Darkfall world map created by Razorwax 2001 to late 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20020407054828/darkfallonline.com/features/world/dfmap1_1.jpg
Darkfall map as we know it today
www.bkbhq.com/index.php?pageid=dfmap
They make no claim about 10k people doing battle in one spot. The most they've said is that 200 v 200 battles are possible. They have a system to reduce graphics settings automatically to reduce lag. This has been done successfully with an oblivion mod, and I have to say it works rather well with that game.
Who knows if it will work out, but theoretically what they've claimed can be done.
They make no claim about 10k people doing battle in one spot. The most they've said is that 200 v 200 battles are possible. They have a system to reduce graphics settings automatically to reduce lag. This has been done successfully with an oblivion mod, and I have to say it works rather well with that game.
Who knows if it will work out, but theoretically what they've claimed can be done.
A lot of people just don't think it's possible for whatever un-founded reason. In UO I regularly participated in 200+ vs 200+ battles on dial up on the server tech and a computer from mid to late 90's. We did have some lag here and there but it was never a slideshow. We also had people defending towns from NPC raids and there were so many people in one spot fighting off the advancing mob armies I couldn't count how many were out there. People act like this has never been done and can't be done by todays tech. It's sad that something that was done with 90's tech is believed to be impossible with late 2000 tech.
If UO could do it with the servers they had and the comp I had using Dial-Up oO then I have no reason not to believe Aventurine can do it for DarkFall just based on the tech they seem to have available.
People that repeatedly say this can't be done need to look at the fact that it has already been done with inferior tech lol.
I do admit that this only happend in UO's prime. When trammel came about and AoS hit the massive battles became a lot less massive.
Read up on the game.
There is so many threads here, Darkfall Journals and threads over at Darkfall main site to read on the history of Darkfall and the two companies.
Its easier to discuss if your informed on the game and it's history.
A couple of useful links -
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/editorials/3222-Surly-s-Column-State-of-the-Game-Darkfall-
Razorwax-and-Aventurin
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devjournals/darkfalljournals/3331-Darkfall-Developer-Journal-1-About-Adventurine
Darkfall world map created by Razorwax 2001 to late 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20020407054828/darkfallonline.com/features/world/dfmap1_1.jpg
Darkfall map as we know it today
www.bkbhq.com/index.php?pageid=dfmap
Hmm... I thought it would take a bit longer to degrade into the "read up on the game" or "fanboi" argument. If you're done with the discussion that's fine. However, the "read up on the game" statement is kinda silly and has as much weight with me as the "fanboi" statement. In this case even more so... since I have read all those links you posted in the past.
Also, how does that counter what I asked about the most recent Greek newspaper article? If using the 7 year development cycle is so clearly wrong... then why didn't someone from Aventurine make that an abundantly clear statement in that article rather than letting them go with the 7 year date?
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you.
I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect?
Read up on the game.
There is so many threads here, Darkfall Journals and threads over at Darkfall main site to read on the history of Darkfall and the two companies.
Its easier to discuss if your informed on the game and it's history.
A couple of useful links -
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/editorials/3222-Surly-s-Column-State-of-the-Game-Darkfall-
Razorwax-and-Aventurin
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devjournals/darkfalljournals/3331-Darkfall-Developer-Journal-1-About-Adventurine
Darkfall world map created by Razorwax 2001 to late 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20020407054828/darkfallonline.com/features/world/dfmap1_1.jpg
Darkfall map as we know it today
www.bkbhq.com/index.php?pageid=dfmap
Hmm... I thought it would take a bit longer to degrade into the "read up on the game" or "fanboi" argument. If you're done with the discussion that's fine. However, the "read up on the game" statement is kinda silly and has as much weight with me as the "fanboi" statement. In this case even more so... since I have read all those links you posted in the past.
Also, how does that counter what I asked about the most recent Greek newspaper article? If using the 7 year development cycle is so clearly wrong... then why didn't someone from Aventurine make that an abundantly clear statement in that article rather than letting them go with the 7 year date?
As was mentioned (yet ignored)... each person will have to decide the relevance of the history of the development cycle. Each of us will have an opinion on what relavance the entire time-line has on the ultimate final product. It would seem for yourself you've decided that the only relevant information is what is most currrently available. That is your choice. Obviously not everyone is going to areee with you.
I guess I thought it was safe to use the entire development period of Darkfall... since even the most recent interviews and articles written have used that date. Is that incorrect?
Game started it's development in Norway 2001, thats right.
Then they restarted the game middle/late 2003.
Interviews from 2001 on Darkfall have very little to do with the game we see today.
So i wouldnt take whats in those old interviews as accurate information.
Have a nice one
The only point that is being made here, and which is constantly ignored, is that the Developers changed their plans. That was what the original quote was all about.
And they did, didn't they? You yourself say that the DF of today has little to do with the DF of 2001. So they made adjustments (for whatever reasons). And, as Polarization pointed out, they reduced the number of players on a server from what they had originally planned.
I believe that was the point that people tried to make.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
The only point that is being made here, and which is constantly ignored, is that the Developers changed their plans. That was what the original quote was all about.
And they did, didn't they? You yourself say that the DF of today has little to do with the DF of 2001. So they made adjustments (for whatever reasons). And, as Polarization pointed out, they reduced the number of players on a server from what they had originally planned.
I believe that was the point that people tried to make.
Ah, yes, you're right. There are conflcting quotes from that period of time, hopeful projections of "servers should allow 30k" as well as a 10k, perhaps 20-30k limit as a "what we're aiming for."
The person quoted was talking about relevance. I do think it's relevant that they once said 30k and now said 10k - to me that's a company scaling down from great expectations to good expectations based on what they've actually been able to accomplish - just as they've decided to allow for universal banks and "pocket" mounts rather than a more realistic approach (what they had hoped for.)
There are many aspects of this company that cause me to believe them more than I've believed other devs. Remember godager saying mobs in AoC had good A.I. and were different than mobs in other games? Totally not true... and you had to go by his discussion to think that that'd be the case... but he'd not discussed it in a more in-depth way, he'd not described it to a T as well as discussing the A.I. programmer's qualifications, he'd not gone through paragraph after paragraph of discussing just how mobs actually acted. My BS detector just doesn't go off as much when I read the dev interviews with Tasos.
But maybe Tasos is just better at BS - either way I've kinda gone off topic, sorry.
I completely agree with you. I'm not arguing that current information is not more relevant... I would sure hope that it is! As has been pointed out again and again... the only relevance to using past statements and interviews is to show that there has been a change/migration from something that started as one thing and is now something else.
Since we all know that is indeed true... not sure why it is a big deal for some to admit that indeed things have changed from one thing to something else. When a person then sees that yes... there have been changes (which would be really silly for there not to be). Then why is it such a leap of logic to say that there might be in some people's opinion further changes before the game launches?
That is basically where this all began.
It was mentioned that it was the opinion of a forum poster that they thought a feature of the game currently stated at one number might be changed to a different number before release. As logic for coming to that conclusion they gave as evidence a similar change at a time in Darkfall's past development cycle.
That statement was then challenged. Then evidence was given for said statement proving that developers had indeed used those numbers. Then an ensuing discussion began about the relevance of using statements at the very beggining of Darkfall's dev. cycle.
The actual numbers or any code from any time period prior to what is now present was never the point at all. The point was to establish a precedence for the possibily of a change occuring. I've always thought it was pretty much a given that all MMOs change features as they get closer to release. If through testing it's determined something doesn't work... why wouldn't players want them to change it?
Anyway... it boils down to whether it's allowable to have an opinion differing from what the Devs have stated. Obviously there will be varying degrees of where each person falls on that spectrum. Some 100% in-line with everything as stated... some 100% opposite of what has been stated... the vast majority somewhere in-between.
The truly funny part is when some state (as in the title of the thread) that the discussion is over before the game has been released. I'm willing to give the devs. the benefit of the doubt if they say they can do something. That doesn't mean it's not healthy to still have discussion about it though. If so... these would be some very boring forums indeed.
It's not that revolutionary. People have been using grid- & cluster-based approaches for decades now. To have applied it to an MMO is a novel application of this, yes, but it's not really revolutionary. the method they have developed for migrating server tasks and for managing real-time shared state may be, however.
most other MMOs just haven't tried to go for large persistant worlds, it's cheaper and considerably easier just to run with the 1-server-X-player model.
considering how long the game has been in development i don't see why some people are having trouble with this... the amusing thing is some of these people have criticised Darkfall for having taken so long.
even today's MMOs only consume around 5 KB/sec. it's latency ("ping") that matters a lot more than bandwidth.
graphics complexity does not increase demands on the network; the only thing that makes any difference is the number of game objects -- players/NPCs/projectiles.
all the graphics and artwork already live on the client, and is never transferred over the network during a live game session. that's what pre-game patching is for.
this is all very wrong.
mobs take more resources than players, because of the CPU demand for AI.
secondly, UO has quite complex server code because of all the world mechanics that game supported. UO would have had considerably more "world & gameplay" code than WOW does now for instance. the difference between UO and today's MMOs is: graphics and artwork (this i the biggie), and scripted content like quests, instances and raid bosses.
even today's MMOs only consume around 5 KB/sec. it's latency ("ping") that matters a lot more than bandwidth.
graphics complexity does not increase demands on the network; the only thing that makes any difference is the number of game objects -- players/NPCs/projectiles.
all the graphics and artwork already live on the client, and is never transferred over the network during a live game session. that's what pre-game patching is for.
The more information a server needs to communicate to a client to have it display the proper graphics the greater the bandwidth required. That's why MMOs with fully customizable avatars are rare. That's a leading cause of load lag. You know the dead before you load syndrome?
you just restated what i said -- the more non-static game objects, the more bandwidth required. as you correctly said, it's easier and better for a game to predefine XX different faces and allow a choice between them rather than complex allow facial morphing because the first case only requires a "load face XX" message, the latter requires a "create face using variables X,Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H".
a player model with 10K polygons requires the same server bandwidth as a player model with 10million polygons -- just a few 3d points and vectors. the complexity is all in the rendering on the client.
MMOs have been doing it for over a decade. It's nothing new but the limits of what it can do are very real. I won't say they can't do what they say because I don't know how far they're trying to push it.
No MMO that i know of has done dynamic load balancing and redistribution and clustering. feel free to prove me wrong though any. Eve is clustered but doesn't do dynamic redistribution.
It doesn't matter how many circa 2001 quotes are pulled up, I don't care about any of them. That isn't even technically the same company, and the project today is completely different. Do you understand?? The only numbers worth using are those of the CURRENT PROJECT. Those number, which are clearly supported by TODAY'S DEV TEAM are posted on the Darkfall website, the link to which I provided in the OP. If you can find me a link from today's Dev team, since this project has existed (not as Razorwax), in which the Devs state "we will be able to support XXX (insert number above 10,000) players," then your arguement will have merit. I don't care about your back-and-forth with one another or which of you is more dense than the other.