That's what everybody's favourite doctor said, ie it was just a "get as many clients logged in at one time" test, that playability was not what they were looking for at all. He claims they were told not to spawn certain ships because of server load etc and that even with just 60 people lag was so bad that QT was taking a full minute to function after pressing the keybind.
The Doctor has the usual spin with the usual agenda behind it as we all know, the discussions I was having do not report the picture he does, no surprise there really.
Especially on the reported frames and playability considering the main condition was not spawning the big ships (that wasn't disabled), I think it would bode well even if this ends without a player pop increase, assuming that from watching this bugsmashers they have started to implement network culling.
Of course he does. The way I view it is that he and CIG (and CIG's whiteknights) are polar opposites, it's never as good as they claim and never as bad as he claims. Like most situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I thought the Newegg video only compared the performance of current version vs. 2.6.3 with 60 players in instance on both versions.
That's what he stated and what is actually happened.
We would have a quick look at the reported results, with 2.6.3 where an instance full (24 players) = FPS usually drops to 15-25FPS. So by far improved.
Of course he does. The way I view it is that he and CIG (and CIG's whiteknights) are polar opposites, it's never as good as they claim and never as bad as he claims. Like most situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
It's pretty simple: This test was conducted, the results speak by themselves and show clearly the improvement of the servers, it's also becoming likely the player pops of 3.0 will increase with better performance than before as Sean Tracy also stated, now it's about waiting and see as this is ongoing work. The truth was in a lot of places here, just not in DS's blog/twitter feed, there has been a good clarity from ETF members about the state of the 3.0 builds in both the positives and the negatives, so not a fair polarization in my opinion.
Of course he does. The way I view it is that he and CIG (and CIG's whiteknights) are polar opposites, it's never as good as they claim and never as bad as he claims. Like most situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
It's pretty simple: This test was conducted, the results speak by themselves and show clearly the improvement of the servers, it's also becoming likely the player pops of 3.0 will increase with better performance than before as Sean Tracy also stated, now it's about waiting and see as this is ongoing work. The truth was in a lot of places here, just not in DS's blog/twitter feed, there has been a good clarity from ETF members about the state of the 3.0 builds in both the positives and the negatives, so not a fair polarization in my opinion.
Ok Max. That seems like a lot of words when you could have simply said "I agree."
I thought the Newegg video only compared the performance of current version vs. 2.6.3 with 60 players in instance on both versions.
That's what he stated and what is actually happened.
We would have a quick look at the reported results, with 2.6.3 where an instance full (24 players) = FPS usually drops to 15-25FPS. So by far improved.
Of course he does. The way I view it is that he and CIG (and CIG's whiteknights) are polar opposites, it's never as good as they claim and never as bad as he claims. Like most situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
It's pretty simple: This test was conducted, the results speak by themselves and show clearly the improvement of the servers, it's also becoming likely the player pops of 3.0 will increase with better performance than before as Sean Tracy also stated, now it's about waiting and see as this is ongoing work. The truth was in a lot of places here, just not in DS's blog/twitter feed, there has been a good clarity from ETF members about the state of the 3.0 builds in both the positives and the negatives, so not a fair polarization in my opinion.
Can you even get 24 players in one instance with 2.6.3? Most reports I have seen say performance starts declining when more than 8 players are on a server, anything more than 12 and it starts getting awful.
It will be a good start if they can get 60 with nice fluid fps.
Ok Max. That seems like a lot of words when you could have simply said "I agree."
I don't, your polarization isn't reasonable when we've been getting both the positives and negatives from the ETF themselves, something you know very well you posted about it before, comparing those people to the level of DS on your post with your "polar opposites" argument, no "I agree" from my side.
Can you even get 24 players in one instance with 2.6.3? Most reports I have seen say performance starts declining when more than 8 players are on a server, anything more than 12 and it starts getting awful.
It will be a good start if they can get 60 with nice fluid fps.
That's the number the instance supports.
This for an Alpha if they get 3.0 sustaining 30FPS+ then that's great already, until the big pieces of netcode setup, as the server mesh, come online at a later time.
Ok Max. That seems like a lot of words when you could have simply said "I agree."
I don't, your polarization isn't reasonable when we've been getting both the positives and negatives from the ETF themselves, something you know very well you posted about it before, comparing those people to the level of DS on your post with your "polar opposites" argument, no "I agree" from my side.
One guy from the evocati, not the evocati as a collective.
I guess it all depends on what you read, I follow a lot of the chat on the subreddit and there was a good amount of hyperbole about what this meant for the game despite it only being a rumour at that point. You then had DS being the complete opposite (as usual) which is why I said the truth was probably somewhere in the middle. That's a pretty fair assessment based on stuff I had seen but for some reason you just want to argue....
One guy from the evocati, not the evocati as a collective.
I guess it all depends on what you read, I follow a lot of the chat on the subreddit and there was a good amount of hyperbole about what this meant for the game despite it only being a rumour at that point. You then had DS being the complete opposite (as usual) which is why I said the truth was probably somewhere in the middle. That's a pretty fair assessment based on stuff I had seen but for some reason you just want to argue....
But turns out it wasn't a "middle truth" against what was leaked and what DS said, the 60 players tests were real, the performance reported is indeed real, the DS arguments it was unplayable and super crashy and you couldn't spawn most ships, etc (it was "fake" to put in a few words)... were only backed up by himself.
Now there are a ton of perceptions of what that means for the game, the usual wrong one is 60 players being tested = 60 players per instance in 3.0 confirmed, but that's outside the sphere of the info that was shared.
Sure it was the middle truth, you had people implying it was suddenly functioning with a 500% performance increase while playing down the restrictions of the test. You then had that other bloke saying it was far worse than it probably was, hence it being somewhere closer to the middle.
Sure it was the middle truth, you had people implying it was suddenly functioning with a 500% performance increase while playing down the restrictions of the test. You then had that other bloke saying it was far worse than it probably was, hence it being somewhere closer to the middle.
Why are we even having this discussion?
Discouraging from spawning 4 ships would be what sets the middle? The one real restriction there that matters to performance.
From the actual discussion on the chat on this, that was asked because there are some issues with those ships and this new code they have tested that causes the servers to crash. In fact, yesterday there was a P patch that implemented fixes to the big ships though unsure if they are now asking to test with them or not.
Sure it was the middle truth, you had people implying it was suddenly functioning with a 500% performance increase while playing down the restrictions of the test. You then had that other bloke saying it was far worse than it probably was, hence it being somewhere closer to the middle.
Why are we even having this discussion?
What? Discouraged from spawning 4 ships?! That's what sets the middle?
From the actual discussion on the chat on this, that was asked because there are some issues with those ships and this new code they have tested that causes the servers to crash. In fact, yesterday there was a P patch that implemented fixes to the big ships though unsure if they are now asking to test with them or not.
It sets the middle when you have people saying tosh like how this change will mean 1000 person servers are now going to be a reality etc. How do you not understand that?
You know what, I'm done discussing this with you, it's pretty clear you're just being argumentative to provoke a response and that's just not worth my time.
It sets the middle when you have people saying tosh like how this change will mean 1000 person servers are now going to be a reality etc. How do you not understand that?
But that's outside the sphere of the information that was shared. At least that's what I focus on, not on what other people think something means, either that is DS implying it's fake and make-believe or those saying this means 1000 people per instance possible.
If your argument was to balance out both extremes of opinions in a middle-truth, then sure that's logical.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
If your argument was to balance out both extremes of opinions in a middle-truth, then sure that's logical.
That was precisely his argument right from the start, it seemed quite obvious to me.
Would it not have been easier to ask what extremes he was referring to instead of arguing with him and trying to tell him he was wrong etcetera?
I didn't get his argument right at first then, it hit me like it was about the ETF members that leaked the info and not what people were saying or even twisting it to mean.
If your argument was to balance out both extremes of opinions in a middle-truth, then sure that's logical.
That was precisely his argument right from the start, it seemed quite obvious to me.
Would it not have been easier to ask what extremes he was referring to instead of arguing with him and trying to tell him he was wrong etcetera?
I didn't get his argument right at first then, it hit me like it was about the ETF members that leaked the info and not what people were saying or even twisting it to mean.
It is quite an amusing discussion that could be summed up as
Going back to server stuff, I recall in the GC Erin Roberts interview he mentioned the servers in 3.0 are to run at 30FPS.
That is the problem with client FPS drops is that the client might be running at 30+fps, but when the server drops as low as 6-10FPS it will drag everyone else with it. The server FPS is the server ticks in this case, for example, Overwatch at the beginning was 24 ticks, lots of complaints about the rate existed until they increased it.
MMO's get away with lower tick rates because they usually just do a range check and then roll against a table to determine hit and damage, so even up to thousands of ms in desync could still more or less function. Not with SC I think, It needs high precision when it comes to positioning, then mix its FPS aspect in... gg
I'm not sure if SC will get the servers to 60 ticks or are going a different direction, the goal must be to ensure the network has a minimal impact on the framerate the clients.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Sure it was the middle truth, you had people implying it was suddenly functioning with a 500% performance increase while playing down the restrictions of the test. You then had that other bloke saying it was far worse than it probably was, hence it being somewhere closer to the middle.
Why are we even having this discussion?
What? Discouraged from spawning 4 ships?! That's what sets the middle?
From the actual discussion on the chat on this, that was asked because there are some issues with those ships and this new code they have tested that causes the servers to crash. In fact, yesterday there was a P patch that implemented fixes to the big ships though unsure if they are now asking to test with them or not.
It sets the middle when you have people saying tosh like how this change will mean 1000 person servers are now going to be a reality etc. How do you not understand that?
You know what, I'm done discussing this with you, it's pretty clear you're just being argumentative to provoke a response and that's just not worth my time.
I am confused, I don't know enough about the correct terminology or tech stuff, but when people refer to 1000's per server isn't this just like it would be on WoW or something where you have about 10k people per server but limited number of people per local instance, like about 50 people in stomrwind use to bring my server to a slideshow, don't know what the max was but it wasn't huge numbers.
But 2.6.3 with 60 players could run at 3 FPS for all we know. If they've doubled that number they could be running their 60 players at 6 FPS vs. 15-25 FPS of current 2.6.3 build.
Getting higher performance on 60 players is good, but I haven't seen any mention that they'd be already getting more FPS at 60 players than 2.6.3 is getting with 24.
Are we misunderstanding each other somehow?
I think we are.
We need to start with 2.6.3's flippant performance, there's a norm and I would say a 24 player server in the live update norms around 20 FPS, then seems to settle in a 15-20-25FPS.
This test, with 60 players, bounced between 20 FPS to 30 FPS, others do report higher but the most frequently reported is the around 30. So that already outperforms.
Mind that in the 3.0 build before the 60 players, there were the 24 players builds with similar performance to the 2.6.3 build "..the FPS drops down 10-15 FPS when the server is full.". So you can imagine the impact the "o" build had in 3.0's performance.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Of course he does. The way I view it is that he and CIG (and CIG's whiteknights) are polar opposites, it's never as good as they claim and never as bad as he claims. Like most situations, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
We would have a quick look at the reported results, with 2.6.3 where an instance full (24 players) = FPS usually drops to 15-25FPS. So by far improved.
Quantum Linking is a new feature in 3.0, it's the ability for ships to multiple ships to Quantum Jump together.
It's pretty simple: This test was conducted, the results speak by themselves and show clearly the improvement of the servers, it's also becoming likely the player pops of 3.0 will increase with better performance than before as Sean Tracy also stated, now it's about waiting and see as this is ongoing work. The truth was in a lot of places here, just not in DS's blog/twitter feed, there has been a good clarity from ETF members about the state of the 3.0 builds in both the positives and the negatives, so not a fair polarization in my opinion.
Ok Max. That seems like a lot of words when you could have simply said "I agree."
Most reports I have seen say performance starts declining when more than 8 players are on a server, anything more than 12 and it starts getting awful.
It will be a good start if they can get 60 with nice fluid fps.
That's the number the instance supports.
This for an Alpha if they get 3.0 sustaining 30FPS+ then that's great already, until the big pieces of netcode setup, as the server mesh, come online at a later time.
I guess it all depends on what you read, I follow a lot of the chat on the subreddit and there was a good amount of hyperbole about what this meant for the game despite it only being a rumour at that point. You then had DS being the complete opposite (as usual) which is why I said the truth was probably somewhere in the middle. That's a pretty fair assessment based on stuff I had seen but for some reason you just want to argue....
Now there are a ton of perceptions of what that means for the game, the usual wrong one is 60 players being tested = 60 players per instance in 3.0 confirmed, but that's outside the sphere of the info that was shared.
Why are we even having this discussion?
From the actual discussion on the chat on this, that was asked because there are some issues with those ships and this new code they have tested that causes the servers to crash. In fact, yesterday there was a P patch that implemented fixes to the big ships though unsure if they are now asking to test with them or not.
Yea, I agree Kyleran ive got over a grand in it.
MAGA
You know what, I'm done discussing this with you, it's pretty clear you're just being argumentative to provoke a response and that's just not worth my time.
If your argument was to balance out both extremes of opinions in a middle-truth, then sure that's logical.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
That was precisely his argument right from the start, it seemed quite obvious to me.
Would it not have been easier to ask what extremes he was referring to instead of arguing with him and trying to tell him he was wrong etcetera?
What the hell is going on there?
It is quite an amusing discussion that could be summed up as
@rpmcmurphy You could just say you agree.
@MaxBacon No, no, no, no, no
@MaxBacon I don't, I don't, I don't
@MaxBacon You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong
@MaxBacon Oh that's what you mean, yes I agree.
@rpmcmurphy .....
::big grin::
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
That is the problem with client FPS drops is that the client might be running at 30+fps, but when the server drops as low as 6-10FPS it will drag everyone else with it. The server FPS is the server ticks in this case, for example, Overwatch at the beginning was 24 ticks, lots of complaints about the rate existed until they increased it.
MMO's get away with lower tick rates because they usually just do a range check and then roll against a table to determine hit and damage, so even up to thousands of ms in desync could still more or less function. Not with SC I think, It needs high precision when it comes to positioning, then mix its FPS aspect in... gg
I'm not sure if SC will get the servers to 60 ticks or are going a different direction, the goal must be to ensure the network has a minimal impact on the framerate the clients.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Have fun
We need to start with 2.6.3's flippant performance, there's a norm and I would say a 24 player server in the live update norms around 20 FPS, then seems to settle in a 15-20-25FPS.
This test, with 60 players, bounced between 20 FPS to 30 FPS, others do report higher but the most frequently reported is the around 30. So that already outperforms.
Mind that in the 3.0 build before the 60 players, there were the 24 players builds with similar performance to the 2.6.3 build "..the FPS drops down 10-15 FPS when the server is full.". So you can imagine the impact the "o" build had in 3.0's performance.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon