If someone is knowledgable of the subject could you explain in a deep noob-friendly way why its so difficult to make a game with Black Deserts graphics and EQNexts voxel destruction? I'd really appreciate it, please and thank you.
Originally posted by monochrome19 If someone is knowledgable of the subject could you explain in a deep noob-friendly way why its so difficult to make a game with Black Deserts graphics and EQNexts voxel destruction? I'd really appreciate it, please and thank you.
The amount of overhead for client-server communication when it comes to voxel-data streaming is much higher than traditional non-voxel MMOs.
Tradional non-voxel MMO (vastly simplified)
An MMO client sends player movement, chat, player actions(combat, casting, trading etc..) to the server.
The server sends back updates from NPCs and other players in the vicinity to the client, the more NPCs, other players and the more actions are done by all, the more data the server has to send back to each client participating in the vicinity.
Since the world is static - no updates are exchanged from client to server, regarding terrain/world changes.
Now consider a voxel based MMO, where the world is destructible as well as *construcible( made up word) by other players
Each client sends all the normal MMO data to the server, in addtion to all the voxel data (world changes done by the client)
The server gets updates from all the clients and then sends back all the normal-MMO actions to players in the vicinity (movement, chat, combat etc...) AND all the voxel data that each player has done to the world.
As you can see voxel data is additional data that needs to be processed by the server and is exchanged by each client/server - It doesn't seem like much but the voxel data effect can be exponential when you have many players in the same area making voxel changes.
The finer the changes are (in EQL there is no set Voxel size like in Minecraft, so the data overhead is HUGE, when it comes to lots of tiny voxel changes).
For example Minecraft multiplayer client-server connections are often 10X bandwidth than Wow/Rift/insert typial non-voxel MMORPG
I am very curious to see how EQL will handle so many detailed voxel changes done by multiple players in one area. Realtime updates are going to be a MAJOR engineering problem imo - can't wait to see how they are planning to do it.
So if you can get this ridiculously large amount of data to transfer between the client and server easily and quickly its possible? Assuming this is the problem, what could be done to increase the data transfer speed? A stronger game engine? More efficient code? An insanely powerful internet speed... worlds-most-powerful-broadband-infrastructure?
While I don't know too much about the tech side of things, it seems they have a system that won't tax our PCs or bandwidth too much, at least not a lot more than other mmos out. Between meshes, procedurally generated content, and the way voxels are rendered, it shouldn't be too much for a okay PC to handle, regardless if a bunch of people are tossing voxels all over the place (to a point obviously). Voxels do have a limit in how small they can be (shown couple live streams ago), but how large doesn't seem to be set if at all. These two articles touch upon some of how they are handling the data.
While I don't know too much about the tech side of things, it seems they have a system that won't tax our PCs or bandwidth too much, at least not a lot more than other mmos out. Between meshes, procedurally generated content, and the way voxels are rendered, it shouldn't be too much for a okay PC to handle, regardless if a bunch of people are tossing voxels all over the place (to a point obviously). Voxels do have a limit in how small they can be (shown couple live streams ago), but how large doesn't seem to be set if at all. These two articles touch upon some of how they are handling the data.
I am not seeing any info on client/server communications there and how they are going to handle it.
They talk about a lot how your client will render meshes instead of voxels - that's all done on the client, again they gloss over the fact that each time a client smooths out a rock or takes a tiny voxel chunk out of the world - that data has to be send to the server and the server has to notify other players in the area of those changes in real time.
Example - I smooth out a rock - my client sends the voxel change to the server (it's 1Kb of data for ease of math purposes)
There are 30 players in the area that can see my plot - the server has to send my smoothed out rock data back to each one of those 30 clients (1Kb x30 = 30Kb leaving the server) so that all of them can see the change I just made.
Now imagine each one of those 30 players digging, smoothing, building - the overhead on the server is HUGE to keep all players updated.
I'd love to see average bandwidth usage for EQL client, I see no info on that anywhere.
I'd love to see a video with 30 players on screen running around destroying/building etc... what's the scalability? Note that they haven't shown *a single video* with many players on screen... none.
Why?
Because it's a pretty big technical hurdle.
21:20 - Starts talking about data, voxels, and how they are handling rendering.
26:45 - Shows the debugging tool and what is actually going on. What we would see in game looks impressive, but what is actually happening isn't as exciting as our view.
Games have scaling on the clients end for what you are speaking of (I think). Player experiences will differ based on their data connection and PC power. Someone on the low end might not get to see all the pretty voxels flying around, but they aren't necessary to play. Just as players turn off shadows, lower detail, decrease view distance, decrease particle effects, etc in other games. Nothing different in EQN.
Forgelight is a good engine and Planetside 2 handles a lot of data (although it can be CPU intensive). Scaling seems to work fairly well in it as well. With EQN having Voxels, it might actually be smoother in general game play without the focus on high/realistic graphics.
At SOE LIve, their demo of a few players had a lot of Voxels on screen. This seems easy to scale up or down depending on the client. Maybe players can turn down/off what other players are doing or decrease the refresh rate when they are building. Or maybe they have managed to design a game around two engines that actually works better then we expect.
Alpha begins in 2.5 months or so and many of us will see then. Highly doubt they would give a deadline if it wasn't capable. Charging $99 for a alpha slideshow would be a huge mistake.
I dont know if this is the latest and greatest, but if the server is the bottleneck, would this be powerful enough to handle all the voxel data for a game like EQN? Of course you would need a lot of them.
The engine is a modified version of the one used in Planetside 2 and it's pretty good tbh. Considering battles in PS2 can contain upto 2000 players, on massive seamless indoor/outdoor terrain with high detail dynamic lighting and a proper physics engine (where debris can actually hurt you) etc. With a decent spec you can still hit 60-80fps on high detail with bullets and explosions going off all over the place. The EQ:Next usage of the engine is different though, the terrain is different and the maps look a lot more enclosed and scaled down. Where as in PS2 the maps are more lifelike in scale with large expanses, to allow for fast vehicles and massive battles.
The cry engine has been used in a few MMOs and it's nothing special. The map sizes are not as big as a proper MMO focused engine and it's just not optimized for the kind of chaos you find in open world MMOs.
Just so you know, EQ:Next is going to be fully seamless, all of it from high in the sky to deep under the Earth.
Dont know if most of you heard of this or not but recently I found a Cryengine mmo called Allegra that will have a lot of the features EQN has and it doesnt require the voxel tech to do, like destructible environments. And at the same time it has better physics and graphics because of the Cryengine. Also its being made by indie devs
I also really disagree with the sentiment that EQN looks bad. To me it looks like one of the more beautiful MMO's to come out in years. That lion character was over the top, I agree, but everything else has been wonderful to my eyes
Not sure if I already posted this in another version of this same discussion, but here goes anyway:
EQN uses procedural graphics and voxels. You don't get lifelike graphics with procedural art in today's world. Maybe in a few years we will start getting closer, but it's not there yet. Go look at all the other procedural mainstream games out there. They clearly made the choice to make the character models match the environment. Putting super-realistic looking models over procedural art would look stupid as hell.
In addition, most people's crappy computers will grind to a halt with CryEngine before you even get to a large outdoor space. Convince everyone to go out and buy a real gaming rig, and maybe we will get better graphics in our MMORPG's.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
Dont know if most of you heard of this or not but recently I found a Cryengine mmo called Allegra that will have a lot of the features EQN has and it doesnt require the voxel tech to do, like destructible environments. And at the same time it has better physics and graphics because of the Cryengine. Also its being made by indie devs
better graphics? no
more realistic art style? yes
this game already looks aged even before its finished like Mortal Online, which uses Cry Engine too.
Of course for an Indie Developer its harder to deliver good graphics so i don't mind. But it shows exactly the downside of that realistic art style
Dont know if most of you heard of this or not but recently I found a Cryengine mmo called Allegra that will have a lot of the features EQN has and it doesnt require the voxel tech to do, like destructible environments. And at the same time it has better physics and graphics because of the Cryengine. Also its being made by indie devs
Duno bout graphics or any of that.. but I love the background music.
Not sure if I already posted this in another version of this same discussion, but here goes anyway:
EQN uses procedural graphics and voxels. You don't get lifelike graphics with procedural art in today's world. Maybe in a few years we will start getting closer, but it's not there yet. Go look at all the other procedural mainstream games out there. They clearly made the choice to make the character models match the environment. Putting super-realistic looking models over procedural art would look stupid as hell.
In addition, most people's crappy computers will grind to a halt with CryEngine before you even get to a large outdoor space. Convince everyone to go out and buy a real gaming rig, and maybe we will get better graphics in our MMORPG's.
Seems like a fair point, I was wondering why they wouldn't make the characters look a little better, and maybe they will, but probably like you said. I have noticed this in a lot of cryengine mmos, the character models look like crap because they are no where near the detail of the surroundings (probably due to lag problems and such if they did). It has kind of bothered me, but I never put both together in relation to EQN.
I hope they make them a little better in EQN, but I can live with it, if the game is good.
It is not a matter of graphics as long as they are not VERY cheap cartoon graphics.Point is they don't have to be state of the art HQ 1080 p they just need to be done with some effort ,unlike the single color palettes used by a lot of games.
Graphics SHOULD matter because it tells you right away the effort the developer put into the game.If they went cheap on graphics,then 100% certain they cut a lot of corners elsewhere.
To get my point across better,i thought EQ2 was THE standard to make all other games chase and even years later it holds up very well.
Last point is that you can't really lump the entire game's graphics into one because some areas are more acceptable than others.A perfect example is in player models,i don't care one bit about those since we cover up the models with gear anyhow.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It is not a matter of graphics as long as they are not VERY cheap cartoon graphics.Point is they don't have to be state of the art HQ 1080 p they just need to be done with some effort ,unlike the single color palettes used by a lot of games.
Graphics SHOULD matter because it tells you right away the effort the developer put into the game.If they went cheap on graphics,then 100% certain they cut a lot of corners elsewhere.
To get my point across better,i thought EQ2 was THE standard to make all other games chase and even years later it holds up very well.
Last point is that you can't really lump the entire game's graphics into one because some areas are more acceptable than others.A perfect example is in player models,i don't care one bit about those since we cover up the models with gear anyhow.
Compelling gameplay is way more important than good graphics. Minecraft is a prime example of where mechanics beats graphics hands down. WoW is another example where the "market" as a whole cares more about how the game plays than how it looks.
EQ2's graphics engine is one of it's biggest achilles heel's. Both EQ2 and Wow released within a few weeks of each other but WoW the one that has significantly "lower quality" graphics trounced it by every measure.
OP, enjoy your Cryengine games and if you ever find one that is worth a Damn please let us know. Developers who go down that route spend way to much of their budget on graphics and not near enough on mechanics of gameplay.
Graphics SHOULD matter because it tells you right away the effort the developer put into the game.If they went cheap on graphics,then 100% certain they cut a lot of corners elsewhere.
All the games below prove you wrong:
Minecraft
Hotline Miami
Don't Starve
FTL
Terraria
Scribblenauts
Super Meatboy
I swear some people never read what they type or just don't realize how silly they sound.
Graphics SHOULD matter because it tells you right away the effort the developer put into the game.If they went cheap on graphics,then 100% certain they cut a lot of corners elsewhere.
All the games below prove you wrong:
Minecraft
Hotline Miami
Don't Starve
FTL
Terraria
Scribblenauts
Super Meatboy
I swear some people never read what they type or just don't realize how silly they sound.
Age of Empires 1 & 2 had dated graphics when they released.
WoW had dated graphics when released (and while its toxic to say WoW on this forum it has provided billions of hours of entertainment for millions of people)
Kerbal Space program
Planetary Annihilation
any mario game that has released since 1986
I could go on and on...
But you're right the pinnacle of this example is minecraft. Worst graphics NA, best gameplay (how many millions of copies have sold?)
I'll take a stylized art game that runs properly in high population situations over photo realistic unoptimized bloat that requires Titan cards just to maintain 40fps.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Comments
So if you can get this ridiculously large amount of data to transfer between the client and server easily and quickly its possible? Assuming this is the problem, what could be done to increase the data transfer speed? A stronger game engine? More efficient code? An insanely powerful internet speed... worlds-most-powerful-broadband-infrastructure?
While I don't know too much about the tech side of things, it seems they have a system that won't tax our PCs or bandwidth too much, at least not a lot more than other mmos out. Between meshes, procedurally generated content, and the way voxels are rendered, it shouldn't be too much for a okay PC to handle, regardless if a bunch of people are tossing voxels all over the place (to a point obviously). Voxels do have a limit in how small they can be (shown couple live streams ago), but how large doesn't seem to be set if at all. These two articles touch upon some of how they are handling the data.
http://www.eqnextfans.com/forums/everquest-next/general-discussion/40545-eqns-dev-panel-explains-voxels
http://eqnexus.com/2013/10/voxels-everquest-next-interview-steve-klug/
21:20 - Starts talking about data, voxels, and how they are handling rendering.
26:45 - Shows the debugging tool and what is actually going on. What we would see in game looks impressive, but what is actually happening isn't as exciting as our view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR3NEsJzP_o#t=0
Edit: to simplify...
Games have scaling on the clients end for what you are speaking of (I think). Player experiences will differ based on their data connection and PC power. Someone on the low end might not get to see all the pretty voxels flying around, but they aren't necessary to play. Just as players turn off shadows, lower detail, decrease view distance, decrease particle effects, etc in other games. Nothing different in EQN.
Forgelight is a good engine and Planetside 2 handles a lot of data (although it can be CPU intensive). Scaling seems to work fairly well in it as well. With EQN having Voxels, it might actually be smoother in general game play without the focus on high/realistic graphics.
At SOE LIve, their demo of a few players had a lot of Voxels on screen. This seems easy to scale up or down depending on the client. Maybe players can turn down/off what other players are doing or decrease the refresh rate when they are building. Or maybe they have managed to design a game around two engines that actually works better then we expect.
Alpha begins in 2.5 months or so and many of us will see then. Highly doubt they would give a deadline if it wasn't capable. Charging $99 for a alpha slideshow would be a huge mistake.
Supermicro® Debuts Powerful 4U 8x GPU SuperServer®
I dont know if this is the latest and greatest, but if the server is the bottleneck, would this be powerful enough to handle all the voxel data for a game like EQN? Of course you would need a lot of them.
Doesn't EQNext have that facial expression tech? Maybe that's why the lion is smiling in this shot (and the other one from a different post)
Anyway I like the new one. Looks more badass (smiling face aside). Bigger paws.
Just so you know, EQ:Next is going to be fully seamless, all of it from high in the sky to deep under the Earth.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Koreans been making mmos way before SoE
Dont know if most of you heard of this or not but recently I found a Cryengine mmo called Allegra that will have a lot of the features EQN has and it doesnt require the voxel tech to do, like destructible environments. And at the same time it has better physics and graphics because of the Cryengine. Also its being made by indie devs
Not sure if I already posted this in another version of this same discussion, but here goes anyway:
EQN uses procedural graphics and voxels. You don't get lifelike graphics with procedural art in today's world. Maybe in a few years we will start getting closer, but it's not there yet. Go look at all the other procedural mainstream games out there. They clearly made the choice to make the character models match the environment. Putting super-realistic looking models over procedural art would look stupid as hell.
In addition, most people's crappy computers will grind to a halt with CryEngine before you even get to a large outdoor space. Convince everyone to go out and buy a real gaming rig, and maybe we will get better graphics in our MMORPG's.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
better graphics? no
more realistic art style? yes
this game already looks aged even before its finished like Mortal Online, which uses Cry Engine too.
Of course for an Indie Developer its harder to deliver good graphics so i don't mind. But it shows exactly the downside of that realistic art style
Duno bout graphics or any of that.. but I love the background music.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Seems like a fair point, I was wondering why they wouldn't make the characters look a little better, and maybe they will, but probably like you said. I have noticed this in a lot of cryengine mmos, the character models look like crap because they are no where near the detail of the surroundings (probably due to lag problems and such if they did). It has kind of bothered me, but I never put both together in relation to EQN.
I hope they make them a little better in EQN, but I can live with it, if the game is good.
It is not a matter of graphics as long as they are not VERY cheap cartoon graphics.Point is they don't have to be state of the art HQ 1080 p they just need to be done with some effort ,unlike the single color palettes used by a lot of games.
Graphics SHOULD matter because it tells you right away the effort the developer put into the game.If they went cheap on graphics,then 100% certain they cut a lot of corners elsewhere.
To get my point across better,i thought EQ2 was THE standard to make all other games chase and even years later it holds up very well.
Last point is that you can't really lump the entire game's graphics into one because some areas are more acceptable than others.A perfect example is in player models,i don't care one bit about those since we cover up the models with gear anyhow.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Compelling gameplay is way more important than good graphics. Minecraft is a prime example of where mechanics beats graphics hands down. WoW is another example where the "market" as a whole cares more about how the game plays than how it looks.
EQ2's graphics engine is one of it's biggest achilles heel's. Both EQ2 and Wow released within a few weeks of each other but WoW the one that has significantly "lower quality" graphics trounced it by every measure.
OP, enjoy your Cryengine games and if you ever find one that is worth a Damn please let us know. Developers who go down that route spend way to much of their budget on graphics and not near enough on mechanics of gameplay.
All the games below prove you wrong:
Minecraft
Hotline Miami
Don't Starve
FTL
Terraria
Scribblenauts
Super Meatboy
I swear some people never read what they type or just don't realize how silly they sound.
Age of Empires 1 & 2 had dated graphics when they released.
WoW had dated graphics when released (and while its toxic to say WoW on this forum it has provided billions of hours of entertainment for millions of people)
Kerbal Space program
Planetary Annihilation
any mario game that has released since 1986
I could go on and on...
But you're right the pinnacle of this example is minecraft. Worst graphics NA, best gameplay (how many millions of copies have sold?)
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
I'll take a stylized art game that runs properly in high population situations over photo realistic unoptimized bloat that requires Titan cards just to maintain 40fps.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯