It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Thompson wanted to point out that this massive world and Battle Royale would eventually be combined with an "open-world RPG" the studio would be developing over the next couple of years. "It's not just two games shoehorned together; it's that Mavericks is the first Battle Royale that has a believable and fleshed-out world that's going to continue to develop over time."
Improbable tells us that Mavericks will kick off with its last-person-standing mode later this year, and will eventually expand into an open world MMO in 2019. In the former, up to 400 players will compete in a sprawling 12 km squared "living and breathing" world, filled with reactive wildlife, muddy tracks, spreading wildfire and dynamic water, among other environmental details.
I played GW1, people tended to call it CCO, Competitive-Cooperative, Online Game, or Co-RPG.klash2def said:Interesting because before all of those games there was GW1. It's listed an MMORPG. It does the same instancing less MP thing as GTA Online, or Destiny etc
any chance we can do [bind culling] in a 3.2.x PTU build?
CJ: "Not my decision but I don't think you are likely to see Bind Culling in a 3.2.x PTU build. Without Object Container Streaming, Bind Culling causes loading stalls as entities enter the client's range. We're still working on being able to turn on Bind Culling in the PU, but even in the simpler test maps where we do have it working, the loading stalls are pretty frequent and noticeable. That's fine for developers, as it gives us a way to find and fix the bugs that Bind Culling/OCS will introduce while OCS is still being worked on, but it's probably not an experience most backers would want."
Thanks sir, looking forward to the massive performance boost of 3.3 then
CJ: "Bind Culling and OCS should give us performance improvements on clients and that is, after all, one of the big reasons for doing them in the first place. But let's not count our chickens before they hatch. The only way to know for sure how much of difference BC/OCS will make is to finish implementing them and then measure the difference."
I don’t want to be alarmist, however how would performance get to a point where the goals of the game as stated could be met without major improvements from those two methods? What are the other options?
CJ: "There are many ways to skin the performance cat. If we didn't do BC/OCS we'd find other ways to meet our goals. The point I was trying to make is that no one optimization is going to be the silver bullet. It's going to take a lot of different optimizations, each optimizing different areas of the game in different ways. We're confident we'll get there, it just takes a while."
Something I've wondered a lot is what exactly OCS is. I mean, I know that it involves moving entity loading off the main thread and making entity loading asynchronous, but is there more to it than that? I've read a lot of claims, some more plausible-sounding than others, but I'm not aware of anything definitive from CIG on the matter.
CJ: "I don't work on Object Containers so take what I'm about to say with a pinch of salt.
My understanding is that an Object Container is an entity that contains other entities. What makes OCs special is that they are collapsible so we can unload the contents of an OC but keep the OC entity itself in memory. You can think of any large structure in the game (ships and even the solar system) as a hierarchy of OCs. These hierarchies of OCs form the skeletons of these structures and the engine can opt to load or unload the different parts. The skeleton is always there, but the meat on the bones can be stripped back if it isn't needed by a client.
Possibly that was a bit of a gruesome analogy but I hope it helps get the idea across
This is not truthful now, when that youtuber got those threats the thing that he did was went on social media, tag the game and go "Fuck you Community! Fuck you CIG!", so and I was talking this yesterday with others people felt frustrated that something that has nothing to do with us was being put on our backs, considering that unjust.Cotic said:What's disingenuous is to take away from what is really going on by trying to be victims as well.
Of course a person or persons actions does not speak for the whole community but how the community responds to what that person or persons did does reflect on them.