Avatar

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Badges

Realizer

About

Username
Realizer
Joined
Visits
2,504
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
800
Rank
Rare
Favorite Role
Tank
Posts
720
Badges
32
  • State of the Studio

    Ungood said:
    Realizer said:
     It seems you CoE fans need to be constantly reminded, this isn't about being behind schedule. It's about having nothing to show for the time they've had. When other projects mentioned in this thread were behind schedule (or still are) they were constantly trying to show everyone they were still doing work.. 

     On the other hand CoE seems to doing everything they can to avoid showing their work, while hoping for funding. The thing is no one is going to invest if there's currently no fruits from the 2+ years of labor.  

     Are you guys going to continue to play strawman bullshit? Or are you going to hold Walsh's feet to the fire and start demanding something get done? 
    I guess we will just have to disagree on the definition of "nothing

    As the last time I went to his site, I saw all kinds of 'in-game" footage videos, and Screenshots showing all kinds of features.. not what I would call nothing, but YMMV.
     Screenshots are all well and good but, I'd much rather have some actual technical details on what they are doing with this supposed SpacialOS copy. Or just anything involving the "backend" they like to mention so much.  Screenshots tell us nothing about performance, if all we needed were screenshots Daybreak would still be "developing" EQ:Next. 
    cjmarshJamesGoblinGdemami
  • Prediction : Beta imminent

    Bestinna said:
    this game will never launch, it will simply hyper speed to infinity and beyond
     I'd love to see some facts that corroborate this theory of yours.  This is probably 1 of maybe 4 crowdfunded projects that will actually come out with some form of finished product remotely in line with the original pitch.  Whether it's fun/successful will be a different story entirely though. 
    MrMelGibsonYashaXJamesGoblintweedledumb99Siphaed
  • Caspien clarifies that there will be no support for 1000 player battles

    Vrika said:
    Realizer said:

    Edit: Realistically that means CoE is going for that Horizontal model Walsh spoke of, where you get players on a big land mass, so they won't run into each other as much. That's how they will reduce battle lag, there just won't be much battle. 
    Ask EVE how well that approach prevents large battles.
    Yeah but EVE's engine doesn't start to have issues till a great number of players are in an area. That's the nature of it's engine. Will CoE be the same?
    Gdemami
  • Caspien clarifies that there will be no support for 1000 player battles

    Wizardry said:
    cjmarsh said:
    Personally I think you're bitter about potentially losing out on a game that could have been as great as CoE, just like I am. But do you really have to go and stir shit up in their forums to make yourself feel better? Is that helping anything at all?
    The "potentially great" was a smokescreen,i was fooled,the whole image was nothing more than to sustain investors,gamer's to give them money.

    You CANNOT make a game like this,it will NOT and never be as good as a game that already has the money and the well laid out design.You can't just wing it and just hope for money or hope for a certain team size or just hope,we do all the hope and dreaming in our sleep,sometimes happy dreams,sometimes a nightmare but when we wake up it is back to reality.
    The proper way to make these KS'r games is to aim for a budget that can RELEASE a playable game.Then if people are satisfied with the effort done on a limited budget,then you can expand and ask for more money or perhaps even ask if a sub fee is acceptable.

    This goes the same for SC,another developer doing it WRONG and will end up wasting tons more money than was needed and the game even on an enormous budget will be a subpar game.You have to do it right from day 1 or expect lots of disgruntled gamer's,people.
    Woah.... I agree with Wizardry? What's happening in this world?

     I do think SC is a different animal purely based on fandom and the amount of money they are willing to throw at it. However I agree they are doing it wrong, and they should have come out with something a bit more achievable first, then went for the big show after.

    I'm hoping that's going to be the case for CU, but I know that's probably being wildly optimistic. At least they are on the right track though. 

     CoE really needs to bring the scope of their project down to Earth and get it out of the clouds. If they had millions of disposable income it might be a bit different, but they don't. So at this point they have to figure out what they truly want this game to be, and try and head in that direction with whatever funds they still have.  Here's hoping they don't let their egos kill this project.

      When I see things like this though, "Remind people that it’s perfectly fine to be skeptical.. but to try and spread the skepticism is bad.” it doesn't make me feel like they are willing to drop that ego.

     It's okay to be skeptical but you shouldn't voice your concerns because then others will be skeptical before they have a chance to give Walsh their money? Is that the sound logic here? Because it seems like the only reason to say something like that.

    GdemamiSlapshot1188
  • Caspien clarifies that there will be no support for 1000 player battles

    Ungood said:
    I must admit Ive only heard about 1000 player battles in EVE online, although Ive tried a lot of big wvw games. I cant recollect Archeage having battles with 1000 players, unless it dramatically increased in population after I left (2 months after launch). Consider how many 1000 players actually are. ESO's Cyrodiil dies if all players in a shard gathers up to fight over a keep (and thats 150x3=450 players)
    (actually it just did 5 mins ago, which is why im here :P) . I just spent some time crashtesting CU, and it broke before the 1k mark, repeatedly so :) 
    If they can hold 500 player combats I doubt there will be more fighting in one area at the same time. Thats quite massive as well :)
    I hit 100+ player battles in GW2 and my Graphic Card takes a Dump, hell 100+player world boss and I am back to 8 bit, I have no idea how a 1000 player battle would even happen on my end..maybe really.. really.. low res graphics.. like stick figures.. or maybe just gray blocks?
     That's odd because GPU isn't the bottleneck of the GW2 engine's net code, it's the number of CPU processes per action. Also the fact that the CPU is responsible for particle effect actions which should be on the GPU side. If they had routed most of those tasks through the GPU rather than the CPU the game would perform much better. It's shame they built the engine that way, because the only way to remedy it would be to recode the entire game.  

     To clarify for everyone there's never been an engine made in where 1000 player battles are a possibility without issues.  

     As for CU they are very close to 1k, in fact I've personally been in tests with over 1200 at about 35 fps. Today's crashes were caused by testers dropping as many items on the ground as they could. The first one caused by someone dropping all armor and 400 siege scorpions at the same time. As of now the performance is quite good with 100v100v100 in the scenario. 
    UngoodGdemamiSlapshot1188Eloranta