Thanks. However, UT2003 is not a mmorpg. It doesnt have the variety that mmorpg's have so cant really compare. I was hoping you were gonna say SWG or some other new mmorpg...
Thanks. However, UT2003 is not a mmorpg. It doesnt have the variety that mmorpg's have so cant really compare. I was hoping you were gonna say SWG or some other new mmorpg...
I didn't bother to read the entire thread, but, personally I believe that you should have the option to more or less turn off all the varrying textures and just make 1 uniform design for all the towers/people/landscape, if that is possible without heavy coding. People with lowend computers shouldn't drag down people with 2.8 gigahertz computers with 1.5 gigs of RDRAM.
~Chris
Sorry, xoox. Unfortunately, for some reason, MMOG devs cannot seem to make a decent game engine. I'm thinking it's because of hardware limitations combined with the huge amounts of graphics due to numbers of players, but unfortunately, that's just the way it is. I highly doubt that SW:G will do any better considering the poor engine development from SOE. Ah well, World of Midgard anyone? <nudges FunCom>Thanks. However, UT2003 is not a mmorpg. It doesnt have the variety that mmorpg's have so cant really compare. I was hoping you were gonna say SWG or some other new mmorpg...
~Soukyan
People on both sides of this debate seem to be a little off-base.
To the professional graphics-app developers:
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that there's a GAME running underneath the graphics in AO. I'm sure that most of you have figured this out, but I just felt it deserved mentioning. It'll never look as nice as what is possible when you're just displaying static images.
That said, to those who think that the AO graphics engine is probably tweakable, I say "Good luck, I'll see you elsewhere." IF what has been said about the caching methods used in AO is true, Notum Wars would need to be a complete client rewrite to fix the problems. Since it's not available to download, that means to get the full benefits of the frameskip fix you'd need to buy it. No real surprise there.
I'll check back in when Shadowlands comes out, thanks.
engine
Question coming:
(computer: 525 celeron, GF2MX, 208MB RAM@75Hz)
I am playing AO for a realtively long time. First I played on the default setting on RK1, which is more crowded as I guess with a fairly reasonable speed. Now i am playing on RK2 with all the setting to minimum and all environmental switchers off (xcept 4 simple clouds) and the game is slower and slower with every patch...
1) Why doesn't affect the chosen setting my framerate almost at all? /e.g. in missions I have 6-8FPS on default and 8-10FPS on lowest/
2) How come that as time passes AO is getting slower and slower on the same computer?
My Concern = the 50/50 attacker/defender routine..
It is illogical to force fairness in war.
Suggest altering the possibly variance to somthing along the lines of 70/30.
Omni side can take up 70% of the space, likewise clan.
first come first serve or to the victor goes the spoils.
I agree with Spock. Therefore there should be NO controlling of wars by Funcom in this manner. Just turn down the graphics or something. Or change pvp rules. Or make some arbitrary rule that is planet wide.Originally posted by Listen Mirndt
My Concern = the 50/50 attacker/defender routine..
It is illogical to force fairness in war.
Now beam me up, Scotty.
PS Why arent there any star trek mmorpgs...I would like to play a Klingon commander...
Last edited by xoox; Nov 12th, 2002 at 15:41:25.
I can't say I think the "crowd limiting" system proposed sounds very sensible. Clearly there are many of us have high-end systems who experience mind-numbing LAG on a regular (if not increasingly consistent) basis. You can't tell me that this is due to my system's rendering - if it is the case, then I would argue that there needs to be some kind of other optimization option/process that kicks in when too many ppl are in a zone.
I have experienced pretty wacky lag hunting borgs in Mort and PW since 14.6 - not just me, the whole team. That is certainly not related to my system. I'm not the only one who is sure that the lag increases with every patch - why is that? I left AO in january and returned in mid-may to find it much laggier everywhere I went with out any significant increase in players I saw around.
I can only imagine what this will do to the rest of the game's areas - imagine taking the grid to BS with your team for a mission and not being able to enter the zone because that's where everyone else is....
Same with Tir. How are we supposed to look for teams?
ways to reduce lag...
ok.. theres a ferw ways that FC can do to reduce lag...
1> switch from TCP to UDP protocolls... every other MMOLRPG I've heard of uses UDP to some extent... and it would pick up the lag problem a lot
2>decentralize team "finding".. like use a "finder" panel in the team tab... (DAoC uses this system a lot, I should know since I played it for over a year before I came to Rubi-Ka)
Myaeka
Engineer and Unit Commander
Clan Axis (Athen)
http://www.ao-axis.com
http://www.trader-underground.com
If it's gotta be done, it's gotta be done. I really have no problem with the feature.
As for you extensively-experienced game programmers (Landover) who seem to think you're the authority on development, you're not. Flaming the programmers is not what was asked for. In fact, usually flaming programmers of successful games is the sign of envy and jealousy.
It's a fair solution that has the potential to work. It may not be the greatest thing, but it will work, and is probably the best idea I've heard to handle the problem of overcrowding. What do you have, o' glorious and superior programmer Landover?
Aaron Simons Harkonnen
Simons, there is really no need to be quite so vitriolic in these forums. The point that Landover made is a common point that MANY players have made. If you don’t have the technical experience to appreciate the simple fact that there are problems with the AO engine then please don’t be so hostile.Originally posted by Aaron 'Simons' Harkonnen
As for you extensively-experienced game programmers (Landover) who seem to think you're the authority on development, you're not. Flaming the programmers is not what was asked for. In fact, usually flaming programmers of successful games is the sign of envy and jealousy.
It's a fair solution that has the potential to work. It may not be the greatest thing, but it will work, and is probably the best idea I've heard to handle the problem of overcrowding. What do you have, o' glorious and superior programmer Landover?
AO is a great game, and I truly hope it survives. But when there are very real concerns over the code of the system I don’t think that grilling AO is that unexpected. People have strong feelings about this game, why? because its a great game. But with the escalating problems I am worried its going to die. When AO starts to blame the users systems for the lag they should be ready to receive at least some flaming.
These forums are important, only if they have an impact on the understanding and development of the game. Hostility will only dumb these forums down.
so please…. Calm…
Originally posted by Valoren
I agree, it saddens me to see all those negative comments about bad programmers, and get new programmers.
That is not what funcom was asking. They are asking for your input on what they are fixing to do. They will do it anways. It's now a matter of putting out your *constructive* ideas on how they can do it best based on what Gaute has stated they intend to do.
My input would be to optimize. I make games for a living and my team sure as hell makes sure we don't have the same textures double or triple loading. The way AO loads up textures (and does not clean up after itself) is a core issue.
The last thing we do is say “oh, the users PC's just suck”; that don't fly.
That said, from my other PvP MMORPG experiences getting zerged is the deep suq. The system itself is pretty interesting in the fact that it's trying to make each fight more "fair" (or give it the option to be fair if enough defenders show up) but at the same time it's also going to be impossible to have large scale epic battles.
Also, removing people from the heat of battle can really really suck. I do applaud funcom for working on a solution to zerg tactics just not sure if removing players from a battle is the way to go.
Whatever they do it's a huge issue from the tech side (client crashes) and the fun factor. Even fights are fun but getting removed from a battle to make it more fair also sucks for players.
Good luck with it - will be interesting to see how it plays out. I just hope they can optimize the game - it really really needs it - at least they could up the number before it's considered "over crowded".
Halcyinv2
The Mockers (EG) | A Fixer clan | www.mockers.net
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
Players who are not currently in battle or healing someone who is currently in battle for x amount of time should be have the greatest chance of getting booted out of the zone. This way the people who loiter are most likely to get booted. I would rather the system just picked someone at random though because whatever algrithm they come up will be figured out, exploited, and it will not be perfect and some injustice will occur. If it was as random as possible at least that charge couldnt be made.
Trying to manage battles is a bad idea I think. Make it totally random and remember each person who is ported without their permission will be PISSED
Oh have a warning message come up and tell you what is going to happen and how long it will be before you are booted. Just don't boot the person without notice.
Oh and have a new bar for the zone. This bar will change in color due to how many people are in the zone starting at green and ending at red. This way you know that the zone is safe from porting when its green but when its red watch out because PORTAL STORMS WILL HAPPEN!
Oh and when you enter the zone you should get an immediate message as to the status of the zone and a warning if the zone is near capacity.
Oh and if you are one of the chosen to get booted and your org has towers in multiple zones you should have the OPTION being portaled to one of your orgs towers in other zones, outside the current crowded zone, or back to your resurrection point. Choices like this would help ease the anger of getting booted and give players the feeling that they have a little bit of control over their characters.
Last edited by Bonk; Nov 14th, 2002 at 00:37:32.
Fear is the Mind Killer.
You wasted life, why wouldn't you waste death?
PvP areas.Originally posted by Oldskule / Ternak
Is this just for PvP or is there going to be a limit on people at say the Trade bank/grid area?
2) The game doesn't unload stuff enough. If you race through a bunch of zones, hang around the hots spots (Tir, NLC, O-ent) a bit then exit you should see the game chug along to unload itself.Originally posted by Sesamsys
Question coming:
1) Why doesn't affect the chosen setting my framerate almost at all? /e.g. in missions I have 6-8FPS on default and 8-10FPS on lowest/
2) How come that as time passes AO is getting slower and slower on the same computer?
There is a difference between flaming and agressive critisism (with exagerations).Originally posted by Aaron 'Simons' Harkonnen
If it's gotta be done, it's gotta be done. I really have no problem with the feature.
As for you extensively-experienced game programmers (Landover) who seem to think you're the authority on development, you're not. Flaming the programmers is not what was asked for. In fact, usually flaming programmers of successful games is the sign of envy and jealousy.
It's a fair solution that has the potential to work. It may not be the greatest thing, but it will work, and is probably the best idea I've heard to handle the problem of overcrowding. What do you have, o' glorious and superior programmer Landover?
We, that is the group you are pouring this vitriolic post over, have already established that the game engine can be optimized a lot for the single item that seems to cause most of the lag in a large scale battle, loading of graphics.
There have also been pointed out half a dozen or so different options to sabotage the system.
To make it short, none of your points are valid.
The solution won't work and there has been offered another solution and FC got told in agressive terms where people think the problem lies.
P.s the last line is again one of those agressive standpoints I mentioned.
Proud member of Circle G.
We solve your problems on Rubi-Ka 1.(if the price is right)
I am concerned about something here...
I understand the reasons for wanting this, etc.
However how exactly will this work in Camelot? I mean when Omni and Clan are fighting for rights to Tarasque...
Will Omni/Clan now ONLY want Soldier/MA/Doc in the playfields now? What happens to all the other professions?
Since there is a limit on how many people can be in one playfield at a time now, how can I ever hope to participate in PvP conflicts there now?
Captain Sparkyd Kirk
Proud Unit Commander of Band of Brothers
Über® Equipment - Courtesy of Auno.org
An agent with a GPH?? WTH, since when do you even cast nanos?? - Random tell
No longer playing.
Two things :
If it was a matter of too many characters and variety of outfits they wore slowing down texture transfer then why not just reduce character view distance in enviroment . You can manually set it to a lower distance than 80m. This could also be done automatically ?
Second, then why do I get severe lag when I get a mission reward, nothing has changed much. This really bugs me, if you are blitzing a mission, then unable to run out due to severe lag and die, was this intentional perhaps ?
XOOX level 200 Redemption Squad Commander
I have read the posts regarding the concept, and recognize the need for crowd control--but I am concerned about the implementation. When the crowd exceeds the local limit, and players from one side must withdraw, what determines who must withdraw and with how much warning?
Battle strategy requires that professions and levels be considered when choosing who will be in the battle and who will be in reserve--it sounds to me as though players from one side will be warped away from the battle based on arbitrary rules (random/LIFO/FIFO) that are not germane to the battle at hand. This ties-in to the problem with packing an area w/low level players and alts. Using a "sliding scale" to set how many people from each side can be in a conflict opens the door for exploits and griefers. Properly dealing with who stays from a given side would help mitigate the problem, but in a clan/omni battle, either side could send neutral alts to limit the # of combatants. Further, sending additional low-level characters from your org could have a dramatic swing in the battle by forcing an attacker to vacate the area. And "sweepers" only works when the entire area is PVP--which is not true of camelot castle.
It is also important to balance aggressor vs. defender. By enforcing an equal # per side, static playfields such as Tarasque become more complicated--since the defender must split their forces into a damage team and a defense team. To make camelot work properly, you would have to implement additional changes--such as making the entire area pvp or splitting the castle into additional zones.
This will place an even greater strain on the ability to communicate during combat. In the heat of a battle, the last thing I want to do is pause to type in a message--and the scroll makes it hard enough to follow conversations. I guess its time to look into voice technology...
Lastly, I generally agree with the planned system for land control as it applies to defending towers--but I do not think the same system should be used for static playfields such as camelot. Sherman's rules should apply to places like camelot: "whoever gets there the firstest with the mostest, wins." Assuming you can solve the problem of camping by booting inactives after a period of time.
Regarding system configuration for determining maximum crowd sizes: I'd suggest the lesser of: a low level system with minimal graphics or a high-end system with high-level graphics.
to the design team: thanks for your efforts, and best of luck in finding a solution.
((I have probably the lowest end system I could ever imagine anyone playing AO on. k6 400 with 128 meg ram and a Vodoo1.. Which is why my opinion on this subject is important))
/rant on
The heart is in the right place. But sadly I do not see how an arbitrary enforcement of the numbers of people in an area is any good. I would rather see a comeplete revamp of the code structure of the game, at an additional 95$ US to those of us who need it, rather than have these unnatural rules enforced on a *massively multiplayer* game.
I would rather take part in, a super laggy fight and do no harm to the enemy, and lag around, for the thrill of being there, than hear about it on the clan channel and hope the high levels in the guild have enough *fun* for all of us.
None of the super-computer wielding people care about crowds. And now you hear from me, Stone age wielding Cave-geek! I want to lag! I want to fight! I want to have fun! Do what you can to optimize the game, client or server side I do not care, I will PAY for an optimization package for crappy computers, ITS CHEAPER THAN A NEW COMPUTER!! Please let me have fun and all of my clanmates too! We all want to take part in every fight!
Fun is 1!!
Fair is 2!!
We is 3!!
Fun first!
**ok I don't want to take swipes at the programmers or whoever coded this fine fine game, I just hear and hear over and over that there are clear things "that could be done" in the Tech realm.
MY real point is I would rather put up with my terrible performance than have an artificial limit on me and my friends playing, You will have more people quit from the lack of interest in the NW PvP system than you would the low-end system users LIKE MYSELF.
I am not quitting! I know I'm gonna lag and be annoyed in every fight, But I will have had fun nonetheless. I may even upgrade my computer a bit, slowly, and stay out of active raiding duty until I have something a bit better.
PLEASE do not do this. I played Asheron's call which had a Crowd system, and that was fine (more or less tedious, but oh well), but there was no land control, no massive PvP fights on such a grand scale. Why take away from an element of AO that is going to be Sooooooooo good!?!?!??? Why take away from the excellence of your own game???**
/rant off
p.s. I'm not quitting, flaming, nor saying other games are better. AO is the best, and I will stay as long as I am interested. Being left out of the 10 person crack assault core of my clan b/c I lag in battles (haha the double edged sword) will not be fun. Anyone Dig?
Last edited by Zaenix; Nov 18th, 2002 at 22:02:29.
"'Techs are your friend! Everyone uses Nano!" - Zaenix
"Wushu Ninjagirl, smackin mobs like beef slappin on wet pavement" - Rosmarin
"Never trust a hive-mind" - Sittinpretty (ex-OT mind control subject)
And thats about all I can say to everyone who's *****ing about this..... I think this is the best think FC have ever done to thhis game and might well be the one thing that keeps me playing.
Please sort out the slowdown in the other areas though at the same time ie BB in ent sometime you just can't move at all!!
All in all well done FC but please do this properly and deal withh all the heavy useage areas not just the pvp problems and make this game better for everyone.
Posting Permissions
