Anvil Game Studios

Author Topic: Server Size  (Read 1300 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Intel Guardian

  • Master's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 414
  • I am indeed a ball wearing a hat.
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Intel
Re: Server Size
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2017, 09:00:02 pm »
5 v 5 for Counter Strike: Napoleonic Offensive line battles.

Offline Zahari

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2017, 10:09:00 pm »
That's untrue. 500 players with a playable amount of latency is not possible. The technology is not there. Look at all of these survival games that can't handle 30+ players on a server. Most MMO's can't handle more than 50 people in one area.
We need 100v100 otherwise community may return to NW

Offline McLovin

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2017, 10:15:43 pm »
I doubt that once the game is released people will return to a game made seven years ago.

Offline Zahari

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2017, 11:00:37 pm »
Thats true but there will be possibility to make NW on Bannerlord and this may be the issue

Offline Harris1815

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Sharpe Fan and Historian/Musician
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Harris
Re: Server Size
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2017, 05:03:06 pm »
That's untrue. 500 players with a playable amount of latency is not possible. The technology is not there. Look at all of these survival games that can't handle 30+ players on a server. Most MMO's can't handle more than 50 people in one area.

The technology is there it all comes down to optimazation, how easily the server handles the amount of players depends on how they want to code it 100 v 100 is perfectly fine for me as a minimum, but if we could get 250 v 250 (My dream would come True) then we laugh in the face of Triple A games. We are only considering player size, we are not even taking account of how large the map will be. heck it could be 5k by 5k. We should not think of 500 players on NW maps because that would actually be awful and laggy as hell.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 05:05:42 pm by Harris1815 »

God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best  ~  Voltaire

Offline Jackson

  • Global Moderator
  • Surgeon's Mate
  • ****
  • Posts: 78
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Server Size
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2017, 10:33:32 pm »
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. Even with the packets stripped to the bare minimum and the tick-rate set very low, 500 players with playable latency is not possible. This isn't a matter of optimisation. Even in an empty game with no other code or graphical elements it wouldn't be possible.

There is so, so, so much involved in multiplayer it's honestly amazing that any game can get 2 players working well. You folks have no idea how mind-bogglingly complicated it all is. Optimisation isn't just something you can do, either. It always requires unique and inventive solutions to optimise anything. Optimisation is arguably the most creative part of making a game and not something that should be taken for granted.
-The artist formerly known as Docm30
-Freelance character designer for Holdfast: Nations At War.

MY OPINIONS DO NOT REFLECT THOSE OF THE DEVELOPERS, AT LEAST IN REGARDS TO INFORMATION ABOUT THE GAME!

Offline Zahari

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2017, 11:17:31 pm »
I understand your point, but we need to get 200 slot server (100v100). I dont want anything more.

Offline Appleorgasm

  • Landsman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2017, 08:02:07 am »
I understand your point, but we need to get 200 slot server (100v100). I dont want anything more.

It also depends on the size of maps and how they've been structured, the developers will say when they're ready.
Owner of Warlance Game Servers


Offline Brock

  • Chaplain
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Dedicated & Active Forum Poster - Anglophile
    • Our regimental website
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: James | Michael
Re: Server Size
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2017, 03:45:10 pm »
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. Even with the packets stripped to the bare minimum and the tick-rate set very low, 500 players with playable latency is not possible. This isn't a matter of optimisation. Even in an empty game with no other code or graphical elements it wouldn't be possible.

There is so, so, so much involved in multiplayer it's honestly amazing that any game can get 2 players working well. You folks have no idea how mind-bogglingly complicated it all is. Optimisation isn't just something you can do, either. It always requires unique and inventive solutions to optimise anything. Optimisation is arguably the most creative part of making a game and not something that should be taken for granted.

That is exactly correct, only some major optimization of bugs goes through out development. However optimization many features and small nitpicking is always held back to the end of development when developers have more time to work on; hm how could we possibly implement this feature again so it is more efficient and works better for our players? Unless something like this would be killing performance, then it would be held back to the end of development.

Offline Nurdbot

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Just another old snoddy
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2017, 05:24:56 pm »
I'd be happy if they could get to 200-250. If they get a little higher that is great but well limitations and all.

Offline Herishey

  • Petty Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • EST 19XX. These Things Happen........
  • Faction: French Empire
  • Nick: 84e
Re: Server Size
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2017, 08:30:34 pm »
To be honest 200-250 is around an ideal number but as people have mentioned I think it depends on the map size, smaller battles aren't necessarily an issue though (e.g. 50v50 or 75v75).
YouTube

"The gods are man's creation, to give answers
that they are too afraid to give themselves."

Offline Harris1815

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Sharpe Fan and Historian/Musician
  • Faction: British Empire
  • Nick: Harris
Re: Server Size
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2017, 09:17:21 pm »
I'm sorry, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. Even with the packets stripped to the bare minimum and the tick-rate set very low, 500 players with playable latency is not possible. This isn't a matter of optimisation. Even in an empty game with no other code or graphical elements it wouldn't be possible.

There is so, so, so much involved in multiplayer it's honestly amazing that any game can get 2 players working well. You folks have no idea how mind-bogglingly complicated it all is. Optimisation isn't just something you can do, either. It always requires unique and inventive solutions to optimise anything. Optimisation is arguably the most creative part of making a game and not something that should be taken for granted.

I understand that it is hard to optimization a game depending on its engine and that is why it is put at the end of development. But there are many mods that never got the attention and were technically able to handle 800 players. This is the warband mod I am mentioning New world Conflict: http://www.fsegames.eu/forum/index.php?topic=24420.0 this mod was actually pretty recent but It was kept secret and they did release a small alpha test at the fall of 2016. The Idea is certainly possible but if there was a way to make something like this. (Mind Blown) also here is a video to show
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 09:27:55 pm by Harris1815 »

God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best  ~  Voltaire

Offline Jackson

  • Global Moderator
  • Surgeon's Mate
  • ****
  • Posts: 78
  • Faction: Neutral
Re: Server Size
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2017, 11:10:14 pm »
I don't understand. There are 3 people in that video, and the thread says it uses 4 200 player servers. That's not an 800 player server. That's multiple 200 player servers.
-The artist formerly known as Docm30
-Freelance character designer for Holdfast: Nations At War.

MY OPINIONS DO NOT REFLECT THOSE OF THE DEVELOPERS, AT LEAST IN REGARDS TO INFORMATION ABOUT THE GAME!

Offline cyberlegend

  • Able Seaman
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • i do commissions msg me for my paypal
  • Faction: British Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2017, 11:41:10 pm »
I don't understand. There are 3 people in that video, and the thread says it uses 4 200 player servers. That's not an 800 player server. That's multiple 200 player servers.
i was thinking the same thing, that video is poo

Offline Zahari

  • Surgeon's Mate
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • Faction: French Empire
Re: Server Size
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2017, 01:44:47 am »
To be honest 200-250 is around an ideal number but as people have mentioned I think it depends on the map size, smaller battles aren't necessarily an issue though (e.g. 50v50 or 75v75).
As long as we want inf,cav,lights,arty for both side 50v50 is not enough. 75v75 is small but okay, 100v100 is perfect. Its all about how many units we want to use in a battle.