Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoach View Post
    This is actually an unfair assessment.

    Standard Server
    1. After a few months a player has additional resources available to them. Consumable and tweak gear.
    2. Dying is not a deterrent to leveling.
    3. For the power gamer this could be past life/lives
    4. Guild ship advantages

    As on that runs in a static G.I.M.P. group I've known for years what it is like not to have all of the above available and how safety in numbers does apply.

    I also know that many times when a person calls another "dead weight" or "add on" it is usually because that player is judging the other based on how they play the game and not being open to how others play the game. Some like high risk and living on the edge, others prefer a more controlled approach making sure the advantage is always in their favor.

    I still think in this situation the player that wants to limit the party to 4, no cosmetic pets, summons etc. can do so by running their own group and setting those limits. Meaning there is nothing SSG needs to do in this situation.
    You are used to seeing 6 people groups so you think it is your right to have that. I see no problem limiting groups to 4 maximum in the spirit of the Hard Core server, especially seeing that everyone is doing the quests 4 levels over anyway. 4 characters... A fighter type, a magic user type, a divine or support type and a trapper/ranger type, a 'lean' group. It makes you use those spots wisely and keeps to the spirit of what Dungeons and Dragons has always been about... usually around 4 adventurers in a group, not 6 with several of those just tagging along in the back.
    Tales of terror abound in coastal cities of a powerful cabal of sea-faring pirates led by a trio of mages who have coined themselves 'The False Gods'.

  2. #22
    Community Member HedgeHogShadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    117

    Default 4?

    Four? No way, not four! The magic number is Seven! Seven dwarves, 7-11, Seven minute Abs! Seven!

    Not sure if group size makes an overall difference opposed to more groups spread out in more instances. Maybe the OP know something I don't (I see lag on HC & Thelanis with solo and groups of 2,3 or 6.)
    Who in the world is Brother Augustus?

  3. #23

    Default

    This is a terrible idea, and will be counterproductive to the OP's stated intent. It will actually make the lag worse, not better.

    If he feels so put upon by pikers, maybe he should consider only grouping with 3 other people and imposing his inane restrictions on them. I'm sure that after the first couple times of him screaming at an Artificer or Druid who dares to bring out their pet that he will stop having the problem at all, since nobody will want to group with him in the first place.

    Why do people feel the need to force their playstyle onto other people? I really don't get it.
    Kobold sentient jewel still hate you.

  4. #24
    Community Member bls904c2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    403

    Default

    why stop at 4 people lets make multi class not an option. pure builds no universal trees. and no named items drop in chests at all.

    hard core is fine just as is, a fresh start perma death.

  5. #25
    Community Member SiliconScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    This whole post just reeks of "git good" elitist snobbery. Best part is that about half the time this crowd is the one being carried by their guild / static group and when they are the "best player" in the team they just aren't up to the task and thus rage about all the dead weight in the group.

    Not sure if that is the case here, don't know the OP at all, but I can definitively say that his play experience and mine are DRAMATICALLY different.

    Also I believe that SSG is on record for stating that the pets don't have any appreciable data associated with them but I could be wrong there. Personally I don't like having a ton of them out because they clutter up the encounter.

  6. #26
    Community Member kanordog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    822

    Default

    You just can't make it over level 10 on HCL no matter how hard you try.

    It is alright, many people can't make it.


  7. #27
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matuse View Post
    Why do people feel the need to force their playstyle onto other people? I really don't get it.
    Yes, this! If OP only wants to group with 4 or less, they can do that. Don't force me to group with 4 or less. I solo a lot, even on HC but I don't want to be forced to a group size (other than the standard 6 or 12) just because I'm on HC.

  8. #28
    Community Member shores11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,556

    Default No

    Quote Originally Posted by False_Gods View Post
    Facts are you don't need 6 characters all 4 levels over a quest to run Elite. And yet that is what we have. Dozens of these cowherds eating up bandwith... usually 1-2 characters in the group are doing everything while the other 4 tag along for 'safety'.

    That is why we got Reaper... because it was so incredibly boring to have more than 1-2 characters running elite even when it is at level.

    And yet now we need 6 characters a whopping four levels over the quest to safely run Elite? These people do nothing but eat up bandwith... 9 times out of 10 it is one person soloing the quest with 4-5 HP sacks standing in the back rarely even hitting anything. And each of those useless people in back all have their pet and the server is straining to communicate this vital data as to where each of these useless people's pet is to the rest of the group and meanwhile my character is getting ganked in a reaper quest due to a complete lag freeze up because there was too much strain on the server. Fix it!

    No Pets, 4 person max groups on the Hardcore server. Problem Solved.
    There are so many incorrect statements and assumptions here it might not be worth replying, but here goes.

    - You don't have to run 4 levels over quest level. That is a choice.
    - You don't have to run a quest with 6 characters. That is a choice.
    - I play hardcore and I find that 90% of the quests the players are involved in. I rarely see pikers or tag-a-longs.
    - Players or group leaders can already limit their party size to 4 players if they want. you can also eliminate any Druids or Artificers if you want to limit pets.

    I am 100% PRO-Play the want you want. I am 100% ANTI-Play the way you want me to.
    Fizban - Avatar of Khyber
    Guild Leader of Legends: Where adventurers are born & Legends live.

  9. #29

    Default

    I agree hardcore is too easy, solution = play in a real permadeath guild with strict rules, they are out there on every server.

  10. #30

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by False_Gods View Post
    No Pets, 4 person max groups on the Hardcore server. Problem Solved.
    This premise doesn't hold water.

    Whether you have one group of 6 people or two groups of 3 people, you still have the same number of people on the server, no matter how you split them up.

    While there are many sources of lag (and why lag as a concept is so hard to fix), we can take a look at what is the cost to the server to have 6 people play the game, in terms of math per person per second. By math I mean mathematical and logical operations. Physics, pathfinding, attacks, damage calculations, saves, inventory management... the works.

    So what happens when you split up into smaller groups, most of the math remains the same: you have the same health bars, you have the same inventory. Except pathfinding.

    The more dungeon instances are currently running, the more monsters are actively hunting players. And pathfinding is expensive.

    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.

    That sparks significantly less joy for the server.

  12. #32
    Community Member Gniewomir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    aaaa
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by False_Gods View Post
    No Pets, 4 person max groups on the Hardcore server. Problem Solved.
    Quote Originally Posted by FlimsyFirewood View Post
    The more dungeon instances are currently running, the more monsters are actively hunting players. And pathfinding is expensive.

    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.
    Ban all soloers! Problem solved. (in fact, except income for company, it would make no difference in terms of multiplayer aspect of game)

  13. #33
    Bounty Hunter
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookykid View Post
    I agree hardcore is too easy
    I see constant death notices when I am on hardcore (haven't been there much since getting my reaper cloak) so I don't think everyone is finding it easy.

  14. #34
    Hero apocaladle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlimsyFirewood View Post
    This premise doesn't hold water.

    Whether you have one group of 6 people or two groups of 3 people, you still have the same number of people on the server, no matter how you split them up.

    While there are many sources of lag (and why lag as a concept is so hard to fix), we can take a look at what is the cost to the server to have 6 people play the game, in terms of math per person per second. By math I mean mathematical and logical operations. Physics, pathfinding, attacks, damage calculations, saves, inventory management... the works.

    So what happens when you split up into smaller groups, most of the math remains the same: you have the same health bars, you have the same inventory. Except pathfinding.

    The more dungeon instances are currently running, the more monsters are actively hunting players. And pathfinding is expensive.

    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.

    That sparks significantly less joy for the server.
    Same reason why I can sorc nuke a pile of stuff for over 40k damage each and server sparks joy but when I am a level 3 arti/warlock/bard in the millers debt with my iron defender, summon monster and a cosmetic pet with all the auras on the server puts everything on hold while it has a meltdown trying to figure out how it got to that depressing situation and questions it's existance with extreme prejudice resulting in sparking less joy.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlimsyFirewood View Post
    This premise doesn't hold water.

    Whether you have one group of 6 people or two groups of 3 people, you still have the same number of people on the server, no matter how you split them up.

    While there are many sources of lag (and why lag as a concept is so hard to fix), we can take a look at what is the cost to the server to have 6 people play the game, in terms of math per person per second. By math I mean mathematical and logical operations. Physics, pathfinding, attacks, damage calculations, saves, inventory management... the works.

    So what happens when you split up into smaller groups, most of the math remains the same: you have the same health bars, you have the same inventory. Except pathfinding.

    The more dungeon instances are currently running, the more monsters are actively hunting players. And pathfinding is expensive.

    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.

    That sparks significantly less joy for the server.
    Revert ABSOLUTELY every change you made behind the scenes to mob AI, pathfinding, chain aggro, etc, etc so we could return to below average lag frequency we had before you started messing with the code. I'm aware that this might dumb down the mobs and make the game "easier" in a way, but I'd rather have a functioning and enjoyable game than mass exodus of customers who longer can't even finish a quest/raid because they are stuck in a lag limbo.

  16. #36
    Cosmetic Guru Aelonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,355

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlimsyFirewood View Post
    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.

    That sparks significantly less joy for the server.
    If I solo I experience less lag than I do when I play with my hubby and kids. Each person in the group seems to scale the spawn groups such that one person encounters 6 mobs (or less) per encounter group but each additional person seems to add 2 to 4 more mobs such that duo-ing we see 8-10, and as a family we see 12+ per encounter and encounters of this size visibly cause lag for us. This is demonstrably obvious in quests such as ToEE. So how's about reducing the number of mobs per encounter and/or the scaling of additional mobs spawned per additional player in group? Revisit some of the quests of the design era of "just add more mobs per encounter" because it was poorly thought out.
    Blood Scented Axe Body Spray (Thelanis)
    Aelonwy - Wydavir - Metaluscious - Aertimys - Aelyrra - Kaelaria - Lunaura - Aelurawynn - Saurscha - Crystalorn - Aurvaeyn - Vaelyns - Wyllowynd

  17. #37
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlimsyFirewood View Post
    This premise doesn't hold water.

    Whether you have one group of 6 people or two groups of 3 people, you still have the same number of people on the server, no matter how you split them up.

    While there are many sources of lag (and why lag as a concept is so hard to fix), we can take a look at what is the cost to the server to have 6 people play the game, in terms of math per person per second. By math I mean mathematical and logical operations. Physics, pathfinding, attacks, damage calculations, saves, inventory management... the works.

    So what happens when you split up into smaller groups, most of the math remains the same: you have the same health bars, you have the same inventory. Except pathfinding.

    The more dungeon instances are currently running, the more monsters are actively hunting players. And pathfinding is expensive.

    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.

    That sparks significantly less joy for the server.
    Your logic has a couple root flaws.

    12 objects pathing against a singular moving object is quick (submarine/torpedo warfare this would be calculating a firing solution that then gets incremental updates). 12 objects pathing and re-pathing against 1 of 6 other independent objects which by their independent actions may induce a new pathing focus for one or many of the 12 objects is a lot more mathematically expensive, especially depending on how you implement change of focus (losing a lot of caching efficiencies over calculations involving a singular object).

    You also fail to consider the up to 6 independent object geometric aura effects math involving overlaps which does not occur in solo play, but can easily occur in full party play.

    So noo... 6 solo players in similar sized mob packs cannot generate anywhere close to the number of complex mathematical calculations required to resolve combat vs a full party of 6 players with a good sized pack of mobs and including player affecting aura effects. Even if there were nominally more calculations in a solo scenario under certain conditions, which itself would be only a subset of possibilities, they are much more straightforward and easy to resolve linearly. Where you would be accurate is if you were to give the mobs the full complement of player geometric effects that would stack calculations onto each combat decision, even in a solo situation. In that case their would be a closer equivalency in number and complexity of math required.

    I do applaud you all for finally admitting the brass tacks that this is all code related (whether architectural game code or feature game code is irrelevant) and not problems that throwing silicon at will magically fix.

  18. #38
    Community Member Chacka_DDO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    1,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FlimsyFirewood View Post
    This premise doesn't hold water.

    Whether you have one group of 6 people or two groups of 3 people, you still have the same number of people on the server, no matter how you split them up.

    While there are many sources of lag (and why lag as a concept is so hard to fix), we can take a look at what is the cost to the server to have 6 people play the game, in terms of math per person per second. By math I mean mathematical and logical operations. Physics, pathfinding, attacks, damage calculations, saves, inventory management... the works.

    So what happens when you split up into smaller groups, most of the math remains the same: you have the same health bars, you have the same inventory. Except pathfinding.

    The more dungeon instances are currently running, the more monsters are actively hunting players. And pathfinding is expensive.

    From that perspective, bigger groups are actually better, because if you have two players and four pikers agroing 12 monsters in one instance, that's 12 monsters pathing. If every one of those six players agroes the same 12 monsters, that's 72 monsters the server has to keep track of.

    That sparks significantly less joy for the server.
    Somehow this and other things coming from the developers remind me of this very old joke...

    A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is"

    You basically know one of the main sources for the lag is the monster AI but instead of reworking/optimizing it, you rather make the players responsible e.g. with the Dungeon Alert mechanic.
    This most likely because it is a very difficult task to rework the AI in a way that produces less server load.
    The question is whether it is an impossible task for you if you tackle the task with enough determination.
    "Act according to a maxim which can be adopted at the same time as a universal law."
    -Immanuel Kant-

    "Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has."
    -René Descartes-

  19. #39
    Community Member grausherra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chacka_DDO View Post
    Somehow this and other things coming from the developers remind me of this very old joke...

    A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is"

    You basically know one of the main sources for the lag is the monster AI but instead of reworking/optimizing it, you rather make the players responsible e.g. with the Dungeon Alert mechanic.
    This most likely because it is a very difficult task to rework the AI in a way that produces less server load.
    The question is whether it is an impossible task for you if you tackle the task with enough determination.
    Unless they've got the animated corpse of Edsger Dijkstra working on it in the corner of an office somewhere I don't imagine that any level of 'determination' is going to magically produce anything much superior to the industry standard approaches they are are surely using.

    Extra effort will help you make more widgets per hour, but it won't magically generate a faster path-finding algorithm, people write a dissertation when they develop something extremely revolutionary in that area.

  20. #40
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chacka_DDO View Post
    Somehow this and other things coming from the developers remind me of this very old joke...

    A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is"

    You basically know one of the main sources for the lag is the monster AI but instead of reworking/optimizing it, you rather make the players responsible e.g. with the Dungeon Alert mechanic.
    This most likely because it is a very difficult task to rework the AI in a way that produces less server load.
    The question is whether it is an impossible task for you if you tackle the task with enough determination.
    Depends how well a game developer understands game engines. Industry diverged decades ago, really when id operationalized game engine construction and maintenance being wholly separate from the game scripts that executed within them. More typically to have silo-ed maybe a few staff that work on game engines (if even that, when today you basically rent an engine via licensing), and staff that work on game scripts (they mistakenly term the latter as devs, when really they all are).

    Most feature devs rarely crossover to engine work. Really have to enjoy working inside the guts of VMs (engines of another sort), to get into that. Should be able to hire that expertise at a min though, even if it's just a temp contractor.

    Just because someone can wire Alpine speakers to their car doesn't mean they have the capacity to take the engine apart and put it back together just slightly differently to eke out a handful more horsepower. Or, to wit, very few of the humongous mass of commercial Java developers know how to manipulate the core of the JVM. Same rule applies here.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload