Hopefully this thread will put this issue to rest, as I've seen it come up again and again in many threads. 

I seem to remember this discussion before and I thought we had come to the conclusion that Aventurine and Tasos had only claimed 100 vs. 100... then I found this quote:

Link to quote below: www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"What are the estimated system requirements?
We've recently simulated large battles and it seems that a single-core processor will be sufficient. 200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS. When running alone in the wilderness, FPS can shoot to as high as 170-200. This will be further improved once optimizations has been done. Our main concern is to be able to run large battles smoothly."   Quote by Tasos Sept. 2008
 

So, again... I pose the question in the Topic Title:

Is DarkFall claiming to support 100 vs. 100 OR 200 vs. 200... because that quote above from Sept. 2008 sure seems to look like Tasos is saying 30 to 60 FPS WITH 200 vs. 200. 

No, this thread will not put this issue to rest, because other than the information you quoted, we have no other confirmation that it is valid or true.

When it came out back in the fall many of us were incredulous at the claims (nothing new for DF though) and have been anxiously waiting for a reviewer to report on how well large scale battles really function.

Unfortunately, all we've seen recently are reviews by folks who are clearly in the starter areas and not involved in testing of the higher level contents like keep battles.

So the mystery will continue, and no doubt this claim will be one of the most scrutinized ones made by Tasos.

Originally posted by xzyax

Hopefully this thread will put this issue to rest, as I've seen it come up again and again in many threads. 

I seem to remember this discussion before and I thought we had come to the conclusion that Aventurine and Tasos had only claimed 100 vs. 100... then I found this quote:

 

Link to quote below: www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"What are the estimated system requirements?
We've recently simulated large battles and it seems that a single-core processor will be sufficient. 200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS. When running alone in the wilderness, FPS can shoot to as high as 170-200. This will be further improved once optimizations has been done. Our main concern is to be able to run large battles smoothly."   Quote by Tasos Sept. 2008
 

 

So, again... I pose the question in the Topic Title:

Is DarkFall claiming to support 100 vs. 100 OR 200 vs. 200... because that quote above from Sept. 2008 sure seems to look like Tasos is saying 30 to 60 FPS WITH 200 vs. 200. 

 

 There was a incorrect translation that was later corrected. I give DF the benifit of the doubt that it will have 100 vs 100 battles (at least till i can see for myself) Unfortunately some of DF's more rabid fans still shout that DF has 200 vs 200 battles, generally this is combined with how they were right all along etc etc. which makes theirs post really fairly funny. (ok granted I've only seen 1 fan do this recently but he did give me the best laugh of my day. :) )
 

Originally posted by xzyax

Hopefully this thread will put this issue to rest, as I've seen it come up again and again in many threads. 

I seem to remember this discussion before and I thought we had come to the conclusion that Aventurine and Tasos had only claimed 100 vs. 100... then I found this quote:

 

Link to quote below: www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"What are the estimated system requirements?
We've recently simulated large battles and it seems that a single-core processor will be sufficient. 200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS. When running alone in the wilderness, FPS can shoot to as high as 170-200. This will be further improved once optimizations has been done. Our main concern is to be able to run large battles smoothly."   Quote by Tasos Sept. 2008
 

 

So, again... I pose the question in the Topic Title:

Is DarkFall claiming to support 100 vs. 100 OR 200 vs. 200... because that quote above from Sept. 2008 sure seems to look like Tasos is saying 30 to 60 FPS WITH 200 vs. 200. 

 

Wont happen, WAR and AoC both made the same claims, yet neither have delivered thus far. Same will be for DF once you start to get 50+ players on-screen casting, meleeing using mounts and what not the FPS will drop way below 15.

Oh I don't doubt you are right Kyleran, but figured it was worth a shot.  I wanted to at least give a place where all of us who are wondering about this, or had spoken about it in the past would have a thread to discuss it... since it's not like we're playing OPEN Beta!

I remember quite a few posters going off on Zorvan for spreading "False information" saying that DarkFall had claimed to support 200 vs. 200.  There were quite a few supporters that said Tasos had only claimed it would support 100 vs. 100.

Well obvioulsly the quote I showed in the OP contradicts that now.  So anyway... just thought it would be a decent discussion about the viability of such a claim.

Originally posted by winter

Originally posted by xzyax

Hopefully this thread will put this issue to rest, as I've seen it come up again and again in many threads. 

I seem to remember this discussion before and I thought we had come to the conclusion that Aventurine and Tasos had only claimed 100 vs. 100... then I found this quote:

 

Link to quote below: www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"What are the estimated system requirements?
We've recently simulated large battles and it seems that a single-core processor will be sufficient. 200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS. When running alone in the wilderness, FPS can shoot to as high as 170-200. This will be further improved once optimizations has been done. Our main concern is to be able to run large battles smoothly."   Quote by Tasos Sept. 2008
 

 

So, again... I pose the question in the Topic Title:

Is DarkFall claiming to support 100 vs. 100 OR 200 vs. 200... because that quote above from Sept. 2008 sure seems to look like Tasos is saying 30 to 60 FPS WITH 200 vs. 200. 

 

 There was a incorrect translation that was later corrected. I give DF the benifit of the doubt that it will have 100 vs 100 battles (at least till i can see for myself) Unfortunately some of DF's more rabid fans still shout that DF has 200 vs 200 battles, generally this is combined with how they were right all along etc etc. which makes theirs post really fairly funny. (ok granted I've only seen 1 fan do this recently but he did give me the best laugh of my day. :) )
 

Do you happen to know where that correction was posted winter?

When we had this discussion awhile back I remember it was the concensus that it was indeed 100 vs. 100... but I can't seem to find anything that backs that up now.

So, today when I read quite a few more threads claiming the 200 vs. 200 again I did some Googling.  The only quote I could find was the one I linked in the OP... which is why I started the thread.

We don't know? 200 vs 200 seems like a stretch though. They claim to have already tested large battles, with people joining from across the globe. Uh... somehow I doubt 'large' meant 200 vs 200 though.

Graphically 200 vs 200 should be no problem. Network-wise, it really depends on how powerful their server architecture is. You may as well ask how long a piece of string is.

Originally posted by VaporOfTasos

Darkfall is cutting edge stuff and these Aventurine guys are way smarter then the people who work for SOE, EA, Mythic, Valve, Bethesda, and all other gaming companies combined.

Darkfall will use a new nuclear fusion programming technology that will make even the oldest, most obsolete computers be able to have a million lines of resolution (even on monitors that don't support it) and the online battles will run at a blazing 90 fps in 5,000 vs 5,000 battles!

There will be no lag. Tasos said. There are already no bugs. Tasos said. The game is feature complete. Tasos said so.

Tasos doesn't lie either. Tasos is god. And Darkfall is technology hundreds of years ahead of its time. Tasos implied that part.

Heh... while I too partake in the sarcasm post from time to time; my question in the OP is in all sincerity.
 

As Kyleran pointed out it most likely won't really "settle it"... but I was at least hoping to have some definitive quotes from the Devs one way or the other.  So far it seems like all I can find is the quote from the OP... which looks like Tasos is indeed saying 200 vs. 200 with 30-60 FPS.

Originally posted by NeroScuro

We don't know? 200 vs 200 seems like a stretch though. They claim to have already tested large battles, with people joining from across the globe. Uh... somehow I doubt 'large' meant 200 vs 200 though.

Graphically 200 vs 200 should be no problem. Network-wise, it really depends on how powerful their server architecture is. You may as well ask how long a piece of string is.

Which is the reason that I posted the quote from Tasos saying:

www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS"

I see 3 possibilities from that quote.

1) Tasos is telling the truth

2) Tasos is lying

3) Tasos was mis-quoted/mis-translated. 

(On this note of #3... there is no indication from the site that they are para-phrasing what Tasos said.  There is also no indication that the interview was in any other language than English.  Just saying... that if #3 is indeed the correct choice... it will have to come from another site source then).

Havent any of you played DAoC or any other massively multiplayer 100v100, 200v200 RvR online game?

This isn't new tech at all, it's been around for YEARS! Almost a decade.
BF2142 can have 64 players with 0% lag, with pings as amazing as 20ms with 0.0001% delay in players to server to players communication.
MMO's and RTS games run at much higher pings, normal can be anywhere from 100-300ms without any lag. If you can have one player-owned server handle 64 players at 20ms, imagine how much power you could have with a company-owned server room that doesnt have to come close to 20ms.

The hardware isn't the problem. The problem is the programmers, developers, and the ignorant who lack the ambitious who whine "Well thats just impossible." or the failures who lack the skill to code intelligently who only scored the programmer's job because he's the producer's retarded cousin.

DAoC is...how old? Very.
How long has it had lag free, frame smooth, massively scaled RvR battles featuring hundreds? Since forever. Ive played DAoC since Beta and have way beyond just Elder status, and the only times ive ever lagged is when it was my fault (my internet lagging) or because the server is about to crash or is having a major malfunction unrelated to player's existence.

6 months ago I was running around looking at a 100v100 battle without any lag, having a blast. And this game has good graphics (especially character models), lovely spell effects, and the only ppl with problems fighting Hundreds battles are those with 32MB TNT2 graphics cards and P2 processors...lol... the only people who experience lag are those with laggy 56k modems or dsl/cable thats as slow as a 56k.

What I find hilarious in the MMORPG community is the psuedo-intellectuals who deem everything as "Impossible" or "Far into the future" when it is not only possible...but has already been done many years ago...

How many times on these forums have people said "That's IMPOSSIBLE!" only to have a reply smack them in the (lack of) brain: "They've already done that in {X} game..."

If I had a choice, I'd perma-ban everyone who says "Impossible" from the internet. Forever. Followed by a Nazi Goon Squad equivalent rushing into their homes and taking away their computers.
Technology is for those who have the mental capacity to use it. Stop wasting bandwidth

Originally posted by ArchAngel102

Havent any of you played DAoC or any other massively multiplayer 100v100, 200v200 RvR online game?

This isn't new tech at all, it's been around for YEARS! Almost a decade.
BF2142 can have 64 players with 0% lag, with pings as amazing as 20ms.
DAoC is...how old? Very.
How long has it had lag free, frame smooth, massively scaled RvR battles featuring hundreds? Since forever.

6 months ago I was running around looking at a 100v100 battle without any lag, having a blast. And this game has good graphics (especially character models), lovely spell effects, and the only ppl with problems fighting Hundreds battles are those with 32MB TNT2 graphics cards and P2 processors...lol... the only people who experience lag are those with laggy 56k modems or dsl/cable thats as slow as a 56k.

What I find hilarious in the MMORPG community is the psuedo-intellectuals who deem everything as "Impossible" or "Far into the future" when it is not only possible...but has already been done many years ago...

How many times on these forums have people said "That's IMPOSSIBLE!" only to have a reply smack them in the (lack of) brain: "They've already done that in {X} game..."

If I had a choice, I'd perma-ban everyone who says "Impossible" from the internet. Forever. Followed by a Nazi Goon Squad equivalent rushing into their homes and taking away their computers.
Technology is for those who have the mental capacity to use it. Stop wasting bandwidth

Well thanks for the input.

The DAoC analogy works, not so sure about the BF2142.  You mention 64 players with 0 lag... well that's good; but 64 is a long ways from 400. 

So, onto DAoC.  Yes, I do remember some decent sized battles in DAoC... not sure about 200 vs. 200 though.  As to the graphics of DAoC... umm, there is a reason it's only got about 10-20k playing... and it isn't the gameplay.  Same goes for UO, AC and even EQ. 

We all like to say graphics don't matter... but at some point they do.  Otherwise we'd all still be playing AC DarkTide... right?  I think DarkFall's graphics are adequate for what they are trying to do.  I think they are a step up from DAoC, UO, AC, and EQ... but that isn't really the point.

Can DarkFall pull off 200 vs. 200 battles with the graphics that we've seen presented?  Other recent MMOs seem to struggle with 25% of those numbers... so what is the secret if indeed they can pull off 200 vs. 200?

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by NeroScuro

We don't know? 200 vs 200 seems like a stretch though. They claim to have already tested large battles, with people joining from across the globe. Uh... somehow I doubt 'large' meant 200 vs 200 though.

Graphically 200 vs 200 should be no problem. Network-wise, it really depends on how powerful their server architecture is. You may as well ask how long a piece of string is.

 

Which is the reason that I posted the quote from Tasos saying:

www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS"

 

I see 3 possibilities from that quote.

1) Tasos is telling the truth

2) Tasos is lying

3) Tasos was mis-quoted/mis-translated. 

(On this note of #3... there is no indication from the site that they are para-phrasing what Tasos said.  There is also no indication that the interview was in any other language than English.  Just saying... that if #3 is indeed the correct choice... it will have to come from another site source then).

 

Yeah, I can play games with 200 vs 200 people at 30-60 FPS. They're called the Total War series.

Framerate has nothing to do with latency. Tasos can say that the game will have 200 people battling 200 people at 30-60fps and I believe him 100% - because what he's saying isn't vaguely impress or special. Or new.

Now, whether their servers can cope with the demand is another matter. That epic 200v200 battle could be rendering at 60fps, but if my ping is 1000ms it doesn't matter what the framerate is.

But games like EVE and DAoC can support 200v200 battles so I don't see why Darkfall technically couldn't. Beyond the obvious (they don't have as much money = servers are crap?).

The BF2142 was 64 players at 20ms. Hence the incredibly low ping of 20. That's 10x less than an acceptable MMO ping.

If we lived in a more simple world with simple math (which we dont, and im sure it doesnt work this way, but...) If you want to multiply the ping by x10, try multiplying the players. That was the point of that example.

Also, DAoC has updated character models that, IMO, rival that of most current MMO character models. It wasn't the graphics in which killed ANY of these games. I thought the DAoC character model textures and armor textures were actually incredibly well done and graphical. It reminded me of the detail in Oblivion, and to be honest I was disappointed in some newer MMO's textures and models being worse than this ancient game's updated models and textures.

Graphics DO matter, but nowhere near as much as one would assume based on how much producers love and demand graphics. Especially for an MMO.

As we have seen, not only do graphics not matter (Anarchy Online being incredibly populated, while having the worst graphics) but graphics are the least of an MMO's problem (hence Vanguard)

Regardless though, it is entirely possible to have both great graphics- AND great framerate. Extra Polygons do not equate to better graphics. In fact, I have seen some amazing graphics that required little power, and some horrible graphics that drained even the most powerful of machines.

Video game graphics are an art in itself- not only in looking nice, but also in keeping the requirements low while keeping the graphics high. WoW is a very good example, as the graphics are highly acceptable for everyone, but it is one of the lowest requirement games. It's no Crysis, but it sure as hell makes infinitely more money than Crysis EVER will.

Originally posted by ArchAngel102

Havent any of you played DAoC or any other massively multiplayer 100v100, 200v200 RvR online game?

This isn't new tech at all, it's been around for YEARS! Almost a decade.
BF2142 can have 64 players with 0% lag, with pings as amazing as 20ms with 0.0001% delay in players to server to players communication.
MMO's and RTS games run at much higher pings, normal can be anywhere from 100-300ms without any lag. If you can have one player-owned server handle 64 players at 20ms, imagine how much power you could have with a company-owned server room that doesnt have to come close to 20ms.

The hardware isn't the problem. The problem is the programmers, developers, and the ignorant who lack the ambitious who whine "Well thats just impossible." or the failures who lack the skill to code intelligently who only scored the programmer's job because he's the producer's retarded cousin.

DAoC is...how old? Very.
How long has it had lag free, frame smooth, massively scaled RvR battles featuring hundreds? Since forever. Ive played DAoC since Beta and have way beyond just Elder status, and the only times ive ever lagged is when it was my fault (my internet lagging) or because the server is about to crash or is having a major malfunction unrelated to player's existence.

6 months ago I was running around looking at a 100v100 battle without any lag, having a blast. And this game has good graphics (especially character models), lovely spell effects, and the only ppl with problems fighting Hundreds battles are those with 32MB TNT2 graphics cards and P2 processors...lol... the only people who experience lag are those with laggy 56k modems or dsl/cable thats as slow as a 56k.

What I find hilarious in the MMORPG community is the psuedo-intellectuals who deem everything as "Impossible" or "Far into the future" when it is not only possible...but has already been done many years ago...

How many times on these forums have people said "That's IMPOSSIBLE!" only to have a reply smack them in the (lack of) brain: "They've already done that in {X} game..."

If I had a choice, I'd perma-ban everyone who says "Impossible" from the internet. Forever. Followed by a Nazi Goon Squad equivalent rushing into their homes and taking away their computers.
Technology is for those who have the mental capacity to use it. Stop wasting bandwidth

Oh dear.

Yeah it's all bs these people saying large numbers of players participating in battles is impossible.  It's been done in a lot of games, obviously not the craptastic games they have been playing though.  These are the same people that want top notch graphics though so it's not surprising that they aren't too aware of gaming history.

Originally posted by NeroScuro

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by NeroScuro

We don't know? 200 vs 200 seems like a stretch though. They claim to have already tested large battles, with people joining from across the globe. Uh... somehow I doubt 'large' meant 200 vs 200 though.

Graphically 200 vs 200 should be no problem. Network-wise, it really depends on how powerful their server architecture is. You may as well ask how long a piece of string is.

 

Which is the reason that I posted the quote from Tasos saying:

www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS"

 

I see 3 possibilities from that quote.

1) Tasos is telling the truth

2) Tasos is lying

3) Tasos was mis-quoted/mis-translated. 

(On this note of #3... there is no indication from the site that they are para-phrasing what Tasos said.  There is also no indication that the interview was in any other language than English.  Just saying... that if #3 is indeed the correct choice... it will have to come from another site source then).

 

 

Yeah, I can play games with 200 vs 200 people at 30-60 FPS. They're called the Total War series.

Framerate has nothing to do with latency. Tasos can say that the game will have 200 people battling 200 people at 30-60fps and I believe him 100% - because what he's saying isn't vaguely impress or special. Or new.

Now, whether their servers can cope with the demand is another matter. That epic 200v200 battle could be rendering at 60fps, but if my ping is 1000ms it doesn't matter what the framerate is.

But games like EVE and DAoC can support 200v200 battles so I don't see why Darkfall technically couldn't. Beyond the obvious (they don't have as much money = servers are crap?).

I guess that's the crux of the matter then.   Can we have 200 vs. 200 battles at a decent framerate (30+ fps) AND a decent ping (150 ms or lower). 

With the FPS style combat... a decent ping will be much more important in DarkFall than in other MMOs.  So I agree.  If we have to put up with atrocious latency... the framerate or the numbers don't really matter.

With the EvE comparison, in my opinion it's not the same because of the emptiness of space that is their world.   It works for that game, just not sure how viable it is to coorelate it to a fantasy-based MMO in regards to server load.

Please list 1 game again, just 1 single game with just the most basic mechanics that DF is boasting.

Please don't say DAoC.

Originally posted by Blodpls

Yeah it's all bs these people saying large numbers of players participating in battles is impossible.  It's been done in a lot of games, obviously not the craptastic games they have been playing though.  These are the same people that want top notch graphics though so it's not surprising that they aren't too aware of gaming history.

Actually the only fantasy-based MMO to possibly pull it off was DAoC... right? 

(I say possibly because while I myself do not remember any battles that had those kind of numbers it might have just been because of the low pop. on the sever I was playing at the time).

I may very well be wrong, but I don't know of any other fantasy-based MMO that even claims to support those kind of numbers, let alone actually pull it off. 

Remember we are talking about having 200 vs. 200 with decent framerate AND decent latency.  Latency will be very important in DarkFall if we want to be able to hit anything.

Originally posted by mrw0lf

Please list 1 game again, just 1 single game with just the most basic mechanics that DF is boasting.

Please don't say DAoC.

DAoC

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by NeroScuro

Originally posted by xzyax

Originally posted by NeroScuro

We don't know? 200 vs 200 seems like a stretch though. They claim to have already tested large battles, with people joining from across the globe. Uh... somehow I doubt 'large' meant 200 vs 200 though.

Graphically 200 vs 200 should be no problem. Network-wise, it really depends on how powerful their server architecture is. You may as well ask how long a piece of string is.

 

Which is the reason that I posted the quote from Tasos saying:

www.thedarkfall.com/blogs/14-interview-with-darkfall

"200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS"

 

I see 3 possibilities from that quote.

1) Tasos is telling the truth

2) Tasos is lying

3) Tasos was mis-quoted/mis-translated. 

(On this note of #3... there is no indication from the site that they are para-phrasing what Tasos said.  There is also no indication that the interview was in any other language than English.  Just saying... that if #3 is indeed the correct choice... it will have to come from another site source then).

 

 

Yeah, I can play games with 200 vs 200 people at 30-60 FPS. They're called the Total War series.

Framerate has nothing to do with latency. Tasos can say that the game will have 200 people battling 200 people at 30-60fps and I believe him 100% - because what he's saying isn't vaguely impress or special. Or new.

Now, whether their servers can cope with the demand is another matter. That epic 200v200 battle could be rendering at 60fps, but if my ping is 1000ms it doesn't matter what the framerate is.

But games like EVE and DAoC can support 200v200 battles so I don't see why Darkfall technically couldn't. Beyond the obvious (they don't have as much money = servers are crap?).

I guess that's the crux of the matter then.   Can we have 200 vs. 200 battles at a decent framerate (30+ fps) AND a decent ping (150 ms or lower). 

With the FPS style combat... a decent ping will be much more important in DarkFall than in other MMOs.  So I agree.  If we have to put up with atrocious latency... the framerate or the numbers don't really matter.

 

With the EvE comparison, in my opinion it's not the same because of the emptiness of space that is their world.   It works for that game, just not sure how viable it is to coorelate it to a fantasy-based MMO in regards to server load.

 

 

Hmm... I forgot to take that into consideration. Not being real-time turn-based and instead being more FPS style... it is going to need lower pings (atleast, maybe) and so that might be a problem.

But really- who really wants a 100v100 or 200v200 battle? Once you start getting past 15v15, it really begins to get so numbers intensive- no matter how good you are- you are bound to get killed constantly, being unable to live through the battle.

If anything BF2142 has taught me- it's that the more players participating in the battle- the worse it is for a skilled player. In a 30 player game, thats 15v15, I could kill everyone- cap objectives- and win singlehandedly. But in a 64 player game, thats 32v32 players- so many that no matter how good I did, there were just too many of them to ever cap the objective. The number of enemies was enough, combined with the respawn rate of those I killed, that Id NEVER get to live. I died constantly. I may get more kills than ever before, but I die, and die a lot. The more players, the more likely i'll face off against 3 at once 1v3 in my own little skirmish. The more likely someone will revive the guy I just killed, the more healing, the more difficult, etc.

In a 10v10, lets say only 10% die. That means you are most likely are NOT going to be that one guy.

In a 100,000 v 100,000, if 10% die, that's 10,000 people. There's an EXTREMELY high chance you're going to be one of those guys.

And no, it's not as simple as 10% vs 10%. There's frontlines, playstyles, etc. I have a very aggressive playstyle and a lot of skill and overconfidence. The more enemies in the battle, the more likely I will be that 10%, because the battle turns out differently, goes on longer, and I fail to realize when my allies retreat to leave me to die.

The more players in the battle, the less important that "one guy" is, and the more important the group's skill in general is. That means that me, a skilled player, is less important- and I have to not only rely on other's more (omg, I never want to do that in the first place even slightly...) but also I have to die more, because death is more likely to occur simply because I am fighting more and more, and the "One Man Army" becomes weaker and weaker.

Id prefer to have no more than 30v30 battles- and preferably Id like to keep my battles below 10v10, if not always only about 5v5.

I hate relying on other players, because they tend to be less skilled then me, I take more damage, can kill less % of the enemy and thus am less powerful myself, and thus have to rely on others not just in general, but also for heals (ugh...) and for them to do dps too (oh no...)