Originally posted by ArchAngel102

Originally posted by xzyax

 

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.

That's still my biggest worry. Players with higher pings will be at a severe disadvanatge in this sort of game.

IMO, the comparison to DAoC or EVE does not hold at all. EVE was already discussed, it has a whole different set of graphic-load.

DAoC was a) not always lag-free and smooth in huge battles. A keep-raid in DAoC was usually a hugely un-smooth affair (they might have polished that up with later expansions, I only played till after the first). and b) it was not twitch based. Even with lag and stuttering, low FPS, you could still do something in that game.

If you get severe lag in DF, you'll be done for, period. If you have a somewhat higher ping than your opponent (even in small skirmishes), you'll have a huge disadvantage.

Aventurine -NEEDS- to make sure players can have a decent (and by that I mean 100ms or less) ping if this sort of system is supposed to work.

I prefer to keep my battles small, because I have a higher chance of beating the enemy, being a highly skilled gamer.

In a 5v5, if only me out of the 10 are skilled, we're at a huge advantage. In a 10v10, that means atleast 1 other guy needs to be skilled, because they have a good chance of having 1-3 skilled players. In a 100v100, im screwed, because I might fight 5 skilled players and 3 noobs vs me and 7 newbs (two groups, 8v8, while the other 92v92 are fighting in skirmishes too)

I dont know how statistics or percentage and chance work...but I do know that from experience, the smaller the battle, the more likely I win because I tend to be good at gaming, while my allies tend to suck.

It doesnt make sense to me mathematically (youd think that it would all equate to being the same, always the same % of me winning/losing) but that's not the case.

When I played Company of Heroes, my 1v1 ratio was about 6:1 win/loss.
My 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 was always 1:1.

Anytime I had to depend on other players to be skilled, my odds of win/loss dropped drastically.

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?).

Notice the red bit shows you are clueless as to how a game works, there is a difference between night and day about having an AI controlled 200 meshes number crushing in the background and having 200 players controlling 1 avatar each at which every action needs to be processed individually and in accordance to the actions of the other 200 people, NOT TO MENTION the amount of network synchronization that has to happen that makes it even more complicated.

When you play total war or any other RTS even online that involves numbers of units in the 100's, there are an array of clever network tricks that can be used, because the actions of the players are somewhat limited and predictable.

There's not going to be a max like you see in games like AoC. At the current time they've tested battles of up to 200v200 with little to no lag. The game can handle many more and odds are there will be battles with many more. Yea eventually it will get to the point where there is so many people on screen that lag is inevitable but thats just what happens. Back in DAoC I attended relic raids during hte old days with close to 1000 people there fighting between all 3 realms. Yea it was laggy but it was playable.

Originally posted by rav3n2

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?).

 

Notice the red bit shows you are clueless as to how a game works, there is a difference between night and day about having an AI controlled 200 meshes number crushing in the background and having 200 players controlling 1 avatar each at which every action needs to be processed individually and in accordance to the actions of the other 200 people, NOT TO MENTION the amount of network synchronization that has to happen that makes it even more complicated.

When you play total war or any other RTS even online that involves numbers of units in the 100's, there are an array of clever network tricks that can be used, because the actions of the players are somewhat limited and predictable.

 

If programmers can invent network tricks that can be used for RTS game's massive units, then they can invent network tricks that can be used for MMO game's massive players.

Nothing is impossible, most things ARE probable, thinking outside the box is always good, and nothing is "far into the future" just because it hasnt been developped yet. In just ONE moment, someone can develop it, and it's no longer "far" into the future, but 1 day into the present.

I refuse to accept limits to anything dealing with software. Hardware is one thing, but software is entirely different.

Not to mention I am sick and tired....VERY sick and tired... of hearing the same ignorance and stupidity day after day on the internet, "That's impossible. You dont understand programming/games/subject."

The only thing impossible is having the impossible. It's impossible to be impossible. That's it.

If someone wanted to argue it was impossible due to hardware restrictions- then okay, thats something to talk about. But no programmer is allowed to have the lame excuse "that's impossible" as long as the hardware can allow it. Software is only limited to the hardware, and the hardware is plenty enough to supply for 200v200 fights.

Not that I'd want those...I dont...I want smaller fights. 30v30 is A LOT.

Originally posted by Flarinstar

There's not going to be a max like you see in games like AoC. At the current time they've tested battles of up to 200v200 with little to no lag. The game can handle many more and odds are there will be battles with many more. Yea eventually it will get to the point where there is so many people on screen that lag is inevitable but thats just what happens. Back in DAoC I attended relic raids during hte old days with close to 1000 people there fighting between all 3 realms. Yea it was laggy but it was playable.

Lets say that DF does release with the ability for these battles and everything is smooth, I really doubt there will be many 200 v 200 battles, you will probably see one in a full moon when people have gathered enough trash gear to keep going on a battle, and if there are cities to be defended people will save their gear for those moments and not waste it during  "random" battles.

Once the money and gear you have to replace is gone thats it ,battle is over, back to farming more gear to continue pvp.

Originally posted by Flarinstar

There's not going to be a max like you see in games like AoC. At the current time they've tested battles of up to 200v200 with little to no lag. The game can handle many more and odds are there will be battles with many more. Yea eventually it will get to the point where there is so many people on screen that lag is inevitable but thats just what happens. Back in DAoC I attended relic raids during hte old days with close to 1000 people there fighting between all 3 realms. Yea it was laggy but it was playable.

Told you all! I'm glad someone backed me up.

DAoC = old technology

Darkfall = better technology?????

Not only is it not impossible- it's already been done, and perfectly fine.

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Flarinstar

There's not going to be a max like you see in games like AoC. At the current time they've tested battles of up to 200v200 with little to no lag. The game can handle many more and odds are there will be battles with many more. Yea eventually it will get to the point where there is so many people on screen that lag is inevitable but thats just what happens. Back in DAoC I attended relic raids during hte old days with close to 1000 people there fighting between all 3 realms. Yea it was laggy but it was playable.

 

Lets say that DF does release with the ability for these battles and everything is smooth, I really doubt there will be many 200 v 200 battles, you will probably see one in a full moon when people have gathered enough trash gear to keep going on a battle, and if there are cities to be defended people will save their gear for those moments and not waste it during  "random" battles.

Once the money and gear you have to replace is gone thats it ,battle is over, back to farming more gear to continue pvp.

 

Really good point!

Back in the UO days, even Guild vs Guild wars werent that many. At most, youd have rare 30v30 fights that were amazing, but even those among the bigger wars werent very common.

I can, however, see 200v200 guild vs guild wars happen when one guild sets to siege another guild's city and take it over entirely. These "Last Stands" will be well worth dawning your top gear for.

As for a random 200v200 battle? No way am I going to wear my full Valorite Platemail suit and Indestructable Halberd of Vanquishing!

Originally posted by ArchAngel102

 

If programmers can invent network tricks that can be used for RTS game's massive units, then they can invent network tricks that can be used for MMO game's massive players.

Nothing is impossible, most things ARE probable, thinking outside the box is always good, and nothing is "far into the future" just because it hasnt been developped yet. In just ONE moment, someone can develop it, and it's no longer "far" into the future, but 1 day into the present.

I refuse to accept limits to anything dealing with software. Hardware is one thing, but software is entirely different.

Not to mention I am sick and tired....VERY sick and tired... of hearing the same ignorance and stupidity day after day on the internet, "That's impossible. You dont understand programming/games/subject."

The only thing impossible is having the impossible. It's impossible to be impossible. That's it.

 

If someone wanted to argue it was impossible due to hardware restrictions- then okay, thats something to talk about. But no programmer is allowed to have the lame excuse "that's impossible" as long as the hardware can allow it. Software is only limited to the hardware, and the hardware is plenty enough to supply for 200v200 fights.

Not that I'd want those...I dont...I want smaller fights. 30v30 is A LOT.

Sure i see your point, but , we are not in the bedroom coding Era anymore my friend, no one is gonna come up with such network solution without the right resources, companies like blizzard, EA and others have millions of dollars invested in R&D and hundreds of programmers which sole purpose is to come up with better, faster solutions and they havent achieved this level of performance yet.

Hence why im very skeptical about DF being able to deliver on this with an engine that was created from scratch on a small budget with a small team.

No one said it was impossible, but its VERY VERY unlikely that a company like aventurine is gonna produce anything revolutionary software wise when others with more resources have not. And you are very naive and yes you have no clue about how development of software works if you cant realize this.

Originally posted by ArchAngel102

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Flarinstar

There's not going to be a max like you see in games like AoC. At the current time they've tested battles of up to 200v200 with little to no lag. The game can handle many more and odds are there will be battles with many more. Yea eventually it will get to the point where there is so many people on screen that lag is inevitable but thats just what happens. Back in DAoC I attended relic raids during hte old days with close to 1000 people there fighting between all 3 realms. Yea it was laggy but it was playable.

 

Lets say that DF does release with the ability for these battles and everything is smooth, I really doubt there will be many 200 v 200 battles, you will probably see one in a full moon when people have gathered enough trash gear to keep going on a battle, and if there are cities to be defended people will save their gear for those moments and not waste it during  "random" battles.

Once the money and gear you have to replace is gone thats it ,battle is over, back to farming more gear to continue pvp.

 

 

Really good point!

 

Back in the UO days, even Guild vs Guild wars werent that many. At most, youd have rare 30v30 fights that were amazing.

A game with large scale PvP like DF... Giant battles are going to be extremely common. I wouldn't be surprised to see hundreds of people battles going on every day of the week. Guilds are going to make alliances and then alliances are going to be attacking other major alliances and guilds. Your going to see battles that start out with one guild of lets say 40-50 people attacking an enemy guild city. So at that time the battle is like 50v50. The defending guild is going to want to protect their city and is therefore going to call in help from friends and allies. Now the battle might escalate from 50v50 to 150v50. The attacking guild is obviously going to call in their own friends now. The battles will just keep getting larger until a side has won. That's all disregarding all the solo players and small groups that are just going to jump into the battles looking for their own gain. In a game with FFA PvP, Full Looting, and a massive guild system with cities; rediculously huge battles can and will take place at any time. 

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by ArchAngel102

 

If programmers can invent network tricks that can be used for RTS game's massive units, then they can invent network tricks that can be used for MMO game's massive players.

Nothing is impossible, most things ARE probable, thinking outside the box is always good, and nothing is "far into the future" just because it hasnt been developped yet. In just ONE moment, someone can develop it, and it's no longer "far" into the future, but 1 day into the present.

I refuse to accept limits to anything dealing with software. Hardware is one thing, but software is entirely different.

Not to mention I am sick and tired....VERY sick and tired... of hearing the same ignorance and stupidity day after day on the internet, "That's impossible. You dont understand programming/games/subject."

The only thing impossible is having the impossible. It's impossible to be impossible. That's it.

 

If someone wanted to argue it was impossible due to hardware restrictions- then okay, thats something to talk about. But no programmer is allowed to have the lame excuse "that's impossible" as long as the hardware can allow it. Software is only limited to the hardware, and the hardware is plenty enough to supply for 200v200 fights.

Not that I'd want those...I dont...I want smaller fights. 30v30 is A LOT.

 

Sure i see your point, but , we are not in the bedroom coding Era anymore my friend, no one is gonna come up with such network solution without the right resources, companies like blizzard, EA and others have millions of dollars invested in R&D and hundreds of programmers which sole purpose is to come up with better, faster solutions and they havent achieved this level of performance yet.

Hence why im very skeptical about DF being able to deliver on this with an engine that was created from scratch on a small budget with a small team.

Although I have no idea the level of skill and intelligence of the Darkfall team, I would like to atleast say (besides that you have a good point)...

It would NOT surprise me if a small group, or even a single poor individual, achieved 100x this level of performance with ease- doing what hundreds of incredibly well paid, highly funded programmers couldnt do.

EA, Blizzard, and 20 BAJILLION dollars and 10,000 employees can rack their brains and wallets trying to invent a system or program that Johnny NoBody already did in his sleep. It only takes one brain, and regardless if one company has more brains (and thus a higher chance of having that "one brain"), it still doesnt mean much. You could buy 1 million lottery tickets every day for 10 years, and still lose to the guy who accidentally bought a single ticket.

Heh... this reminds me of two movies (one being the one about Hackers, a psuedo-microsoft where "Bill Gates" was played by Tim Robbins) and Ironman, where the main badguy is yelling at a group of his top scientists "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE? STARK DID THIS IN A CAVE!" and the scientist stands up for himself "Well... I'm not Tony Stark..." lol

Off Topic and Random: I thought that scene was awesome. Random Scientist #4 stood up for himself. That took a lot of balls. Props to you lil fat man! lol

Originally posted by singsofdeath

That's still my biggest worry. Players with higher pings will be at a severe disadvanatge in this sort of game.

 TRUE.

IMO, the comparison to DAoC or EVE does not hold at all. EVE was already discussed, it has a whole different set of graphic-load.

TRUE. (and still lags)

DAoC was a) not always lag-free and smooth in huge battles. A keep-raid in DAoC was usually a hugely un-smooth affair (they might have polished that up with later expansions, I only played till after the first). and b) it was not twitch based. Even with lag and stuttering, low FPS, you could still do something in that game.

TRUE.  (emphasis on underlined)

get severe lag in DF, you'll be done for, period. If you have a somewhat higher ping than your opponent (even in small skirmishes), you'll have a huge disadvantage.

TRUE. (though maybe not a HUGE disadvantage)

Aventurine -NEEDS- to make sure players can have a decent (and by that I mean 100ms or less) ping if this sort of system is supposed to work.

TRUE.  Wont happen without regional servers though.  (of course, some can play with high ping and do quite well, just makes you wonder much better they would play without a disadvantage)

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. 

 

I'd like to thank you for posting this, xzyax.
 

I made mention of Tasos making this claim awhile back, and was told by every fanboi in typing range ( including those at Forumfall when I went there to ask if anyone had remembered this quote by Tasos ) that I was a liar and/or mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the post to point it out, so I had to concede and apologize for my error.

So to the fanbois who swore Tasos never said 200vs200 and vehemently shot at me because I couldn't find the quote, I hereby revoke my apology and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nether regions and your wives/girlfriends call me sancho.

Originally posted by Zorvan

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. 

 

I'd like to thank you for posting this, xzyax.
 

I made mention of Tasos making this claim awhile back, and was told by every fanboi in typing range ( including those at Forumfall when I went there to ask if anyone had remembered this quote by Tasos ) that I was a liar and/or mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the post to point it out, so I had to concede and apologize for my error.

So to the fanbois who swore Tasos never said 200vs200 and vehemently shot at me because I couldn't find the quote, I hereby revoke my apology and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nether regions and your wives/girlfriends call me sancho.

WTF it didnt say that when i checked it i ebt he edited it

he never gave the fps inthe same update witht he amount of what they have test and tasos said over 200 not 200 vs 200
 

anybody ever watched mock the week? anyhow i'm going to do a what tasos is really thinking sketch here...

"What are the estimated system requirements?

(oo better avoid any specifics) We've recently simulated large battles (10 vs 10) and it seems that a single-core processor (OCed to 4ghz) will be sufficient ( in lowest settings to acheive 10 fps) . 200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS (on my skull trail 8 core super $10000 computer, you 1 core noobs will feel my pwnage). When running alone in the wilderness, FPS can shoot to as high as 170-200 (when I'm the only person on the server, it will be shit even for my PC when there are 10000 other people). This will be further improved once optimizations has been done (heh these people will believe anything I say). Our main concern is to be able to run large battles smoothly (I wonder if i'm going to get layed tonight)."   Quote by Tasos Sept. 2008
 

Originally posted by Consensus

anybody ever watched mock the week? anyhow i'm going to do a what tasos is really thinking sketch here...

"What are the estimated system requirements?

(oo better avoid any specifics) We've recently simulated large battles (10 vs 10) and it seems that a single-core processor (OCed to 4ghz) will be sufficient ( in lowest settings to acheive 10 fps) . 200 vs 200 battles produce between 30 to 60 FPS (on my skull trail 8 core super $10000 computer, you 1 core noobs will feel my pwnage). When running alone in the wilderness, FPS can shoot to as high as 170-200 (when I'm the only person on the server, it will be shit even for my PC when there are 10000 other people). This will be further improved once optimizations has been done (heh these people will believe anything I say). Our main concern is to be able to run large battles smoothly (I wonder if i'm going to get layed tonight)."   Quote by Tasos Sept. 2008
 

LMAO guess what thats not tasos uote a fan put that quot together and get the numbers wrong

orginal quote

There's a focus on optimizing our massive battles capability; we want them to run as smoothly as possible with as many players as possible. We’ve been simulating massive battles and sieges with more than two hundred characters and getting a good 30-60 fps on average machines so far. Under normal loads we typically get over 150 fps and there are still several optimizations to be made so we expect these figures to improve quite a bit. 
 

Originally posted by downtoearth

Originally posted by Zorvan

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. 

 

I'd like to thank you for posting this, xzyax.
 

I made mention of Tasos making this claim awhile back, and was told by every fanboi in typing range ( including those at Forumfall when I went there to ask if anyone had remembered this quote by Tasos ) that I was a liar and/or mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the post to point it out, so I had to concede and apologize for my error.

So to the fanbois who swore Tasos never said 200vs200 and vehemently shot at me because I couldn't find the quote, I hereby revoke my apology and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nether regions and your wives/girlfriends call me sancho.

WTF it didnt say that when i checked it i ebt he edited it

he never gave the fps inthe same update witht he amount of what they have test and tasos said over 200 not 200 vs 200
 

And he edited it how?

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by downtoearth

Originally posted by Zorvan

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. 

 

I'd like to thank you for posting this, xzyax.
 

I made mention of Tasos making this claim awhile back, and was told by every fanboi in typing range ( including those at Forumfall when I went there to ask if anyone had remembered this quote by Tasos ) that I was a liar and/or mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the post to point it out, so I had to concede and apologize for my error.

So to the fanbois who swore Tasos never said 200vs200 and vehemently shot at me because I couldn't find the quote, I hereby revoke my apology and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nether regions and your wives/girlfriends call me sancho.

WTF it didnt say that when i checked it i ebt he edited it

he never gave the fps inthe same update witht he amount of what they have test and tasos said over 200 not 200 vs 200
 

 

And he edited it how?

its not a real quote look above this post thats the real quote

screw it all past it again

There's a focus on optimizing our massive battles capability; we want them to run as smoothly as possible with as many players as possible. We’ve been simulating massive battles and sieges with more than two hundred characters and getting a good 30-60 fps on average machines so far. Under normal loads we typically get over 150 fps and there are still several optimizations to be made so we expect these figures to improve quite a bit.

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=57888

Originally posted by downtoearth

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by downtoearth

Originally posted by Zorvan

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. 

 

I'd like to thank you for posting this, xzyax.
 

I made mention of Tasos making this claim awhile back, and was told by every fanboi in typing range ( including those at Forumfall when I went there to ask if anyone had remembered this quote by Tasos ) that I was a liar and/or mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the post to point it out, so I had to concede and apologize for my error.

So to the fanbois who swore Tasos never said 200vs200 and vehemently shot at me because I couldn't find the quote, I hereby revoke my apology and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nether regions and your wives/girlfriends call me sancho.

WTF it didnt say that when i checked it i ebt he edited it

he never gave the fps inthe same update witht he amount of what they have test and tasos said over 200 not 200 vs 200
 

 

And he edited it how?

 

its not a real quote look above this post thats the real quote

No, it's not. What we have are two quotes given to two different people by Tasos. Look at the wording of both quoes. They both say the same thing, but worded differently. The same as if you werer to tell two different people at two different times the same thing. You would convey the same message, but you would not say it word for word.

One is Tasos on the official forums giving an overview.

The other ( containing the 200vs200 ) is from an interview with the site that posted it.

Two different posts, two different situations.

Both valid.

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by downtoearth

Originally posted by Zorvan

Originally posted by downtoearth

Originally posted by Zorvan

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. 

 

I'd like to thank you for posting this, xzyax.
 

I made mention of Tasos making this claim awhile back, and was told by every fanboi in typing range ( including those at Forumfall when I went there to ask if anyone had remembered this quote by Tasos ) that I was a liar and/or mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the post to point it out, so I had to concede and apologize for my error.

So to the fanbois who swore Tasos never said 200vs200 and vehemently shot at me because I couldn't find the quote, I hereby revoke my apology and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your nether regions and your wives/girlfriends call me sancho.

WTF it didnt say that when i checked it i ebt he edited it

he never gave the fps inthe same update witht he amount of what they have test and tasos said over 200 not 200 vs 200
 

 

And he edited it how?

 

its not a real quote look above this post thats the real quote

 

No, it's not. What we have are two quotes given to two different people by Tasos. Look at the wording of both quoes. They both say the same thing, but worded differently. The same as if you werer to tell two different people at two different times the same thing. You would convey the same message, but you would not say it word for word.

yes i know but i go buy what tasos says not some random site thats been disabled. i would say they miss understood. go with the 100 vs 100 200 vs 200 mite work on medium low settings but as of right know that type by the interviewer no tasos