Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

[Varrak]

And yet they may still face issues - even with this technology...  because they have 100-300 clients rather than 64.

And where did i claim the opposite? The question was "if all those particles should be calculated by Server or client", that is what discussed. The answer is so clear; particles should be calculated by Player's computer.

I didn't, and don't claim anything about implementing this won't have any additional problems. Maybe it will, maybe not. But that is not a case.

 

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Any news on upcoming Gamescom 2017? Will Taleworlds be attending or not ?

 

[El Turco]

Any news on upcoming Gamescom 2017? Will Taleworlds be attending or not ?

Does it matter?

 

[Silen]

Any news on upcoming Gamescom 2017? Will Taleworlds be attending or not ?

As far as we know they will be attending.

 

[Kataphrakt]

Any news on upcoming Gamescom 2017? Will Taleworlds be attending or not ?

Does it matter?

Hell no it doesn't, we've seen what TaleWorlds does at exhibitions like this which is releasing very little to no new information at all (cue E3 with the battle videos which we've seen before) and 90% no release date...

 

[Tarbosaurus]

I honestly liked the battle videos a lot. I mean I know it isn't a release date but it's indeed better than nothing.

 

[Duh]

And where did i claim the opposite? The question was "if all those particles should be calculated by Server or client", that is what discussed. The answer is so clear; particles should be calculated by Player's computer.

You called the problem a stupid excuse and said the developer should be fired even though the approach you described does not resolve the very issue they (may) have with destructible environments (I.e. What bits can we simulate server  side - so that they affect all players equally - while achieving our desired player count?).

 

[Varrak]

You called the problem a stupid excuse

And it is?

said the developer should be fired

If there is such developer exist who actually said that, yeah, he should be fired. So?

even though the approach you described does not resolve the very issue they (may) have with destructible environments

There was not any issue, there was a decision, and there are two possibilities written in the article;
1) Let server calculate
2) Let client calculate

In first choice, Server would crash with 200+ players, lets say it won't because server is uber duber strong, then players will get sync problems due to high bandwidth requirement of each particle movements which is being given by Server.

You triggered for no reason, you didn't even understand the debate in first place. Try asking to learn.

 

[Duh]

A developer is not limited to letting the server calculate everything or nothing. The challenge is in determining what can and should be simulated server-side and what can and should be simulated client-side to provide the best gameplay experience. This is literally a no-brainer. A developer that states that accurate and meaningful destruction is a challenge in a multiplayer setting... is thus neither stupid nor should he be fired.

You triggered for no reason, you didn't even understand the debate in first place. Try asking to learn.

Tone down the flaming.

 

[Varrak]

A developer is not limited to letting the server calculate everything or nothing.

Did you even read the article? Do you know what we are debating about? Wtf

The challenge is in determining what can and should be simulated server-side and what can and should be simulated client-side to provide the best gameplay experience.

Yes, there are lots of challenges, very very difficult challenges TW is facing with... but this is not about the article?

A developer that states that accurate and meaningful destruction is a challenge in a multiplayer setting

Yes, clearly it is.. And?

You literally have no idea about the article, about my comments, about anything but keep answering irrelevant things 

 

[Silen]

Woohoo another forum war, lemme just get my popcorn.

 

[Duh]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you legitimately have trouble understanding the article and my responses as the discussion is not in turkish. So let me break it down for you.

1. The (english translation of the) article does not claim that they have to either simulate everything server-side or simulate everything client-side.
2. The article broadly talks about the challenges of a destructive environment in a multiplayer setting - as I have explained several times now.
3. Your critique on simulating all particles server-side is thus baseless - because nobody ever claimed it should be done in such a manner.

 

[Varrak]

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you legitimately have trouble understanding the article and my responses as the discussion is not in turkish. So let me break it down for you.

First of all, this is the article;
https://eksisozluk.com/entry/68891513

and this is the quote i quoted in my very first comment about the article in this thread;

Spoiler

Question 1:
- Will castle walls, buildings or other static objects be destroyed with catapults or other siege weapons?
- (Developer) yes, we are working on those things but there is a problem.
(i make it simple for you)
Let's say the building is destroyed. Particles from the destruction will be all over the place, small or big particles from the building flying. We are talking about a multiplayer game. If we calculate an explosion momentum with a simple physics calculation, and we scatter particles from the destruction randomly, how would that be like? it looks like a good solution.
Let's assume I am the player, a particle is just in front of me, but it is not at the very same location for another player. because particles are also scattered randomly on his computer and the same particle is located at a different position for the other player. now, will I pass right through that particle or that particle will block me from passing through?

Developer couldn't make a decision between whether go on server-side particles that falls off of the buildings, or client side particles which will be generated randomly by player computers, so it will look different. And that is the whole discussion all about  You are saying that they have big challenges to implement destruction in multiplayer is true, but irrelevant to what i am talking about. It doesnt even have as an "answer" value thus i was talking about the pros and cons of the two different possibilities which given by so called "developer" which possible does not even exist 

 

[Duh]

Developer couldn't make a decision between whether go on server-side particles that falls off of the buildings, or client side particles which will be generated randomly by player computers, so it will look different.

Sure, but what I am saying is that he doesn't specify what particles should be handled server/client-side or whether they should all be handled the same. Considering, however, that he does talk about "passing through" particles we can assume that this isn't about dust or tiny stones, but significant pieces of rubble whose intangibility would break the immersion of players.

 

[Varrak]

what I am saying is that he doesn't specify what particles should be handled server/client-side or whether they should all be handled the same.

And where did i claim he did? The problem with that so called developer is he took server-based particles as an "option" for 200+ player count multiplayer experience, and he couldn't decide which one he should go. The video i shared in my very first comment about this article, explains two different technologies pretty good, since that guy in the video passed exactly same ways with same problems.

Considering, however, that he does talk about "passing through" particles we can assume that this isn't about dust or tiny stones, but significant pieces of rubble whose intangibility would break the immersion of players.

He talked about both, and how to implement both small/big particles explained very well in the video i shared.

 

[Duh]

The problem with that so called developer is he took server-based particles as an "option" for 200+ player count multiplayer experience

How else should they deal with large particles that would block player movement/sight?

The video i shared in my very first comment about this article,

The video also talks about how the server-side simulation of large particles inhibits the player count - which is the challenge that the "developer" discusses as far as I can tell (otherwise passing through would not be in his statement).

 

[Varrak]

How else should they deal with large particles that would block player movement/sight?

The video also talks about how the server-side simulation of large particles inhibits the player count - which is the challenge that the "developer" discusses as far as I can tell (otherwise passing through would not be in his statement).

I didn't ignore passing through statement, that is why i wrote this in my second comment related to article;

..... If one big piece of the wall falls down because it has no connection with bottom part of the wall anymore, it could be calculated as a wall's itself when it falls down ....

I hope things get clear right now.

 

[Silen]

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Taleworlds arena.

Today on the left corner we have the incredible, magnificent "Duh", current champion, hyper-masochist and the one who 'haz' class. On the right corner for his first appearance on the ring we have "Varrak", all we have about him is some information in Turkish.

These strong warriors are today gathered here to fight for the "I was right" title. Who will win? Start betting gentlemen, the first round's about to start.

P.S. Bannerlord is a lie.

 

[DanAngleland]

Any news on upcoming Gamescom 2017? Will Taleworlds be attending or not ?

Does it matter?

Hell no it doesn't, we've seen what TaleWorlds does at exhibitions like this which is releasing very little to no new information at all (cue E3 with the battle videos which we've seen before) and 90% no release date...

We'd only seen one open battle before this one (not counting little scraps with small bandit groups), and that was almost a year and a half before E3 2017. Such a long time makes it worth revisiting to see what they've added to the game, and indeed it looked better than ever and they demonstrated major new features (good use of formations by AI, being a sergeant).

 

[Silen]

We'd only seen one open battle before this one (not counting little scraps with small bandit groups), and that was almost a year and a half before E3 2017. Such a long time makes it worth revisiting to see what they've added to the game, and indeed it looked better than ever and they demonstrated major new features (good use of formations by AI, being a sergeant).

To be honest I was pleased with the videos at E3, they were very nice indeed. It is simply the lack of transparency, clear communication, which put me off. I would've preferred if they said "We're gonna be at E3 and we're gonna show a couple of battle videos" or something along those lines, without rising expectations, even if that was not their intent.

Looking forward to Gamescom.