4 ms·
It's an open world game, but let's assume you mean local map. In that case, let's assume that each player waves (/wave). I've done this before with >50 players
by angrais 5y ago
It's an open world game, but let's assume you mean local map.
In that case, let's assume that each player waves (/wave). I've done this before with >50 players and took a screenshot and we were all in sync. It's also possible to have 50 players in the same area fighting in real time, e.g., in a battleground. This was back in 2010 when I played ... So I am not sure if it's any fabrication at all, otherwise everyone would die, etc? Given players have health, take damage, get healed, etc.
- randallsquared 5y agoThis is one of the reasons it's been so believable. Lots of people think they've already seen it, apparently. The gap between what MMO players already think they're seeing and what these founders are promising seems trivial, but actually implies a lot about network latency and bandwidth, software complexity, etc.
- philliphaydon 5y agoUltima Online could do 100+ visible people back in 1997. But I don't believe WoW could do it now, the last time I played WoW, early last year, in a large raid, there would be spells cast from invisible people because the characters wouldn't even load.
- codycraven 5y agoThe lag around the Britain bank when busy (even sometimes Moonglow bank) made it nearly unplayable though, and the game was only 2D.
- philliphaydon 5y agoI remember on a player run server (Novus Opiate) we had a random battle one day of red vs blue and we had about 80-100 people in Britain run through a portal into Buccaneer's Den, slaughtering all the reds, and all the reds banded together to kill the blues. It was well over 100 people with minimal lag, with most people on 56k modems. But Britain bank with lots of people was always laggy. Especially if there wasn’t a server reboot in over a week.
- jerome-jh 5y agoMaybe all players where in sync because of tick granularity.