IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
horrible comparison, idk why ppl keep throwing out examples of engines that render everything clientside (hence the *rampant* hacking) made by AAA companies with unlimited budgets and hundreds of programmers... Indie, poneh. An unreleased indie game, at that.
<!--quoteo(post=1993770:date=Oct 19 2012, 11:43 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Oct 19 2012, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->horrible comparison, idk why ppl keep throwing out examples of engines that render everything clientside (hence the *rampant* hacking)[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Every game ever</i> has server adjudication combined with client-side prediction. The only thing exceptional about NS2 server architecture is the CPU requirements.
Aimbots work by simulating user input, i.e. pointing your view in the right direction. Clients never get to decide that they have hit a player; at most they predict a hit and draw sparks, blood or other effects, but the server is authoritative. There will be aimbots for NS2.
ESP, wallhacks and similar cheats works by visualising information differently and/or drawing information that is supposed to get culled. Every game ever tries its best to not send data to players that they don't need. Due to latency occlusion culling can never be too tight on the server or players will be invisible for up to a few hundred milliseconds as you round the corner(this was actually pretty apparent with some versions of the cheating death anticheat on laggy servers/with high interp) and then suddenly pop into existance. Sounds can be hard to locate(especially given the dull, echoey mess that is the NS2 sound system), but nothing prevents you from e.g. visualising skulk footstep sounds as little sprites in space. Both ESP and wallhacks are just as easily possible in NS2 as in any other game.
Speed hacks work by sending packets very rapidly and manipulating the timestamp on the packets sent. This simulates what happens after a lag spike; a bunch of packets arrive all at once and the server does its best to allow the client to catch up to the present. Unless you are prepared to let people with packet loss or inconsistent latency move and shoot slower than everyone else, you open the door for some amount of speedhacking. Clients NEVER get to decide where they are or how they are moving, they simply tell the server what movement commands are being issued and then they predict what is going to happen; but the server is always authoritative. I see nothing preventing some amount of speedhacking in NS2.
So no. NS2 is not cheat-proof, or even particularly "cheat-resistant".
<!--quoteo(post=1993771:date=Oct 19 2012, 11:48 AM:name=eh?)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (eh? @ Oct 19 2012, 11:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993771"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have no idea what you're implying there; as opposed to... servers rendering things?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Almost certainly he is talking about client-side prediction combined with server-side adjudication.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Sure there will always be aimbots and hacking, i didnt say there wouldnt be? I was making a performance comparison in the way the engines work, there's downsides and upsides to each. Max has explained this already iirc
<!--quoteo(post=1993770:date=Oct 19 2012, 11:43 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Oct 19 2012, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993770"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->horrible comparison, idk why ppl keep throwing out examples of engines that render everything clientside (hence the *rampant* hacking) made by AAA companies with unlimited budgets and hundreds of programmers... Indie, poneh. An unreleased indie game, at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> hahahaha
I see familiarity with FPS engines is not a requirement to be a playtester. If that were the case, UW would at least have an excuse for the server performance.
For years people have been bringing the issue of performance up and the response from the fanboys is always "Don't worry, it's only in alpha/beta, it'll be optimized by release!" And now it's less than two weeks to official release and the game is still more demanding than any other I am aware of. Even fully aware that performance optimization is usually best saved for last, I highly doubt we'll see any drastic increase in performance. The fact is this was brought on by the insistence on Lua, which is deeply embedded into the game engine. It's not something that can be fixed overnight and I personally expect any increase in the gameplay experience will have more to do with upgrading to better computers than clever optimization.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Games like BF3 we're designed with 7-year-old console hardware in mind, so its no surprise that they can be run in high quality mode on modern PC hardware. NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware. Now we can argue how far they should push the boundary (e.g. the FPS/Comp Specs comparison), but I'm a PC gamer at heart and UWE has shown great respect for us PC gamers, such that if that means performance is going to be a bit shaky for a while, I'm ok with that.
Intel Core i7 860 AMD 5850 - I run the game max settings at either 1680x1050 or 1440x900 on my 23" 4GB Kingston ValuRAM Windows 7 Pro 64bit Hitachi 1TB 7200rpm
I run everything stock freq/voltage. The current (HAH...current...get it?) performance doesn't bother me one bit. I can't say I always get a super high framerate, but it hasn't stopped me from playing when I can. The things that bother me the most are the infrequent, though still annoying, framedrops at crucial moments and the long load times when first joining.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally don't believe that but I'm confident that they will be restless in their efforts to constantly improve performance to the point at which we...and they...are satisfied.
I think most people here realize that the performance is not where it needs to be (or where they want it to be)... They have been working quite tirelessly on it, and have made some good improvements (with what sounds like some really good ones for 224). However its important to be honest about the performance and where its really at (not people just posting numbers that are clearly incorrect). It gives reasonable expectations to new players who are buying the game, and its especially important with regards to servers and their performance as that affects all clients, and running servers on hardware that cant cut it is bad for everyone. I am not sure why people feel the need to draw comparisions between how NS2 does things versus how other games do, as in the end all that matters is the results in NS2. Obviously constantly making these threads does nothing to help the performance as they are always and have always been working on it, but correctly advising people of the performance level in game is important. That means not being overly negative as performance (for clients) on high end hardware is up to an acceptable level, but not overstating it as performance can really drop in alot of situations, and is not as responsive as it needs to be, and obviously mid to lower end clients really suffer.
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Games like BF3 we're designed with 7-year-old console hardware in mind, so its no surprise that they can be run in high quality mode on modern PC hardware. NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware. Now we can argue how far they should push the boundary (e.g. the FPS/Comp Specs comparison), but I'm a PC gamer at heart and UWE has shown great respect for us PC gamers, such that if that means performance is going to be a bit shaky for a while, I'm ok with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you played BF3?
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Games like BF3 we're designed with 7-year-old console hardware in mind, so its no surprise that they can be run in high quality mode on modern PC hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't matter what BF3 was designed for, it matters what it ends up being capable of. BF3 runs with huge maps with up to 64 players, and amazing graphics on mid range gaming PCs and consoles. <!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware. Now we can argue how far they should push the boundary (e.g. the FPS/Comp Specs comparison), but I'm a PC gamer at heart and UWE has shown great respect for us PC gamers, such that if that means performance is going to be a bit shaky for a while, I'm ok with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No. NS2 has "wrongfully" bad performance. That is, it has a design flaw (cough cough LUA) that is holding it back. Kinda like the choice of flash.
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Games like BF3 we're designed with 7-year-old console hardware in mind, so its no surprise that they can be run in high quality mode on modern PC hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: 1.2 GHz Processor (SSE2 required), 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP, Steam, mouse, keyboard and an internet connection. The beta is not fully optimized so a more powerful system is recommended."
The targeted minimum systems requirements for NS2 would be met by the very first pentium 4(since SSE2 is required), now 12 years old, paired with the first proper DX9 card radeon 9700 pro(10 years old) and 256 MB of RDRAM(early pentium 4's could not use DDR due to a deal made with RAMBUS. 256 MB would have been expensive, but not all that uncommon on the first pentium 4's).
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By all appareances it is more so by accident rather than by design.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
edited October 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1993865:date=Oct 19 2012, 12:24 PM:name=Camron)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camron @ Oct 19 2012, 12:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993865"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No. NS2 has "wrongfully" bad performance. That is, it has a design flaw (cough cough LUA) that is holding it back. Kinda like the choice of flash.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The choice of lua for much of the game code is the limit pushing I'm talking about. AFAIK, no other game uses lua as much and in the manner of NS2. For example, it allows for code changes to show up while the game is running. For maps, I can literally go from changing some map geometry to seeing it in game in second (e.g. no compile time).
The biggest downside we've seen are the performance problems, but UWE has made substantial progress on that over the course of the alpha/beta. Even if performance isn't ideal on launch, UWE will still be working on it. UWE is not just making a game, but building an engine for future games/licensing that NS2 will benefit from post 1.0.
Edit: I guess my viewpoint is different because I've looked at and used some of the dev tools (decoda, map builder, cinematic editor, etc) and the goal of NS2 being 'the most moddable game ever' looks very much in reach. I probably only played 100 hours of HL1/HL2, but put thousands of hours into the corresponding gldsrc/source mods. I suspect NS2 could either meet or even succeed that goal.
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 08:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 08:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Games like BF3 we're designed with 7-year-old console hardware in mind, so its no surprise that they can be run in high quality mode on modern PC hardware. NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware. Now we can argue how far they should push the boundary (e.g. the FPS/Comp Specs comparison), but I'm a PC gamer at heart and UWE has shown great respect for us PC gamers, such that if that means performance is going to be a bit shaky for a while, I'm ok with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Designed for PC" is no excuse for bad performance. Especially not for a game like NS2, that has neither ground-breaking graphics nor game mechanics that reach unheard-of levels of complexity.
<!--quoteo(post=1993863:date=Oct 19 2012, 02:21 PM:name=xDragon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xDragon @ Oct 19 2012, 02:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993863"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am not sure why people feel the need to draw comparisions between how NS2 does things versus how other games do, as in the end all that matters is the results in NS2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS2 doesn't live in vacuum. The comparison exists because players have the option of buying and playing other games. New players will come into the game with certain expectations from <i>every other bloody game in existance</i> and be dissappointed.
The game is not ready for prime-time and you never get a second opportunity at a game launch. A poor launch means that all the enthusiasts who try things first and drag along their friends, <b>don't</b>. A poor launch means that poor reviews cling to the game forever no matter how it redeems itself. A poor launch will hobble the game forever.
<!--quoteo(post=1993866:date=Oct 19 2012, 12:31 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Oct 19 2012, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993866"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"1.2 GHz Processor (SSE2 required), 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP, Steam, mouse, keyboard and an internet connection. The beta is not fully optimized so a more powerful system is recommended."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/" target="_blank">http://www.naturalselection2.com/</a> scroll to the bottom to see system requirements.
those aren't even the system requirements as posted on their website, did you just make this up?
<!--quoteo(post=1993876:date=Oct 19 2012, 02:49 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 19 2012, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993876"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/" target="_blank">http://www.naturalselection2.com/</a> scroll to the bottom to see system requirements.
those aren't even the system requirements as posted on their website, did you just make this up?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"<b>The targeted minimum systems requirements</b>"
Those were the system requirements they were targeting for several years, they <b>were</b> posted for several years on naturalselection2.com. It wasn't until (ETA)sometime after mid 2011 they bothered to change it to something a little less painfully unrealistic.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited October 2012
So is underwhelmed a troll or just a rude uninformed cynical person?
obviously in depth engine comparison knowledge isn't a prerequisite for a play tester. Thatd be stupid. What I do know? The frost bite 2 engine is a refined engine from multiple games over multiple years, first used in 2008 for bad company, but obviously development started a few years prior. Hundreds of people contributing to that engine over years of testing and optimization coupled with insane EA budgets. Compare that to an engine made from one man in an indie studio?
EDIT: ah.. I see where the confusion in the thread is coming from now, I misused the word "render". Soylent Green understood what I meant though :) there IS a huge difference in the networking between those two engines, and even between source and fb2.
<!--quoteo(post=1993883:date=Oct 19 2012, 12:55 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Oct 19 2012, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993883"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So is underwhelmed a troll or just a rude uninformed cynical person?
obviously in depth engine comparison knowledge isn't a prerequisite for a play tester. Thatd be stupid. What I do know? The frost bite 2 engine is a refined engine from multiple games over multiple years, first used in 2008 for bad company, but obviously development started a few years prior. Hundreds of people contributing to that engine over years of testing and optimization coupled with insane EA budgets. Compare that to an engine made from one man in an indie studio?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, the overwhelming common sense in this post should wrap things up here...
<!--quoteo(post=1993883:date=Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993883"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hundreds of people contributing to that engine over years of testing and optimization coupled with insane EA budgets.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you can benefit from all that testing and optimization <i>by not making your own engine</i>.
<!--quoteo(post=1993883:date=Oct 19 2012, 12:55 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Oct 19 2012, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993883"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The frost bite 2 engine is a refined engine from multiple games over multiple years, first used in 2008 for bad company, but obviously development started a few years prior. Hundreds of people contributing to that engine over years of testing and optimization coupled with insane EA budgets. Compare that to an engine made from one man in an indie studio?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
here is the rub. Customers don't care. That logic will placate some people who are already fans of the game, but the average gamer could give a rat's ass if one guy, or 1000s of people made the game.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.
<!--quoteo(post=1993887:date=Oct 19 2012, 04:01 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Oct 19 2012, 04:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993887"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And you can benefit from all that testing and optimization <i>by not making your own engine</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have fun trying to license the Frostbite 2 engine in 2006. Especially since they've only just started using it on other projects it internally in EA. Name another viable engine back in 2006 that wasn't Source/Unreal and could be licensed by a small developer?
<!--quoteo(post=1993888:date=Oct 19 2012, 01:05 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 19 2012, 01:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->here is the rub. Customers don't care. That logic will placate some people who are already fans of the game, but the average gamer could give a rat's ass if one guy, or 1000s of people made the game.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9HQoRw4DP84/TNNXAQvwTaI/AAAAAAAAAA8/wveJsDjwOPg/s1600/captain%20hindsight.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1993896:date=Oct 19 2012, 03:32 PM:name=Soylent_green)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soylent_green @ Oct 19 2012, 03:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993896"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Source would have been fine. And that's what they started out using.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1993888:date=Oct 19 2012, 03:05 PM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 19 2012, 03:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->here is the rub. Customers don't care. That logic will placate some people who are already fans of the game, but the average gamer could give a rat's ass if one guy, or 1000s of people made the game.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is what it is, you take the good with the bad. NS2 wouldn't be the game it is today without the Spark engine. We'll never know what might have happened otherwise, but all we can do is accept what it means for the game to have its own engine.
Comments
Indie, poneh. An unreleased indie game, at that.
<i>Every game ever</i> has server adjudication combined with client-side prediction. The only thing exceptional about NS2 server architecture is the CPU requirements.
Aimbots work by simulating user input, i.e. pointing your view in the right direction. Clients never get to decide that they have hit a player; at most they predict a hit and draw sparks, blood or other effects, but the server is authoritative. There will be aimbots for NS2.
ESP, wallhacks and similar cheats works by visualising information differently and/or drawing information that is supposed to get culled. Every game ever tries its best to not send data to players that they don't need. Due to latency occlusion culling can never be too tight on the server or players will be invisible for up to a few hundred milliseconds as you round the corner(this was actually pretty apparent with some versions of the cheating death anticheat on laggy servers/with high interp) and then suddenly pop into existance. Sounds can be hard to locate(especially given the dull, echoey mess that is the NS2 sound system), but nothing prevents you from e.g. visualising skulk footstep sounds as little sprites in space. Both ESP and wallhacks are just as easily possible in NS2 as in any other game.
Speed hacks work by sending packets very rapidly and manipulating the timestamp on the packets sent. This simulates what happens after a lag spike; a bunch of packets arrive all at once and the server does its best to allow the client to catch up to the present. Unless you are prepared to let people with packet loss or inconsistent latency move and shoot slower than everyone else, you open the door for some amount of speedhacking. Clients NEVER get to decide where they are or how they are moving, they simply tell the server what movement commands are being issued and then they predict what is going to happen; but the server is always authoritative. I see nothing preventing some amount of speedhacking in NS2.
So no. NS2 is not cheat-proof, or even particularly "cheat-resistant".
Almost certainly he is talking about client-side prediction combined with server-side adjudication.
I was making a performance comparison in the way the engines work, there's downsides and upsides to each. Max has explained this already iirc
Indie, poneh. An unreleased indie game, at that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hahahaha
I see familiarity with FPS engines is not a requirement to be a playtester. If that were the case, UW would at least have an excuse for the server performance.
For years people have been bringing the issue of performance up and the response from the fanboys is always "Don't worry, it's only in alpha/beta, it'll be optimized by release!" And now it's less than two weeks to official release and the game is still more demanding than any other I am aware of. Even fully aware that performance optimization is usually best saved for last, I highly doubt we'll see any drastic increase in performance. The fact is this was brought on by the insistence on Lua, which is deeply embedded into the game engine. It's not something that can be fixed overnight and I personally expect any increase in the gameplay experience will have more to do with upgrading to better computers than clever optimization.
AMD 5850 - I run the game max settings at either 1680x1050 or 1440x900 on my 23"
4GB Kingston ValuRAM
Windows 7 Pro 64bit
Hitachi 1TB 7200rpm
I run everything stock freq/voltage. The current (HAH...current...get it?) performance doesn't bother me one bit. I can't say I always get a super high framerate, but it hasn't stopped me from playing when I can. The things that bother me the most are the infrequent, though still annoying, framedrops at crucial moments and the long load times when first joining.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I personally don't believe that but I'm confident that they will be restless in their efforts to constantly improve performance to the point at which we...and they...are satisfied.
Have you played BF3?
It doesn't matter what BF3 was designed for, it matters what it ends up being capable of. BF3 runs with huge maps with up to 64 players, and amazing graphics on mid range gaming PCs and consoles.
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 02:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware. Now we can argue how far they should push the boundary (e.g. the FPS/Comp Specs comparison), but I'm a PC gamer at heart and UWE has shown great respect for us PC gamers, such that if that means performance is going to be a bit shaky for a while, I'm ok with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. NS2 has "wrongfully" bad performance. That is, it has a design flaw (cough cough LUA) that is holding it back. Kinda like the choice of flash.
"SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS:
1.2 GHz Processor (SSE2 required), 256MB RAM, a DirectX 9 level graphics card, Windows Vista/2000/XP, Steam, mouse, keyboard and an internet connection. The beta is not fully optimized so a more powerful system is recommended."
The targeted minimum systems requirements for NS2 would be met by the very first pentium 4(since SSE2 is required), now 12 years old, paired with the first proper DX9 card radeon 9700 pro(10 years old) and 256 MB of RDRAM(early pentium 4's could not use DDR due to a deal made with RAMBUS. 256 MB would have been expensive, but not all that uncommon on the first pentium 4's).
<!--quoteo(post=1993852:date=Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Oct 19 2012, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1993852"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS2 is a game designed for PC, such that UWE is exploring the limits of modern PC hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By all appareances it is more so by accident rather than by design.
Most sincere question ever.
The choice of lua for much of the game code is the limit pushing I'm talking about. AFAIK, no other game uses lua as much and in the manner of NS2. For example, it allows for code changes to show up while the game is running. For maps, I can literally go from changing some map geometry to seeing it in game in second (e.g. no compile time).
The biggest downside we've seen are the performance problems, but UWE has made substantial progress on that over the course of the alpha/beta. Even if performance isn't ideal on launch, UWE will still be working on it. UWE is not just making a game, but building an engine for future games/licensing that NS2 will benefit from post 1.0.
Edit: I guess my viewpoint is different because I've looked at and used some of the dev tools (decoda, map builder, cinematic editor, etc) and the goal of NS2 being 'the most moddable game ever' looks very much in reach. I probably only played 100 hours of HL1/HL2, but put thousands of hours into the corresponding gldsrc/source mods. I suspect NS2 could either meet or even succeed that goal.
"Designed for PC" is no excuse for bad performance.
Especially not for a game like NS2, that has neither ground-breaking graphics nor game mechanics that reach unheard-of levels of complexity.
NS2 doesn't live in vacuum. The comparison exists because players have the option of buying and playing other games. New players will come into the game with certain expectations from <i>every other bloody game in existance</i> and be dissappointed.
The game is not ready for prime-time and you never get a second opportunity at a game launch. A poor launch means that all the enthusiasts who try things first and drag along their friends, <b>don't</b>. A poor launch means that poor reviews cling to the game forever no matter how it redeems itself. A poor launch will hobble the game forever.
<a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/" target="_blank">http://www.naturalselection2.com/</a>
scroll to the bottom to see system requirements.
those aren't even the system requirements as posted on their website, did you just make this up?
Also IIRC Supreme Commander is largely written in lua, and that game can stand up to 1000's of units, but that game is also known for eating cpus.
scroll to the bottom to see system requirements.
those aren't even the system requirements as posted on their website, did you just make this up?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"<b>The targeted minimum systems requirements</b>"
Those were the system requirements they were targeting for several years, they <b>were</b> posted for several years on naturalselection2.com. It wasn't until (ETA)sometime after mid 2011 they bothered to change it to something a little less painfully unrealistic.
(fixed attrocious spelling)
How much money and people made BF3? (how many mods it has?)
I ask the same question about NS2
They've decided to make the most moddable game ever, so it has the consequences (bad performance by now)
If you are not satisfied about performance, just don't play, there are a lot of games out there...
obviously in depth engine comparison knowledge isn't a prerequisite for a play tester. Thatd be stupid.
What I do know?
The frost bite 2 engine is a refined engine from multiple games over multiple years, first used in 2008 for bad company, but obviously development started a few years prior. Hundreds of people contributing to that engine over years of testing and optimization coupled with insane EA budgets.
Compare that to an engine made from one man in an indie studio?
EDIT: ah.. I see where the confusion in the thread is coming from now, I misused the word "render". Soylent Green understood what I meant though :) there IS a huge difference in the networking between those two engines, and even between source and fb2.
obviously in depth engine comparison knowledge isn't a prerequisite for a play tester. Thatd be stupid.
What I do know?
The frost bite 2 engine is a refined engine from multiple games over multiple years, first used in 2008 for bad company, but obviously development started a few years prior. Hundreds of people contributing to that engine over years of testing and optimization coupled with insane EA budgets.
Compare that to an engine made from one man in an indie studio?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the overwhelming common sense in this post should wrap things up here...
And you can benefit from all that testing and optimization <i>by not making your own engine</i>.
Compare that to an engine made from one man in an indie studio?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
here is the rub. Customers don't care. That logic will placate some people who are already fans of the game, but the average gamer could give a rat's ass if one guy, or 1000s of people made the game.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.
Have fun trying to license the Frostbite 2 engine in 2006. Especially since they've only just started using it on other projects it internally in EA. Name another viable engine back in 2006 that wasn't Source/Unreal and could be licensed by a small developer?
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9HQoRw4DP84/TNNXAQvwTaI/AAAAAAAAAA8/wveJsDjwOPg/s1600/captain%20hindsight.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Source would have been fine. And that's what they started out using.
They obviously didn't find it so at the time.
People are going to compare NS2's performance to AAA titles. There is no getting around that. If you don't see that I think you are being unrealistic. If NS2 performs poorly compared to other games, it will hurt sales. there is also no getting around that either.
any one arguing that indie game developers should be held to a different standard than AAA titles is deluding themselves.
Now if the game is exceptional and unique, that is a better excuse for poor performance. The 'market' simply doesn't care how big the development team is, and it isn't going to cut Unknown worlds slack for being indie.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is what it is, you take the good with the bad. NS2 wouldn't be the game it is today without the Spark engine. We'll never know what might have happened otherwise, but all we can do is accept what it means for the game to have its own engine.